The development of human rabies vaccines has evolved dramatically from the first crude nerve tissue vaccine produced then administered in the presence of Louis Pasteur in 1885. New cell culture technology has enabled highly potent and well-tolerated rabies vaccines to be produced that have reduced the volume and number of doses required to save human lives after exposure. However, these highly potent vaccines are still unaffordable to many patients living at risk of exposure on a daily basis. The cost of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is not only related to the direct cost of rabies biologicals and equipment but is also associated with indirect costs that patients incur as a result of travel, loss of work time (income loss), and accommodation over the period of time that a PEP regimen requires to be completed. This paper summarizes the particular criteria that the SAGE Working Group and WHO personnel reviewed as part of the evaluation process for recommending the new one-week intradermal vaccination regimen (2-2-2-0-0) for rabies post-exposure prophylaxis. These criteria included: Cost-effectiveness; evaluation of number of doses; seroconversion after vaccination; efficacy; safety; and patient follow-up.

Cell culture rabies vaccines were initially licensed in the 1980s and are essential in the prevention of human rabies. The first post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) vaccination regimen recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) was administered intramuscularly over a lengthy three-month period. In efforts to reduce the cost of PEP without impinging on safety, additional research on two strategies was encouraged by the WHO including the development of less expensive production methods for CCVs and the administration of reduced volumes of CCVs via the intradermal (ID) route. Numerous clinical trials have provided sufficient data to support a reduction in the number of doses, a shorter timeline required for PEP, and the approval of the intradermal route of administration for PEP and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PreP). However, the plethora of data that have been published since the development of CCVs can be overwhelming for public health officials wishing to review and make a decision as to the most appropriate PEP and PreP regimen for their region. In this review, we examine three critical benchmarks that can serve as guidance for health officials when reviewing data to implement new PEP and PreP regimens for their region including: evidence of immunogenicity after vaccination; proof of efficacy against development of disease; and confirmation that the regimen being considered elicits a rapid anamnestic response after booster vaccination.

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper