JSM Tropical Medicine and Research

Poor Immune Response to Rabies Post-Exposure Prophylaxis: An Attempt to Understand the Underlying Mechanisms

Research Article | Open Access

  • 1. Department of Allergology and Immunology, University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland
  • 2. University of Lausanne, Switzerland
  • 3. Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland
  • 4. Infectious Disease Service, University Hospital of Lausanne, Switzerland
  • 5. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, University of Basel, Switzerland
  • 6. Institute of Virology and Immunology, University Bern, Switzerland
+ Show More - Show Less
Corresponding Authors
Serge de Vallière, Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University Hospital of Lausanne, Av du Bugnon 46, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland, Tel: 41-79-556-43-12

Background: In a previous study the adequacy of the 4 dose intramuscular regimen for rabies post exposure prophylaxis (rPEP) was investigated and 6, 7% patients were identified as having rabies-specific antibody titers below 0, 5 IU/ml (= poor responders). The aim of the current study was to try to establish the reasons for the poor immune response to rPEP in some subjects.

Methods: Poor responders to rPEP were contacted for a complete medical workup. In addition, a lymphocyte proliferation assay with rabies antigen was performed to assess the cellular immune response.

Results: Nine rPEP poor responders were included in this study. One patient had a history of malnutrition at the time of rPEP administration. Five subjects had marginally decreased IgG3 levels. The results of the lymphocyte proliferation assay with rabies antigen showed a relatively poor correlation between the humoral and cellular responses. The cytokine profile suggests a globally poorer immunogenic effect of the rPEP in poor responders, more oriented toward a Th2 response with diminished IFN-γ and increased IL-13.

Conclusion: These results did not permit to establish an explanation for the poor humoral response to rPEP in some subjects. Neither immunosuppression, nor the development of an alternative cellular immune response seems to be the reason.


Audran R, Depraetere G, Genton B, Spertini F, Uwanyiligira M, et al. (2016) Poor Immune Response to Rabies Post-Exposure Prophylaxis: An Attempt to Understand the Underlying Mechanisms. JSM Trop Med Res 1(2): 1009.


•    Rabies vaccine
•    Post-exposure prophylaxis
•    Immunogenicity


Despite the fact that most countries in the Western Hemisphere have succeeded in eliminating rabies transmitted by terrestrial animals, the disease is still endemic in numerous developing countries [1]. Rabies remains especially widespread in most African and Asian countries and causes an estimated 60,000 rabies deaths worldwide each year.

After potential rabies exposure, a rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (rPEP) is recommended. rPEP comprises an active immunization and administration of rabies immunoglobulins for non-immune patients. One of the most widely used regimens for rPEP has been the Essen regimen, which includes five doses of intramuscular vaccine on days 0, 3, 7, 14 and 28 after exposure. In Switzerland a serological test on day 21 to verify the adequacy of the immune response has always been recommended. A rabies-specific antibody titer ≥ 0.5 IU/ml measured by the rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT) has been considered as indicative of a protective immune response. Several studies have confirmed the effectiveness of this regimen [2].

In 2010 the Center of Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) published new recommendations for rPEP [3,4]. These recommendations were developed to reduce the number of doses for rPEP from 5 to 4. In addition, the CDC stated that post vaccination serological testing on day 21 of the Essen regimen was not necessary as all subjects demonstrate an adequate antibody response [5]. These recommendations were not only influenced by conclusions from research studies, but also by recurrent shortages of rabies vaccine and the fact that many developing countries were encountering difficulties in performing reliable serological testing by RFFIT.

Taking into account these new guidelines, we conducted previously a retrospective investigation about the adequacy of the humoral response in patients who consulted our institution between 2005 and 2011 for an rPEP [6]. This study showed that 6/90 patients (6.7%) had an anti-rabies antibody titer < 0.5 IU/ ml after 4 doses. All these patients had an adequate increase of their rabies antibody titer after receiving additional vaccine doses. In an editorial, Henry Wilde suggested that those patients who had not responded adequately to a 4-dose regimen of rPEP probably suffered from a non-recognized immunodeficiency [7].

The objectives of the present study were 1) to investigate whether rPEP poor responders had an immunodeficiency and 2) to investigate if other than humoral mechanisms are stimulated in patients with low antibody response to rabies vaccines. The working hypotheses were that these subjects might have unrecognized immuno suppression or that they develop preferentially a cellular immune response, which is not detected by the usual anti-rabies antibody detection.


Enrolment of subjects and blood collection

All patients who had received a rPEP at the University Hospital of Lausanne between 2005 and 2014 and who had an anti-rabies antibody titers ≤ 0.5 IU/ml after 4 doses of vaccine were contacted to be included in the study. These patients are referred below to as poor responders (PR). Although an antibody level of 0.5 IU/ml is usually considered as sufficient for protection, we included patients with 0.5 IU/ml to increase the sample size.

Two comparator groups were made to perform the experimental immunologic tests. The positive control group included 9 patients who had received an rPEP at the University Hospital of Lausanne between 2005 and 2014 and who had anti-rabies antibody titers > 1 IU/ml after 4 doses of vaccine. A negative control group included 9 healthy volunteers who had never received any rabies vaccine.

Evaluation of rPEP poor responders

The PRs were seen for a consultation, which included a complete medical history and a physical examination. The medical history was focused to detect an increased susceptibility to infections. Blood samples were taken to perform the following investigations: full blood count, measurement of IgA, IgM and IgG levels, as well as the 4 subclasses of IgG, numeration of lymphocyte subpopulations (CD4 cells, CD8 cells, B cells and NK cells), and an HIV test. Evaluation of the humoral response to tetanus, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccinations was also performed. Tetanus antibody levels were measured in patients who had received a dose of tetanus vaccine in the last 10 years. A tetanus antibody level < 0.1 U/ml was considered as abnormal. An assessment of anti-HBs was performed in patients who had been vaccinated within the last 5 years and anti-HBs levels < 10 U/ml were considered as abnormal. Patients who had never received a pneumococcal vaccine in the past were selected to receive one dose of the 23-valent polysaccharide anti-pneumococcal vaccine. Four weeks later the level of antibodies against the serotypes 9N, 11A, 14, 17F, 19F and 23F were assessed. Antibody levels <0.3 mg/l against more than 4 serotypes were considered abnormal.

Assessment of immune response

Evaluation of humoral response: Rabies antibody titers were determined by the rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test (RFFIT) as previously described [8,9]. These serologies were done by the Swiss Rabies Center, which is accredited as part of the Institute of Virology and Immunology of the University of Bern by the Swiss Accreditation Service (SAS). As an officially approved laboratory of the European pet travel scheme, this laboratory participates each year in the inter-laboratory proficiency testing carried out by the reference laboratory ANSES-Nancy.

Lymphocyte proliferation: Blood samples from all subjects were collected using sodium citrate Vacutainer CPTTM (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Oxford, UK). PBMC were separated by centrifugation, washed and stored in nitrogen until use. Using a methodology similar to ones described in previous studies we cultivated PBMC (250 000 cells per well in triplicates) for 6 days in presence of various doses of rabies vaccine (Flury-LEP strain Purified chick embryo cell rabies vaccine, Rabipur®), a mitogen (phyto hemagglutinin, PHA), or a mixture of recall antigens (tetanus toxoid (TT) Pasteur Merieux; PPD, Tuberculin batch RT50, SSI, Copenhagen, Denmark; and Candida Mannan purified from Candida albicans, NIBSC, Hertfordshire, UK, at 10, 5 µg/ml and 1% final, respectively) or unstimulated (10, 11). After 5 days of culture, supernatants were collected and tritiated thymidine was added (1 µCi per well) for 20 hours. Cell DNA from each well was harvested on glass fiber plates and incorporated thymidine was counted (cpm) using a beta counter. Results were expressed as stimulation indices (SI = mean cpm in stimulated wells / mean cpm in unstimulated wells). Preliminary PBMC proliferation experiments performed with PBMC from subjects of the 3 groups (responders, PRs and non-vaccinated) permitted determination that the doses of Rabipur of 25, 2.5 and 0.25 mIU/ml were optimal for the further experiments.

Cytokines: Cytokine response to rabies and to recall antigens were evaluated. IL-10, IL-13, IL-17 and IFNγ were measured in 6-day culture supernatants of the PBMC stimulated with the highest dose of rabies vaccine, the antigen recall mix (memory mix, MM) or unstimulated (NS) using multiplexed particlebased flow cytometric assays Bioplex Cytokine Assay (Bio-Rad Laboratories) and a Luminex 100 analyser, equipped with BioPlex manager. Mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of standards and samples were analysed in Excel and results expressed as pg/ ml.

Statistical analysis

Means were compared by the Mann-Whitney test. Outliers were identified with the Grubbs’ test. Linear correlations were tested with the Pearson test.

Ethics statement

The study was conducted according to Good Clinical Practice Guidelines and the declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Ethic Committee of the Canton Vaud, Switzerland. All participants gave written informed consent.


Eighteen patients were identified with anti-rabies levels ≤ 0.5 IU/ml after 4 doses of rabies vaccine given as post-exposure prophylaxis. Twelve patients could be contacted and 9 subjects accepted to take part in the study. Demographic details of these subjects are summarized in table 1. PR1 to PR7 had received their rPEP months to years before the study was conducted and they had all received additional rabies vaccine doses, which had led to antibody levels > 0.5 UI/ml. PR 8 and PR9 could be included in the study just after day 21 of their vaccination schedule when their anti-rabies antibodies were low. PBMCs could therefore be collected for these subjects before and after receiving additional doses of vaccine.

Medical history and clinical examination

All PRs except subject PR6 had unremarkable medical history and physical examination. Subject PR6 had been hospitalized several times between 2004 and 2008 for malnourishment and diarrhea. At the time she received her rPEP in 2008, she was undernourished with a BMI of 17 kg/m2 . Her current clinical examination was normal and her BMI was 18.5 kg/m2 .

rPEP schedule details of the PRs.

No PR had received rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (Table 1). All PRs had received human rabies immunoglobulins (HRIG) after exposure. PR3 and PR8 started their rPEP outside Switzerland. All subjects except PR3 received the Essen regimen for their rPEP. PR3 received intradermal vaccination with 2-site injections on days 0 and 3, and 1 intradermal injection on day 7. Strictly speaking this patient had therefore an incomplete postexposure prophylaxis, as the WHO recommends that intradermal vaccination comprises 2 doses of 0.1 ml on day 0, 3, 7 and 28. PR6 with the medical history of anorexia, had an appropriate rabies antibody titer (2.5 IU/ml) after a 5th vaccine dose. On day 187, her rabies antibody titer had however fallen again to 0.3 IU/ml and she received two additional vaccine doses. On day 353 she had a rabies antibody titer of 5.4 IU/ml.

The patients received either Rabipur® (Novartis Pharma), or Rabies Vaccine Merieux® (Sanofi Pasteur MSD). Lot numbers, potency and number of doses of the Rabipur® vaccines used were as follows: Lot no 397011A, 9.0 IU/dose, 6 doses used; lot no 422011C, 7.0 IU/dose, 1 dose used; lot no 359011C, 7.0 IU/dose, 1 dose used; lot no 378011A, 6.0 IU/dose, 1 dose used; lot no 533011A, 4.1 IU/dose, 1 dose used; lot no 545011C, 7.1 IU/dose, 1 dose used. Lot numbers, potency and number of doses of the Rabies Vaccines Merieux® used were as follows: lot no G1510-4, 4.5 IU/dose, 3 doses used; lot no H1341-4, 5.6 IU/dose, 1 dose used; lot no H1287-4, 8.2 IU/dose, 3 doses used; lot no B0001- 9, 6 IU/dose, 3 doses used. The lot numbers were unknown for 9 doses of Rabipur® and for 1 dose of Rabies Vaccine Merieux®.

Laboratory investigations

All subjects had a normal full blood count and a negative HIV test. Results of the PBMC counts were normal in all subjects except PR9 who had mildly decreased CD3, CD8 and NK cells and consequently a higher proportion of monocytes. Five PRs had low IgG3 level between 0.21 and 0.27 g/L for normal values between 0.28 and 1.05 g/L. The evaluation of the humoral responses to other vaccines showed a good response to the tetanus vaccine (antibody titer > 0.1 IU/ml) in all subjects. Two subjects had received hepatitis B vaccination within the last 5 years and anti-HBs levels were > 10 U/ml for both of them. Three subjects agreed to receive a vaccination with a 23-valent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine. The results showed that these subjects already had detectable antibody levels to at least 4 of 6 tested serotypes before the vaccination. This element made the evaluation of their response to the pneumococcal vaccination non-interpretable, although we observed a significant increase of their antibody titers after the vaccination.

