Skip to main content
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Aug 29.
Published in final edited form as: Clin Infect Dis. 2023 Sep 18;77(6):931–932. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciad295

Reply to Willoughby

Stacy M Holzbauer 1,2,a, Caroline A Schrodt 3,4,a, Rajesh M Prabhu 5, Rebecca J Asch-Kendrick 6, Malia Ireland 1, Carrie Klumb 1, Melanie J Firestone 1,3, Gongping Liu 1, Katie Harry 1, Min Z Levine 7, Lillian A Orciari 4, Kimberly Wilkins 4, James A Ellison 4, Hui Zhao 4, Michael Niezgoda 4, Panayampalli S Satheshkumar 4, Brett W Petersen 4, Agam K Rao 4, W Robert Bell 8, Sara Forrest 5, Wangcai Gao 9, Richard Dasheiff 5, Kari Russell 5, Anthony Wiseman 5, R Ross Reichard 10, Kirk E Smith 1, Ruth Lynfield 1, Joni Scheftel 1, Ryan M Wallace 4, Jesse Bonwitt 4
PMCID: PMC11360946  NIHMSID: NIHMS1995184  PMID: 37200504

We thank Willoughby for his thoughtful comments regarding rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) schedules for elderly persons [1]. Indeed, people are living longer, some with health conditions or treatments that can negatively impact vaccination response.

Over the past 30 years, among an estimated 1.8 million people in the United States who received modern cell-culture rabies vaccines as part of rabies PEP, no breakthrough infections attributed to being elderly were identified [2]. While it is true that a recent systematic review that evaluated the immunogenicity after rabies vaccines [3] found that the geometric mean titer (GMT) after rabies vaccinations is lower for persons aged >60 years compared with younger persons, the median peak GMT among these persons was still substantially higher (13.2 IU/mL) than the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) targeted antibody titer of 0.5 IU/mL [4]. In the absence of an immunocompromising condition, being elderly alone does not appear to be a risk factor for suboptimal immune responses after rabies vaccination. The same publication identified the GMT after intramuscular administration of rabies vaccines to be higher for longer periods of time than those after intradermal administration. Since rabies vaccines in the United States are administered intramuscularly, these data further indicate that the vaccination strategy facilitates appropriate GMTs in elderly persons. While data indicate that it takes longer (42 days vs 30 days) to reach peak levels among older persons compared with younger persons, the wide availability of rabies immune globulin in the United States is further expected to facilitate adequate protection.

In addition to the currently recommended vaccination schedule likely being effective for elderly persons, the costs of titer checks for elderly persons may be a deterrent if such a broad recommendation were made. As Willoughby emphasizes, nearly 25% of people receiving PEP in the United States are likely aged >65 years. However, if all approximately 15 000 elderly PEP patients were to receive an antibody titer (estimated at $400 in medical-associated costs from a commercial laboratory), this recommendation would result in an additional $180 million in titer-related costs over 30 years. Research for alternate rabies vaccine schedules and development of future rabies vaccines for humans and animals should continue. However, at present, the current vaccines have proven efficacious. Developing a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine for approximately 60 000 patients per year is unlikely; this would involve multiyear clinical trials, US Food and Drug Administration approvals, and ACIP guidelines. With an estimated 30 million people getting rabies PEP globally, perhaps mRNA vaccine development holds more promise from a global approach [5].

The concern of an expanding elderly population in the United States deserves more attention. To prevent host-mediated vaccine failures, we should expand our understanding of the efficacy of vaccines in elderly populations, improve our understanding of commonly overlooked immunological disorders in this population, and provide clinician education regarding when titers are necessary. With the limited data available and the rarity of rabies vaccine failure, we reiterate our suggestion that persons with concerning rabies exposures be evaluated, regardless of age, for immunocompromise.

Potential conflicts of interest.

R. L. reports being a member of the executive boards of the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and the National Foundation of Infectious Diseases, being an associate editor for AAP Red Book (fee was donated to Minnesota Department of Health), and being on the ID Week Program Committee with some of travel expenses covered for ID Week. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

Footnotes

Disclaimer. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This work was written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the United States.

References

  • 1.Willoughby R. Aging and Rabies Prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis 2023; 77:931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Whitehouse ER, Mandra A, Bonwitt J, Beasley EA, Taliano J, Rao AK. Human rabies despite post-exposure prophylaxis: a systematic review of fatal breakthrough infections after zoonotic exposures. Lancet Infect Dis 2023; 23:e167–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Xu C, Lau CL, Clark J, et al. Immunogenicity after pre- and post-exposure rabies vaccination: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Vaccine 2021; 39:1044–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rupprecht CE, Briggs D, Brown CM, et al. Use of a reduced (4-dose) vaccine schedule for postexposure prophylaxis to prevent human rabies: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010; 59(RR-2):1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Erratum in: MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010. Apr 30; 59(16):493. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hampson K, Coudeville L, Lembo T, et al. Estimating the global burden of endemic canine rabies. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2015; 9:e0003709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Erratum in: PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015. May; 9(5):e0003786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES