Comparative analysis of Mouse Inoculation Test and Virus Isolation in Cell Culture for rabies diagnosis in animals of Parana, Brazil

• Published in: Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
• Main Authors: Thaila Francini Corona, Beatriz Böger, Tatiana Carneiro da Rocha, Walfrido Külh Svoboda, Eliane Carneiro Gomes
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)
• Subjects: Rabies; Diagnosis; Cell culture; Biosafety; Animal welfare; Arctic medicine. Tropical medicine; RC955-962; Arctic
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1590/0037-8682-0303-2017; https://doaj.org/article/51ddf5a6560444819d49b22b70387fc8

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Rabies is an acute zoonotic disease, caused by a rhabdovirus that can affect all mammals, and is commonly transmitted by the bite of a rabid animal. The definitive diagnosis is laboratorial, by the Fluorescent Antibody Test (FAT) as a quick test and Mouse Inoculation Test (MIT) as a confirmatory test (gold standard). Studies conducted over the past three decades indicate that MIT and Virus Isolation in Cell Culture (VICC) can provide the same effectiveness, the latter being considered superior in bioethics and animal welfare. The aim of this study was to compare VICC with MIT, in terms of accuracy, biosafety and occupational health, supply and equipment costs, bioethics and animal welfare, in a Brazilian public health lab. METHODS: We utilized 400 samples of animal neurological tissue to compare the performance of VICC against MIT. The variables analyzed were accuracy, biosafety and occupational health, time spent in performing the tests, supply and equipment costs, bioethics and animal welfare evaluation. RESULTS: Both VICC and MIT had almost the same accuracy (99.8%), although VICC presented fewer risks regarding biosafety and mental health of the technicians, and reduced time between inoculation and obtaining the results (approximately 22 days less). In addition, VICC presented lower supply costs (86.5% less), equipment costs (32.6% less), and the advantage of not using animals. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that VICC can replace MIT, offering the same accuracy and better features regarding cost, results, biosafety and occupational health, and bioethics and animal welfare.