Assessment of cellular immune response

The capacity of PRs to raise a cellular response in response to recall antigens, a mitogen and to rabies antigens was evaluated by a proliferation assay and compared with the responses obtained in the control groups (Figure 1). Stimulation with the mixture of recall antigens and with a mitogen showed no significant differences between the PRs and the 2 control groups. In response to the rabies antigens, the lymphocyte proliferation was significantly higher in the PRs than in the negative control group (p = 0.0003 for the comparison of individual AUC between groups), but lower than in the responders, even if the difference was not significant. Interestingly subject PR6 with a past history of anorexia had a quite poor response in this lymphocyte proliferation assay.

The cytokine profiles after stimulation with antigen recall and rabies were evaluated in cultures of responders and PRs and are shown in figure 2. As observed in the lymphocyte proliferation assays, cells from responders and PRs produced IL-10, IL-13, IL-17 and IFN-γ in response to recall antigens at similar levels and a similar Th1 (IFN-γ) profile (Figure 2B). In response to rabies antigens, IL-10, IL-13 and IFN-γ were produced in the two groups, but no detectable IL-17. Responders produced higher concentrations of IL-10, IL-13 and IFN-γ than PRs, although the differences were not significant. Moreover, responders showed a Th1 profile and PRs developed a Th2 (IL-13) profile.

The analysis of the correlations between rabies specific humoral and cell (proliferation and cytokine production) responses showed a higher level of correlations in the responders than in PRs (results not shown), perhaps due to the lower level of responses in the latter group. The correlation between the cellular response in the lymphocyte proliferation assay and the anti-rabies antibody levels was weak with a correlation coefficient r of 0.481 (Figure 3).

Results of PR8 and PR9 before and after additional rabies vaccine doses

PR8 and PR9 were included in the study just after day 21 of their vaccination schedule when their anti-rabies antibodies were low (0.2 IU/ml for both subjects). They were evaluated before and after additional vaccine doses. In subject PR8 a 5th vaccine dose induced a rabies antibody level of 0.3 IU/ml. He then received another 2 doses and reached an antibody level of 7.0 IU/ml. PR9 received 2 additional vaccine doses and had thereafter an antibody titer of 1.0 IU/ml. Subject PR8 showed a significant increase of the lymphocyte proliferation after the 7th vaccine dose. The low antibody response of PR9 correlated with a stagnation of the proliferative response and an important increase of IL-13 production.

Table 1: Demographic details and vaccination schedules of the poor responders (PR).

Subject Sex Age Year of vaccination Vaccination (brand, lot no)+ Days of vaccination Rabies serology AB titer at the time of the lymphocyte proliferation assays
  1st 2nd 3rd 4th Day# AB titer IU/ml
PR1 m 62 2007 Rabipur 397011A Rabipur 397011A Rabipur 397011A Rabipur 397011A D0, D3, D7, D15 22 0.2 1.0
PR2 f 67 2012 Merieux G1510-4 Merieux H1341-4 Merieux H1287-4 Merieux H1287-4 D0, D3, D7, D14 21 0.4 5.2
PR3 m 54 2009 Rabipur*unknown Rabipur*unknown Rabipur*unknown Rabipur*unknown D0, D0, D3, D3, D7 30 0.5 1.0
PR4 m 27 2009 Rabipur 422011A Merieux B0001-9 Merieux B0001-9 Merieux B0001-9 D0, D3, D7, D14 23 0.5 0.3
PR5 f 30 2012 Merieux unknown Merieux G1510-4 Merieux G1510-4 Merieux G1510-4 D0, D3, D7, D129 26 0.3 0.2
PR6 f 30 2007 Rabipur unknown Rabipur unknown Rabipur 397011A Rabipur 397011A D0, D3, D8, D15 22 0.3 1.6
PR7 f 40 2005 Rabipur 359011C Rabipur 378011A Rabipur unknown Rabipur unknown D0, D3, D7, D14 21 0.3 8.2
PR8 m 66 2014 Rabipur*unknown Rabipur 533011A Merieux K1323-1 Merieux K1323-1 D0, D3, D7, D14 21 0.2 0.2 and 7.0
PR9 m 55 2014 Rabipur 545011C Rabipur 545011C Rabipur 545011C Rabipur 545011C D0, D3, D8, D15 22 0.2 0.2 and 1.0
+ All subjects received the vaccines by the intramuscular route, except PR3 who received intradermal vaccinations; *Vaccine doses received abroad; # count starting on the day of the first dose received.



In 2010 the WHO and the CDC recommended for intramuscular rPEP to reduce the number of vaccine doses from five to four [3,4]. A previous study of our group showed however that 6, 7% of potentially rabies exposed subjects did not develop an appropriate antibody level after 4 doses of rPEP [5].

In the present study we investigated first whether subjects with poor humoral response to an rPEP had any evidence of an immunodeficiency. We evaluated our subjects very thoroughly with an in depth medical history, a clinical examination and the laboratory investigations which are usually recommended for the workup of a suspected immunodeficiency. Our results show that 8/9 of PRs were most probably fully immuno competent at the time they received the rPEP. Only one subject was possibly immuno deficient, because of malnourishment and chronic diarrhea. Physical examination, immune cell count and assessment of immunoglobulin levels were normal in all subjects, except for the CD8 T-cell count for subject PR9 and mildly decreased IgG3 levels in 5 other subjects. Although these low IgG3 levels are intriguing, these deficiencies can hardly explain the poor immune response to the rPEP. IgG3 deficiency has been mainly associated with recurrent sino pulmonary infections [12]. In our cohort no subject had a medical history of such recurrent infections. To be of clinical significance it is usually considered that the IgG3 level has to be greater than 2  standard deviations below the mean, which was clearly not the case for our patients [13]. In addition, we did not identify in these subjects any abnormal humoral response to other vaccines, such as the tetanus, hepatitis B and pneumococcal vaccines. Finally, lymphocyte proliferation and cytokine production to the recall antigens were at the same levels than responders.

In a second step the cellular immune response to rabies antigen was investigated. It could indeed be postulated that patients with poor humoral response develop possibly a strong cellular immune response, which could be protective. Horowitz et al have shown a strong NK cell response with high IFN-γ production after 3 doses of rabies vaccine [14]. The results of our study show however that PRs had a non-significantly poorer lymphocyte proliferation and IFN-γ production than good responders. The cytokine profile in the supernatant of the PBMC proliferation assays of responders and PRs hint towards a globally poorer immunogenic effect of the rPEP in PRs presenting a profile more oriented toward a Th2-response, with diminished IFN-γ and increased IL-13 production. This is in accordance with a recent study where vaccination induced levels of IFN-γ and IL-4 that correlated significantly with the levels of neutralizing antibodies [15].

The litterature lists 0.5 IU/mL as the desirable antibody titer following rPEP, but this antibody level has been picked more or less arbitrarily and is not based on solid scientific data. Some experts would consider that any antibody level after vaccination would be protective, as long as they appear rapidly after exposure. However rare cases of rPEP failures with subsequent deaths have been reported, even in patient receiving correct management as per guidelines [16-19]. The causes of these rPEP failures have always remained unclear. Our data seem to indicate that rabies vaccines are relatively poorly immunogenic in some subjects. Ideally, it would therefore be useful to determine antibody levels by RFFIT on day 21 of the WHO recommended post-exposure prophylaxis to identify patients who do not respond appropriately. It must however be admitted that the RFFIT is not widely available, as it is technically challenging to perform. The cost of this test of approximately USD 70 can also be a hurdle for its implementation.

It is of concern that some rabies-exposed subjects are potentially not fully protected with the currently WHOrecommended prophylaxis, considering that rabies is invariably a lethal disease. The currently WHO-recommended prophylaxis was published in 2010 and followed a literature review conducted by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC [5]. The majority of the reviewed studies investigating the immunogenicity of rabies vaccines had been done under strict controlled conditions in young healthy adults. There were actually only 6 studies including a total of 270 patients that had been carried out under real-life conditions and using the Essen regimen. This number of subjects may have been insufficient to identify rPEP failures. As the Swiss rPEP guidelines have always recommended doing a serology on day 21, the Swiss Rabies Center has been able to collect data of rPEP over many years. The Swiss rabies reference laboratory recorded 38 failures with antibody levels < 0.5 U/ml in 257 patients (14.8%) who received an rPEP based on the Essen regimen between 1997 and 2009 (R. Zanoni, personal communication).

Limitations of this study are first of all the relatively small number of subjects included. In addition, blood samples were obtained for 7 subjects only months to years after they had completed the rPEP and more importantly after they had received at least a 5th vaccine dose. Only for PR8 and PR9 could blood samples be obtained before and after the 5th vaccine dose.

In conclusion, our study suggests that rabies vaccines are not very immunogenic in certain subjects for reasons that are difficult to identify. Further work is needed on a larger number of subjects to better understand the protective mechanisms of antirabies vaccines.


We thank Prof C.A. Siegrist for the determination of the antipneumococcal antibody titers and Dr T. Chapman for a critical review of the manuscript.


The study was funded by internal funds.


1. World Health Organization. WHO Expert Consultation on Rabies. Second report. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2013; 1-139.

2. Jones RL, Froeschle JE, Atmar RL, Matthews JS, Sanders R, Pardalos J, et al. Immunogenicity, safety and lot consistency in adults of a chromatographically purified Vero-cell rabies vaccine: a randomized, double-blind trial with human diploid cell rabies vaccine. Vaccine. 2001; 19: 4635-4643.

3. Rupprecht CE, Briggs D, Brown CM, Franka R, Katz SL, Kerr HD, et al. Use of a reduced (4-dose) vaccine schedule for postexposure prophylaxis to prevent human rabies: recommendations of the advisory committee on immun. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010; 59: 1-9.

4. World Health Organization G. Rabies vaccines. WHO Position Paper. 2010.

5. Manning SE, Rupprecht CE, Fishbein D, Hanlon CA, Lumlertdacha B, Guerra M, et al. Human rabies prevention. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2008; 57: 1-28.

6. Uwanyiligira M, Landry P, Genton B, de Valliere S. Rabies postexposure prophylaxis in routine practice in view of the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization recommendations. Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 55: 201-205.

7. Wilde H. Editorial commentary: rabies postexposure vaccination: are antibody responses adequate? Clin Infect Dis. 2012; 55: 206-208.

8. Smith JS, Yager PA, Baer GM. A rapid reproducible test for determining rabies neutralizing antibody. Bull World Health Organ. 1973; 48: 535- 541.

9. Zanoni RG, Bugnon P, Deranleau E, Nguyen TM, Brügger D. Walking the dog and moving the cat: rabies serology in the context of international pet travel schemes. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2010; 152: 561-568.

10. Brinkman DM, Jol-van der Zijde CM, Ten Dam MM, Vossen JM, Osterhaus AD, Kroon FP, et al. Vaccination with rabies to study the humoral and cellular immune response to a T-cell dependent neoantigen in man. J Clin Immunol. 2003; 23: 528-538.

11. Thraenhart O, Kreuzfelder E, Hillebrandt M, Marcus I, Ramakrishnan K, Fu ZF, et al. Long-term humoral and cellular immunity after vaccination with cell culture rabies vaccines in man. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1994; 71: 287-292.

12. Abrahamian F, Agrawal S, Gupta S. Immunological and clinical profile of adult patients with selective immunoglobulin subclass deficiency: response to intravenous immunoglobulin therapy. Clin Exp Immunol. 2010; 159: 344-350.

13. Bonilla FA, Khan DA, Ballas ZK, Chinen J, Frank MM, Hsu JT, et al. Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015; 136: 1186-1205.

14. Horowitz A, Behrens RH, Okell L, Fooks AR, Riley EM. NK cells as effectors of acquired immune responses: effector CD4+ T celldependent activation of NK cells following vaccination. J Immunol. 2010; 185: 2808-2818.

15. Venkataswamy MM, Madhusudana SN, Sanyal SS, Taj S, Belludi AY, Mani RS, et al. Cellular immune response following pre-exposure and postexposure rabies vaccination by intradermal and intramuscular routes. Clin Exp Vaccine Res. 2015; 4: 68-74.

16. Tinsa F, Borgi A, Jahouat I, Boussetta K. Rabies encephalitis in a child: a failure of rabies post exposure prophylaxis? BMJ Case Rep. 2015.

17. Wilde H. Failures of post-exposure rabies prophylaxis. Vaccine. 2007; 25: 7605-7609.

18. Shantavasinkul P, Tantawichien T, Wacharapluesadee S, Jeamanukoolkit A, Udomchaisakul P, Chattranukulchai P, et al. Failure of rabies postexposure prophylaxis in patients presenting with unusual manifestations. Clin Infect Dis. 2010; 50: 77-79.

19. Hemachudha T, Mitrabhakdi E, Wilde H, Vejabhuti A, Siripataravanit S, Kingnate D. Additional reports of failure to respond to treatment after rabies exposure in Thailand. Clin Infect Dis. 1999; 28: 143-144.

Received : 24 Jun 2016
Accepted : 25 Sep 2016
Published : 29 Sep 2016
Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology
ISSN : 2379-948X
Launched : 2014
JSM Schizophrenia
Launched : 2016
Journal of Nausea
Launched : 2020
JSM Internal Medicine
Launched : 2016
JSM Hepatitis
Launched : 2016
JSM Oro Facial Surgeries
ISSN : 2578-3211
Launched : 2016
Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science
ISSN : 2333-6706
Launched : 2013
JSM Regenerative Medicine and Bioengineering
ISSN : 2379-0490
Launched : 2013
JSM Spine
ISSN : 2578-3181
Launched : 2016
Archives of Palliative Care
ISSN : 2573-1165
Launched : 2016
JSM Nutritional Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3203
Launched : 2017
Annals of Neurodegenerative Disorders
ISSN : 2476-2032
Launched : 2016
Journal of Fever
ISSN : 2641-7782
Launched : 2017
JSM Bone Marrow Research
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2016
JSM Mathematics and Statistics
ISSN : 2578-3173
Launched : 2014
Journal of Autoimmunity and Research
ISSN : 2573-1173
Launched : 2014
JSM Arthritis
ISSN : 2475-9155
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Neck Cancer-Cases and Reviews
ISSN : 2573-1610
Launched : 2016
JSM General Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2573-1564
Launched : 2016
JSM Anatomy and Physiology
ISSN : 2573-1262
Launched : 2016
JSM Dental Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1548
Launched : 2016
Annals of Emergency Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1017
Launched : 2016
Annals of Mens Health and Wellness
ISSN : 2641-7707
Launched : 2017
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Health Care
ISSN : 2576-0084
Launched : 2018
Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management
ISSN : 2573-1300
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vaccines and Immunization
ISSN : 2378-9379
Launched : 2014
JSM Heart Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2578-3157
Launched : 2016
Annals of Reproductive Medicine and Treatment
ISSN : 2573-1092
Launched : 2016
JSM Brain Science
ISSN : 2573-1289
Launched : 2016
JSM Biomarkers
ISSN : 2578-3815
Launched : 2014
JSM Biology
ISSN : 2475-9392
Launched : 2016
Archives of Stem Cell and Research
ISSN : 2578-3580
Launched : 2014
Annals of Clinical and Medical Microbiology
ISSN : 2578-3629
Launched : 2014
JSM Pediatric Surgery
ISSN : 2578-3149
Launched : 2017
Journal of Memory Disorder and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-319X
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Face Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3793
Launched : 2016
JSM Cardiothoracic Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1297
Launched : 2016
JSM Bone and Joint Diseases
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2017
JSM Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
ISSN : 2641-7812
Launched : 2017
JSM Atherosclerosis
ISSN : 2573-1270
Launched : 2016
Journal of Genitourinary Disorders
ISSN : 2641-7790
Launched : 2017
Journal of Fractures and Sprains
ISSN : 2578-3831
Launched : 2016
Journal of Autism and Epilepsy
ISSN : 2641-7774
Launched : 2016
Annals of Marine Biology and Research
ISSN : 2573-105X
Launched : 2014
JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care
ISSN : 2578-3777
Launched : 2016
JSM Communication Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3807
Launched : 2016
Annals of Musculoskeletal Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3599
Launched : 2016
Annals of Virology and Research
ISSN : 2573-1122
Launched : 2014
JSM Renal Medicine
ISSN : 2573-1637
Launched : 2016
Journal of Muscle Health
ISSN : 2578-3823
Launched : 2016
JSM Genetics and Genomics
ISSN : 2334-1823
Launched : 2013
JSM Anxiety and Depression
ISSN : 2475-9139
Launched : 2016
Clinical Journal of Heart Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7766
Launched : 2016
Annals of Medicinal Chemistry and Research
ISSN : 2378-9336
Launched : 2014
JSM Pain and Management
ISSN : 2578-3378
Launched : 2016
JSM Women's Health
ISSN : 2578-3696
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in HIV or AIDS
ISSN : 2374-0094
Launched : 2013
Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity
ISSN : 2333-6692
Launched : 2013
Journal of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism
ISSN : 2373-9363
Launched : 2013
JSM Neurosurgery and Spine
ISSN : 2373-9479
Launched : 2013
Journal of Liver and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2379-0830
Launched : 2014
Journal of Drug Design and Research
ISSN : 2379-089X
Launched : 2014
JSM Clinical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2373-938X
Launched : 2013
JSM Bioinformatics, Genomics and Proteomics
ISSN : 2576-1102
Launched : 2014
JSM Chemistry
ISSN : 2334-1831
Launched : 2013
Journal of Trauma and Care
ISSN : 2573-1246
Launched : 2014
JSM Surgical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2578-3688
Launched : 2016
Annals of Food Processing and Preservation
ISSN : 2573-1033
Launched : 2016
Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy
ISSN : 2333-7095
Launched : 2013
JSM Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-3572
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical Pathology
ISSN : 2373-9282
Launched : 2013
Annals of Cardiovascular Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7731
Launched : 2016
Journal of Behavior
ISSN : 2576-0076
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Metabolism
ISSN : 2572-2492
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in Infectious Diseases
ISSN : 2379-0636
Launched : 2013
JSM Microbiology
ISSN : 2333-6455
Launched : 2013
Journal of Urology and Research
ISSN : 2379-951X
Launched : 2014
Journal of Family Medicine and Community Health
ISSN : 2379-0547
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pregnancy and Care
ISSN : 2578-336X
Launched : 2017
JSM Cell and Developmental Biology
ISSN : 2379-061X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Aquaculture and Research
ISSN : 2379-0881
Launched : 2014
Clinical Research in Pulmonology
ISSN : 2333-6625
Launched : 2013
Journal of Immunology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6714
Launched : 2013
Annals of Forensic Research and Analysis
ISSN : 2378-9476
Launched : 2014
JSM Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN : 2333-7109
Launched : 2013
Annals of Breast Cancer Research
ISSN : 2641-7685
Launched : 2016
Annals of Gerontology and Geriatric Research
ISSN : 2378-9409
Launched : 2014
Journal of Sleep Medicine and Disorders
ISSN : 2379-0822
Launched : 2014
JSM Burns and Trauma
ISSN : 2475-9406
Launched : 2016
Chemical Engineering and Process Techniques
ISSN : 2333-6633
Launched : 2013
Annals of Clinical Cytology and Pathology
ISSN : 2475-9430
Launched : 2014
JSM Allergy and Asthma
ISSN : 2573-1254
Launched : 2016
Journal of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
ISSN : 2334-2307
Launched : 2013
Annals of Sports Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2379-0571
Launched : 2014
JSM Sexual Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3718
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vascular Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-9344
Launched : 2014
JSM Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
ISSN : 2333-7117
Launched : 2013
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion
ISSN : 2333-6684
Launched : 2013
JSM Environmental Science and Ecology
ISSN : 2333-7141
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6676
Launched : 2013
JSM Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine
ISSN : 2334-1815
Launched : 2013
Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
ISSN : 2475-9473
Launched : 2016
JSM Ophthalmology
ISSN : 2333-6447
Launched : 2013
Journal of Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology
ISSN : 2333-7079
Launched : 2013
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health
ISSN : 2374-0124
Launched : 2013
Medical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN : 2333-6439
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health
ISSN : 2373-9312
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Pharmaceutics
ISSN : 2379-9498
Launched : 2014
JSM Foot and Ankle
ISSN : 2475-9112
Launched : 2016
JSM Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia
ISSN : 2378-9565
Launched : 2014
Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapy
ISSN : 2333-665X
Launched : 2013
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-931X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Public Health and Research
ISSN : 2378-9328
Launched : 2014
Annals of Orthopedics and Rheumatology
ISSN : 2373-9290
Launched : 2013
Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Research
ISSN : 2379-0652
Launched : 2014
Annals of Community Medicine and Practice
ISSN : 2475-9465
Launched : 2014
Annals of Biometrics and Biostatistics
ISSN : 2374-0116
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Case Reports
ISSN : 2373-9819
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cancer Biology and Research
ISSN : 2373-9436
Launched : 2013
Journal of Surgery and Transplantation Science
ISSN : 2379-0911
Launched : 2013
Journal of Dermatology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2373-9371
Launched : 2013
JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology
ISSN : 2373-9487
Launched : 2013
TEST Journal of Dentistry
ISSN : 1234-5678
Launched : 2014
Annals of Nursing and Practice
ISSN : 2379-9501
Launched : 2014
JSM Dentistry
ISSN : 2333-7133
Launched : 2013
Author Information X