A descriptive spatiotemporal analysis of rabies in domestic carnivores and wildlife in Ukraine in 2012-2018

Abstract

Ukraine leads Europe in the number of rabies cases reported in both wild and domestic animals. Endemic rabies in Ukraine poses a threat of rabies spreading into non-endemic neighbouring countries, including Poland, Slovak Republic, Hungary and Romania. This study is the first to collate and analyze rabies cases at the national level in Ukraine. Spatial and temporal analysis was performed to identify space-time clusters of rabies cases using nationally collated rabies surveillance data from 2012-2018. In the study period, 10,717 rabies cases were confirmed, with the majority in domestic carnivores (49.5%; cats: 28.5%; dogs: 21.1%) and the other primarily in foxes (34.0%). Rabies epidemic curves identified peak rabies incidence from October to December for foxes and from October to March for domestic carnivores. The kernel density of rabies for all species indicates a permanently high density in southwest Ukraine (Zakarpattia and Vinnytsia oblasts) and lower in northeast Ukraine (Poltava oblast). The highest density of rabies cases in foxes occurred in oblasts bordering European countries, while rabid domestic carnivores were concentrated near the border with the Russian Federation. The analysis identified 10 statistically significant clusters in foxes and 3 in domestic carnivores, mostly in the same high kernel density locations. Early clusters of foxes were recorded on January 3, 2012 in western Ukraine (ratio, 2.21), and early clusters of domestic carnivores on January 30, 2012 in western Ukraine as well (ratio, 6.39). These findings provide insight into the temporal patterns and distribution of rabies case clusters in wildlife and domestic carnivores in Ukraine. Our study provides policymakers with the first statistically valuable data on the hotspot regions and timing of rabies outbreaks. The analysis may contribute to improved rabies prevention and surveillance strategies by identifying regions for targeted prevention measures so that national programmes for the prevention, surveillance and control of rabies in Ukraine are executed more effectively.

A pilot study on the impact of parenteral vaccination of free-roaming dogs within the rabies control framework in Ukraine

“…However, some southern and eastern European regions, despite significant efforts to control and eliminate wildlife-mediated rabies, have not achieved complete elimination of the disease at this time (Lojkić et al, 2021;Taylor et al, 2021;Vega et al, 2021). Ukraine has been identified as one of the European countries with a high incidence of rabies, experiencing long-term endemicity in both wild and domestic carnivores (Makovska et al, 2021;Omelchenko et al, 2022;Rudoi et al, 2023).…”

“…In the past few decades, Ukraine has consistently reported over 1,500 cases of rabies in animals each year (Kornienko et al, 2019;Polupan et al, 2019). Based on recent estimates, foxes were found to be the main reservoir and vector of rabies and account for 36.5% of the rabies cases, while dogs (19.3%) and cats (25.5%) were additional sources (Makovska et al, 2021). This endemic animal rabies situation poses a constant threat to public health and an economic burden (Makovska et al, 2020;Taylor et al, 2021).…”

“…To address the challenge of rabies, the Ukrainian government has implemented a national rabies control program, which includes oral rabies vaccination campaigns for wild animals and parenteral vaccination of domestic animals including domestic carnivores (free-roaming as well as pet animals) and farm animals (Kornienko et al, 2019;Makovska et al, 2021). Despite these efforts, the increasing population of free-roaming animals (dogs and cats) remains an important issue in the country (www.uaaa.org.ua/uk/stats), especially because these animals may create a link between the wildlife (which acts as a reservoir for rabies virus) and humans (Rupprecht et al, 2020;Makovska et al, 2021). In order to com-bat this transmission of the virus, vaccination remains the most effective method (Durr et al, 2009;Fahrion et al, 2017).…”