Immunological and Regulatory Basis of the 30-Day Post-Primary Rabies Vaccination Interval Prior to Serology Sampling in the Context of International Pet Movement

1. Introduction

Rabies remains a globally distributed zoonosis with a case-fatality rate approaching 100% once clinical signs are established (WHO, 2023). Its control at the human-animal interface depends critically on mass vaccination of the canine population — the principal reservoir and transmission vector worldwide (Hampson et al., 2015). In the context of globalisation and the sustained increase in international companion animal movement, serological verification of rabies immune status has become an inescapable sanitary requirement for access to multiple destination markets, creating a regulatory landscape of significant technical and legal complexity.

Virus neutralisation tests (VNT) — either the Rapid Fluorescent Focus Inhibition Test (RFFIT) or the Fluorescent Antibody Virus Neutralisation test (FAVN) — constitute the international gold standard for quantifying rabies virus-neutralising antibodies (rVNA). The threshold of ≥ 0.5 IU/mL is universally recognised as the correlate of acceptable protection by WOAH (formerly OIE), the European Union, and the United States (WOAH, 2023; Cliquet et al., 1998; CDC, 2024). The scientific and operational validity of this threshold depends, however, on the moment at which the sample is drawn relative to vaccination: post-primary vaccination antibody kinetics critically determine the probability of obtaining a valid and reproducible serological result.

A fundamental — and frequently underappreciated — distinction exists between two regulatory and biological concepts that operate at different temporal positions:

• Administrative validity of primary vaccination (21 days post-vaccination): the date from which most regulatory frameworks consider the vaccination legally effective for documentation purposes.
• Mandatory serology sampling interval (≥ 30 days post-vaccination): the date before which EU, CDC/USDA, UK APHA, Australian DAWR, and Japanese AQS regulations explicitly prohibit blood sampling for VNT.

These are not the same concept and must not be conflated. The present article makes this distinction its structural core. Its objective is to synthesise the regulatory texts that mandate the 30-day sampling interval, the immunological evidence that explains why such a requirement exists, and to articulate a risk-mitigation operational model for veterinary practitioners managing international pet exports (rabies blood test international travel; movement of companion animals).

2. The Regulatory Mandate: 30 Days as an Explicit Legal Requirement

The single most robust argument for the 30-day sampling interval is not biological preference — it is a regulatory requirement in the world's most stringent import frameworks. This section documents the primary regulatory texts.

2.1. European Union: Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 and Implementing Acts

The primary EU legislative instrument governing non-commercial movement of pet animals from third countries is Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Its requirements, as operationalised through Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/692 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/404, specify the following for dogs, cats, and ferrets from non-listed countries (such as Peru):

"The test must be carried out on a sample collected by an authorised veterinarian at least 30 days after the date of vaccination and not less than three months before the date of movement." — European Commission, Food Safety portal: Non-commercial movement from non-EU countries (implementing Reg. 576/2013 / Del. Reg. 2020/692)

The EU Your Europe portal further clarifies the operational logic distinguishing the two intervals: "After this first or primary vaccination, you must wait at least 21 days before travelling with your pet. This ensures your pet has developed the necessary immunity against rabies. [...] In the case of a first or primary vaccination, you must wait 30 days after the primary vaccination has been completed before this test [VNT] can be carried out" (European Commission, Your Europe, 2024).

This explicit dual-interval structure in EU law — 21 days for travel validity; 30 days before serology can be drawn — is the most authoritative regulatory confirmation of the distinction central to this review. The 3-month waiting period after a positive titre result before movement is additionally required for animals from non-listed third countries.

Operational consequence for Peru: A dog exported from Peru to the EU must have its blood sample drawn no earlier than day 30 post-primary vaccination. A sample drawn at day 21 or day 25 would not fulfil the EU legal requirement, regardless of the titre result obtained.

2.2. United States: CDC/USDA Rules (Effective 1 August 2024)

The CDC substantially revised its dog importation rules effective 1 August 2024. For foreign-vaccinated dogs from high-risk countries — a category that includes Peru — the requirements are explicit:

"A veterinarian must draw the blood sample at least 30 days after the dog's first valid rabies vaccination and at least 28 days before entry to the United States." — CDC, Entry Requirements for Foreign-Vaccinated Dogs from High-Risk Countries (2024). https://www.cdc.gov/importation/dogs/foreign-vaccinated-high-risk-countries.html

The CDC further specifies the booster scenario: "If a lapse occurred [in vaccination coverage], the sample must be drawn at least 30 days after the new vaccine dose was administered" (CDC, 2024). Dogs without a valid serology result must undergo a 28-day quarantine at a CDC-registered animal care facility — an operationally and financially significant consequence for non-compliance.

The CDC rules also distinguish between primary vaccination and booster scenarios in a manner relevant for practitioners:

• First valid rabies vaccination (primary): sample must be drawn ≥ 30 days post-vaccination and ≥ 28 days before US entry.
• Valid booster (no coverage lapse): sample may be drawn at any time after the booster, provided the first vaccine was given ≥ 30 days before the original sample.
• Coverage lapse: treated as a new primary vaccination; sample must be drawn ≥ 30 days after the updated dose.

2.3. United Kingdom: UK Pet Travel Scheme (APHA)

Following Brexit, the UK implemented its own Pet Travel Scheme under APHA authority. For dogs from third countries classified as requiring a titre test, the blood sample for the rabies blood test must be taken at least 30 days after a valid rabies vaccination. The 3-month pre-travel waiting period after a positive titre result also applies for animals from most third countries including Peru (APHA, 2024).

2.4. Australia: DAWR BICON Import Conditions

Australia operates one of the world's most restrictive pet biosecurity systems, consistent with its rabies-free status. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWR) requires two VNT results ≥ 0.5 IU/mL from approved laboratories, with the first blood sample collected no earlier than 30 days after primary vaccination. The second positive titre must be followed by a minimum 180-day pre-travel waiting period. Animals must additionally complete a quarantine period upon arrival (DAWR, 2024).

2.5. Japan: Animal Quarantine Service (AQS / MAFF)

Japan's AQS requires two separate titre tests ≥ 0.5 IU/mL (by RFFIT or FAVN, designated laboratory) with the first blood draw no earlier than 30 days post-primary vaccination. A minimum 180-day waiting period after the second positive titre applies before entry, and dogs must have been vaccinated at least 91 days before arrival in Japan (AQS/MAFF, 2023).

2.6. Canada

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) applies comparatively less restrictive rules for dogs from most countries. Titre testing is not universally mandated as a condition of entry; however, valid current rabies vaccination documentation is required. Where titre results are required (specific country-of-origin scenarios), the 30-day post-vaccination sampling interval aligns with the same principles applied by other high-stringency frameworks (CFIA, 2024).

2.7. WOAH / OIE: International Technical Standard

The WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code (2023), Chapter 8.14/8.15, establishes for the importation of dogs, cats, and ferrets from countries with rabies virus infection that animals must undergo an antibody titration test not less than 3 months and not more than 12 months before shipment. The WOAH standard specifies ≥ 0.5 IU/mL (RFFIT or FAVN) as the acceptance criterion, and the WOAH Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals (13th ed., 2024) provides the technical protocols for accredited reference laboratories. The WOAH framework does not explicitly specify the 30-day post-vaccination sampling interval in the same manner as EU and CDC texts; it establishes the titre test as the relevant requirement and defers to national implementing regulations for operational timelines.

2.8. Latin American Framework: SENASA Peru and Regional Authorities

SENASA Peru has implemented the digital platform "Viaja con tu mascota" for management of the Export Health Certificate (Certificado Sanitario de Exportación, CSE). The platform applies a destination-adaptive model: requirements for serología antirrábica and sampling intervals follow the rules of the destination country (SENASA, 2024). For exports to the EU, UK, US, Australia, or Japan, the 30-day sampling requirement of the destination country applies in full. MAPA Brazil, SAG Chile, and ICA Colombia adopt equivalent destination-adaptive frameworks without establishing more restrictive national thresholds.

3. Immunological Basis of the Primary Rabies Vaccination Response

3.1. Primary vs Secondary Immune Response

Authorised veterinary rabies vaccines are virtually exclusively inactivated virus preparations with adjuvant. Their mechanism of action requires antigen uptake by professional antigen-presenting cells (dendritic cells, macrophages), presentation to CD4+ T lymphocytes in the context of MHC class II molecules, and consequent activation of specific B lymphocytes (Day, 2007; Tizard, 2021). This process triggers an initial IgM antibody response, followed by affinity maturation and class switching to IgG, which constitutes the fraction measured by standard VNT assays.

The primary immune response is characterised by an initial latency of several days before the first serum antibodies are detectable. In primary-vaccinated dogs, most studies document a seroconversion window between days 7 and 14 post-vaccination in high-responders (Kennedy et al., 2007; Berndtsson et al., 2011; Wallace et al., 2017). However, response maturation and consolidation of reproducible serum titres across the population requires additional time: day 30 represents the point of maximum convergence of individual responses across documented cohorts.

The secondary immune response (triggered by a subsequent booster vaccination) is qualitatively different: shorter latency, greater magnitude, and greater durability, mediated by B and T memory cells generated during the primary response (Day, 2007; Tizard, 2021). This distinction explains why previously vaccinated animals achieve protective titres more rapidly and reliably than primary vaccinates — and it directly informs the interpretation of regulatory sampling intervals for each scenario.

3.2. Antibody Kinetics: What the Evidence Actually Shows

The evidence from peer-reviewed kinetics studies must be interpreted with methodological precision. The key findings relevant to the 30-day interval are:

Wallace et al. (2017) — PLoS NTD, n = 8,011 dogs

This is the largest-scale analysis of primary rabies vaccination serology outcomes available. Results demonstrated that failure rates (titre < 0.5 IU/mL) were lowest when the draw interval was between 8 and 30 days (failure rate range: 3.1%–9.1% across that entire window). The GMT showed an inverse parabolic association: lowest for very short draw intervals (days 0–3), highest for moderate intervals, and declining for longer intervals. Critically, samples drawn at 3 days had dramatically higher failure rates; samples in the 8–30 day window consistently performed best. The study's contribution is to document the risk of sampling too early and to confirm that the 8–30 day window captures the population's best response period for primary vaccination.

Crozet et al. (2024) — Zoonoses and Public Health

This study provides the most recent and operationally relevant probabilistic modelling. Pooling data from multiple field studies, it reports the probability of a dog yielding ≥ 0.5 IU/mL at different intervals post-primary vaccination. The authors report, for the 30–40 day interval: 1,139 successes out of 1,279 vaccinations (89.1%). The study explicitly states that "since the antibody titre has to be evaluated at least 30 days after the primo-vaccination to meet regulatory prescriptions, we selected the interval of 30–40 days to define the probability of vaccination success." The 30-day threshold in this paper is treated as a given regulatory constraint, further confirming its legal status.

Note on prior intervals in Crozet et al.: Earlier intervals (e.g., 15–21 days: 148/152 = 97.4%) appear numerically higher in raw proportions, but these represent smaller, selected datasets skewed toward positive outcomes (field studies reporting successful campaigns). The 30–40 day interval operates on a much larger pooled dataset and represents population-level performance under real-world conditions. Direct percentage comparisons across intervals from this data should be made cautiously; the correct reading is that day 30 is the regulatory minimum and the immunologically mature reference point, not that earlier intervals are superior in absolute terms.

Kennedy et al. (2007) — Vaccine, n = 10,483 dogs

This foundational study documented that animal size, age, breed, and sampling time post-vaccination all had significant effects on pass rates and median titres. Smaller breeds elicited higher antibody levels than larger breeds. Young animals (< 1 year) generated lower responses than adults. Sampling time variation reflected expected primary response kinetics — confirming the biological rationale for an adequate post-vaccination waiting period before sampling.

Berndtsson et al. (2011) — Acta Vet Scand, n = 6,789 dogs

In this Swedish prospective cohort, 91.9% of dogs achieved ≥ 0.5 IU/mL under optimal conditions. Age at vaccination and number of days from vaccination to sample draw showed significant interaction with outcomes. Larger breeds were at higher risk of failing but this risk was reduced with two vaccinations.

Pimburage et al. (2017) — BMC Vet Research

Using RFFIT at days 0, 30, 180, and 360 post-vaccination in Sri Lankan dogs, this study explicitly documented day-30 seroconversion dynamics. A significant proportion of young, previously unvaccinated dogs did not maintain protective titres through the first year, underscoring the criticality of the initial seroconversion interval for regulatory certification purposes.

3.3. The ≥ 0.5 IU/mL Threshold: Technical Basis

The ≥ 0.5 IU/mL threshold for the rabies neutralising antibody titre was established on the basis of vaccine efficacy studies demonstrating that animals with titres above this level were protected against experimental virus challenge (Moore & Hanlon, 2010). This threshold was formally adopted by WOAH and incorporated into EU and US regulatory frameworks. Moore & Hanlon (2010) reviewed the concept of rabies-specific antibodies as surrogates of protection, concluding that the 0.5 IU/mL threshold represents a useful population-level correlate of protection, though individual animals may be protected at lower titres through cellular immunity. For regulatory certification, however, the ≥ 0.5 IU/mL criterion measured by RFFIT or FAVN at an approved laboratory is the only objectively quantifiable and reproducible standard available.

Smith et al. (2021) demonstrated that healthy dogs are highly likely to satisfy this requirement between days 8 and 30 post-vaccination when administered high-potency rabies vaccines, and that the day-30 post-vaccination point optimises the probability of a robust response while satisfying regulatory requirements for both Type A and Type B risk scenarios (see Section 5).

3.4. Inter-Individual Variability: Why the Buffer to Day 30 Matters

The primary rabies vaccination antibody response in dogs is subject to documented inter-individual variability driven by: body size (Kennedy et al., 2007; Berndtsson et al., 2011); age at vaccination — puppies < 16 weeks show lower GMT due to maternal antibody interference (Wallace et al., 2017); vaccine formulation and adjuvant (Jakel et al., 2008); route of administration; nutritional and health status; concomitant immunosuppressive disease; and host genetic immune competence (Kennedy et al., 2007). This biological variability is the mechanistic explanation for why the regulatory mandate of ≥ 30 days exists: it provides sufficient time for even slow-responder animals to achieve a measurable and reproducible titre, reducing the rate of invalid first-attempt serology results across the population.

4. The 21-Day vs 30-Day Distinction: Administrative Validity vs Mandatory Sampling Interval

The conflation of these two distinct regulatory intervals is the most consequential conceptual error encountered in clinical veterinary practice oriented to international pet export. The evidence reviewed in Sections 2 and 3 allows a precise and operationally unambiguous characterisation of each:

21 days post-primary vaccination establishes when a vaccination becomes legally effective for documentation purposes. EU Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 specifies that the "period of validity of the vaccination starts not less than 21 days from the completion of the vaccination protocol for the primary vaccination" (European Commission, Food Safety portal, 2024). This interval governs whether an animal can be considered "vaccinated" in the administrative-legal sense.

30 days post-primary vaccination establishes the earliest date on which a blood sample for the VNT may legally be drawn for EU, CDC, UK, Australian, and Japanese purposes. This is the regulatory minimum for serology sampling — not a biological preference. Sampling before this date renders the serology result inadmissible under EU law and CDC/USDA rules, regardless of the titre obtained.

The European Commission's EFSA (2022) risk assessment, which was commissioned to evaluate the feasibility of reducing the post-titre waiting period from 90 to 30 days, explicitly modelled the 30-day post-vaccination sampling point as the regulatory baseline for its quantitative risk calculations. The report noted that the risk of rabies introduction is associated with the susceptibility window between vaccination and immunity development (21 days), but its risk models assumed ≥ 30 days post-vaccination as the earliest legitimate sampling timepoint — treating this as an established regulatory given, not an optional recommendation.

The practical consequence of this distinction is direct: an animal technically valid under administrative rules (vaccinated > 21 days ago) whose blood is drawn at day 22 or day 26 will produce a serology result that is legally inadmissible in the EU and under CDC/USDA rules. The protocol would need to restart from the sampling step, not from vaccination — but the delay of weeks or months in the export timeline is the concrete operational cost.

5. Vaccine Manufacturer Technical Documentation

5.1. Boehringer Ingelheim — Rabisin® / IMRAB® 3

The Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) for Rabisin® (Boehringer Ingelheim) is the most explicit among manufacturers on the 30-day interval: it states that immunity is demonstrated 1 month (30 days) after primary vaccination, with duration of immunity extending to 3 years after the first annual booster (Boehringer Ingelheim, 2024). This manufacturer declaration provides direct pharmacological corroboration of the regulatory threshold: the product is certified to demonstrate protective immunity at 30 days, not 21.

5.2. MSD Animal Health — Nobivac® Rabies

Nobivac® Rabies specifies that an adequate serological response (≥ 0.5 IU/mL) is demonstrated in dogs and cats between 2 and 3 weeks (14–21 days) post-vaccination under controlled study conditions, with maximum antibody levels typically reached around 3 weeks in high-responders (MSD Animal Health, 2023). These data describe the earliest onset of detectable immunity in optimal study conditions, not the sampling point most widely reported in the literature for population-level success. The manufacturer recommendation to vaccinate at least 21 days before travel does not establish day 21 as the recommended serology sampling moment.

5.3. Zoetis — Defensor® 3 / IMRAB® 3

Defensor® (Zoetis) recommends primary vaccination from 3 months of age, annual booster, and thereafter triennial revaccination per local regulations (Zoetis, 2023). The SmPC documents efficacy against experimental challenge. Compatibility with international serology requirements must be assessed per destination-country regulatory framework.

5.4. Virbac — Rabigen® Mono

Rabigen® Mono (Virbac) specifies onset of immunity at 3 weeks post-primary vaccination, consistent with the 21-day administrative threshold (Virbac, 2023). As with Nobivac®, this describes the earliest onset in controlled efficacy studies, not the legally mandated sampling timepoint.

The convergent reading of manufacturer data is: all four major vaccine SmPCs confirm onset of detectable immunity by 21 days (administrative validity). Boehringer Ingelheim explicitly certifies demonstrated immunity at 30 days — aligning precisely with EU, CDC, UK, Australian, and Japanese regulatory sampling requirements.

6. Risk-Mitigation Model for International Pet Export

The evidence reviewed allows construction of a dual-risk mitigation model applicable to clinical management of dogs intended for international movement. Smith et al. (2021) formalised the two risk categories relevant to the regulatory sampling window:

The 30-day regulatory minimum simultaneously addresses both risk types: it eliminates Type A risk by providing the necessary incubation-exclusion window, and it minimises Type B risk by allowing the primary immune response to reach its most probable population-level plateau.

6.1. Operational Timeline for International Pet Export from Peru

This timeline makes explicit that the 30-day post-vaccination sampling interval is the critical enabling node of the entire international export certification sequence. Any shortening of this interval — however minimal — does not simply produce an earlier result: it produces an inadmissible result under EU and CDC law, requiring full protocol restart from the sampling stage.

7. Critical Comparative Discussion

The argument architecture of this review deliberately reverses the framing found in some earlier veterinary literature, where the 30-day interval was presented primarily as an immunological preference derived from antibody kinetics studies. The evidentiary hierarchy is the opposite: the 30-day interval is first and foremost a regulatory hard requirement in the EU (primary legislative text: Reg. 576/2013), in the US (CDC rules effective 1 August 2024), in the UK (APHA Pet Travel Scheme), in Australia (DAWR BICON), and in Japan (AQS/MAFF). The immunological evidence — particularly Wallace et al. (2017), Crozet et al. (2024), Smith et al. (2021), and Kennedy et al. (2007) — provides the biological justification for why regulators converged on this interval. Both pillars are necessary for a complete account, but conflating them or inverting their hierarchy creates a position that is technically vulnerable to regulatory or immunological critique.

The 2022 EFSA risk assessment is instructive in this regard. Commissioned to evaluate whether the 90-day post-titre waiting period (not the 30-day post-vaccination sampling interval) could be reduced to 30 days, the report modelled the 30-day post-vaccination sampling point as the established regulatory baseline from which risk calculations were made. EFSA (2022) concluded that while a 30-day post-titre waiting period is immunologically defensible (as the OIE Scientific Commission had previously endorsed), the resulting increase in the probability of introducing rabies into the EU — from a maximum of 5 to 20 infected dogs over a 20-year period — was considered disproportionate in the context of the EU's rabies-eradication programme. This finding demonstrates that the 30-day post-vaccination sampling requirement and the post-titre waiting period are two distinct regulatory elements operating on different biological risks, and that strengthening one does not compensate for relaxing the other.

The inter-jurisdictional asymmetry revealed by the comparative regulatory analysis is also analytically meaningful. Every jurisdiction that mandates the VNT as a condition of entry (EU, UK, US, Australia, Japan) has independently arrived at the 30-day post-vaccination sampling minimum. Canada, which does not universally mandate titre testing, has not needed to formalise this threshold in the same manner, but its absence of a stricter rule does not constitute evidence against the 30-day standard — it reflects a different risk-classification approach.

A limitation of this review, consistent with its descriptive-regulatory design, is the heterogeneity of the primary immunological studies referenced. Kennedy et al. (2007), Wallace et al. (2017), and Berndtsson et al. (2011) were conducted predominantly in European and North American clinical contexts. Latin American-specific data on primary vaccination kinetics in dogs under field conditions representative of Peru remain limited in the indexed literature. This gap does not undermine the universality of the underlying immunological mechanisms, but it does represent a productive direction for future research — particularly given the number of companion animals exported annually from Peru to high-stringency destinations.

8. Conclusions

The following conclusions, each grounded in primary regulatory texts or indexed peer-reviewed evidence, define the evidence-based position on the 30-day post-primary rabies vaccination interval:

1. The 30-day post-primary vaccination interval before VNT blood sampling is an explicit legal requirement under EU Regulation (EU) No 576/2013, CDC/USDA rules (effective 1 August 2024), UK APHA Pet Travel Scheme, Australian DAWR BICON conditions, and Japanese AQS/MAFF requirements. It is not a recommendation or a conservative preference — it is a regulatory floor whose violation renders the serology result inadmissible.
2. The 21-day administrative validity interval and the 30-day mandatory sampling interval are legally and biologically distinct concepts. An animal vaccinated and administratively valid does not become eligible for serology sampling at day 21 under EU or CDC law.
3. The immunological evidence supports and explains the regulatory mandate: primary rVNA kinetics in dogs are highly variable; the 30-day window captures the highest population-level probability of achieving ≥ 0.5 IU/mL with a single sampling event (Crozet et al., 2024; Wallace et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2021). Boehringer Ingelheim explicitly certifies demonstrated immunity at 30 days post-primary vaccination (Rabisin® SmPC, 2024).
4. The dual-risk mitigation model (Type A: incubation risk; Type B: insufficient response risk) converges at day 30 as the earliest point at which both risks are simultaneously and adequately controlled.
5. For SENASA Peru and Latin American practitioners managing international pet exports, systematic adoption of the 30-day sampling interval is the operationally necessary minimum for full regulatory compliance across all high-stringency destination markets. Any shortening of this interval does not simply produce an earlier result — it produces an inadmissible one.

Declaration of Article Nature

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to the content of this article.

Funding: This work received no external funding. It was developed within the technical activities of Zoovet Travel.

Bibliographic policy: References are prioritised from the preceding 15 years. Foundational methodological references (e.g., FAVN test; Cliquet et al., 1998) and seminal regulatory instruments are included irrespective of publication date, given their constitutive role in the international regulatory framework, consistent with standard practice in regulatory-technical veterinary reviews.

References

1. Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA). (2024). Pet travel: taking your pet abroad. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/take-pet-abroad
2. Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWR). (2024). BICON import conditions: dogs. https://bicon.agriculture.gov.au
3. Berndtsson, L. T., Nyman, A.-K. J., Rivera, E., & Klingeborn, B. (2011). Factors associated with the success of rabies vaccination of dogs in Sweden. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 53(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-53-22
4. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health. (2024). Rabisin® / IMRAB®: Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica.
5. Brown, C. M., Slavinski, S., Ettestad, P., Sidwa, T. J., & Sorhage, F. E. (2016). Compendium of animal rabies prevention and control, 2016. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 248(5), 505–517. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.248.5.505
6. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). (2024). Importing dogs into Canada. Government of Canada. https://inspection.canada.ca/importing-food-plants-or-animals/pets/dogs
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2024a). Entry requirements for foreign-vaccinated dogs from high-risk countries. US DHHS. https://www.cdc.gov/importation/dogs/foreign-vaccinated-high-risk-countries.html
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2024b). Approved rabies serology laboratories for testing dogs. US DHHS. https://www.cdc.gov/importation/dogs/approved-labs.html
9. Cliquet, F., Aubert, M., & Sagné, L. (1998). Development of a fluorescent antibody virus neutralisation test (FAVN test) for the quantitation of rabies-neutralising antibody. Journal of Immunological Methods, 212(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1759(97)00212-3
10. Cliquet, F., Verdier, Y., Sagné, L., Aubert, M., Schereffer, J.-L., Selve, M., Wasniewski, M., & Servat, A. (2003). Neutralising antibody titration in 25,000 sera of dogs and cats vaccinated against rabies in France. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 22(3), 857–866. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.22.3.1433
11. Crozet, G., Gache, K., Robardet, E., Morignat, E., Mesplède, A., Dommergues, L., & Rivière, J. (2024). What would be the impact on the rabies risk of reducing the waiting period before dogs are imported? A modelling study based on the European Union legislation. Zoonoses and Public Health, 71(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.13113
12. Day, M. J. (2007). Immune system development in the dog and cat. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 137(Suppl 1), S10–S15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpa.2007.04.005
13. European Commission. (2024). Non-commercial movement from non-EU countries. Food Safety portal. https://food.ec.europa.eu/animals/movement-pets/eu-legislation/non-commercial-movement-non-eu-countries_en
14. European Commission. (2024b). Your Europe: Pets and other animals. https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/carry/pets-and-other-animals/index_en.htm
15. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Alvarez, J., Nielsen, S. S., Robardet, E., Stegeman, A., Van Gucht, S., Vuta, V., Antoniou, S.-E., Aznar, I., Papanikolaou, A., & Roberts, H. C. (2022). Risks related to a possible reduction of the waiting period for dogs after rabies antibody titration to 30 days compared with 90 days of the current EU legislative regime. EFSA Journal, 20(6), e07350. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7350
16. European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the non-commercial movement of pet animals. Official Journal of the European Union, L 178, 1–26.
17. European Commission. (2020). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/692. Official Journal of the European Union, L 174, 1–94.
18. Hampson, K., Coudeville, L., Lembo, T., Sambo, M., Kieffer, A., Attlan, M., Barrat, J., Blanton, J. D., Briggs, D. J., Cleaveland, S., & Dobson, A. (2015). Estimating the global burden of endemic canine rabies. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 9(4), e0003709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003709
19. Jakel, V., König, M., Cussler, K., Hanschmann, K., & Thiel, H. J. (2008). Factors influencing the antibody response to vaccination against rabies. Developments in Biologicals, 131, 431–437.
20. Japan Animal Quarantine Service (AQS), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). (2023). Provisional measures for rabies prevention: importation of dogs and cats. Japanese Government. https://www.maff.go.jp/aqs/english/animal/dog/import-cat-dog.html
21. Kennedy, L. J., Lunt, M., Barnes, A., McElhinney, L., Fooks, A. R., Baxter, D. N., & Ollier, W. E. R. (2007). Factors influencing the antibody response of dogs vaccinated against rabies. Vaccine, 25(51), 8500–8507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.10.015
22. Mansfield, K. L., Burr, P. D., Snodgrass, D. R., Sayers, R., & Fooks, A. R. (2004). Factors affecting the serological response of dogs and cats to rabies vaccination. Veterinary Record, 154(14), 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.154.14.423
23. Moore, S. M., & Hanlon, C. A. (2010). Rabies-specific antibodies: Measuring surrogates of protection against a fatal disease. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 4(3), e595. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000595
24. MSD Animal Health. (2023). Nobivac® Rabies: Summary of Product Characteristics. Merck Animal Health / MSD Animal Health.
25. Pimburage, R. M. S., Gunatilake, M., Wimalaratne, O., Balasuriya, A., & Perera, K. (2017). Sero-prevalence of virus neutralizing antibodies for rabies in different groups of dogs following vaccination. BMC Veterinary Research, 13(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1038-z
26. Servicio Nacional de Sanidad Agraria (SENASA). (2024). Plataforma Viaja con tu mascota — Certificado Sanitario de Exportación (CSE). Gobierno del Perú. https://www.senasa.gob.pe/senasacontigo/viaja-con-tu-mascota/
27. Sinclair, J. R., Washburn, F., Fox, S., & Lankau, E. W. (2015). Dogs entering the United States from rabies-endemic countries, 2011–2012. Zoonoses and Public Health, 62(5), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12160
28. Smith, T. G., Fooks, A. R., Moore, S. M., & Freuling, C. M. (2021). Negligible risk of rabies importation in dogs thirty days after demonstration of adequate serum antibody titer. Vaccine, 39(18), 2496–2499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.03.064
29. Tizard, I. R. (2021). Veterinary immunology (10th ed.). Elsevier.
30. Virbac. (2023). Rabigen® Mono: Summary of Product Characteristics. Virbac S.A.
31. Wallace, R. M., Pees, A., Blanton, J. D., & Moore, S. M. (2017). Risk factors for inadequate antibody response to primary rabies vaccination in dogs under one year of age. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 11(7), e0005761. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0005761
32. World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). Rabies. WHO Fact Sheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rabies
33. World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). (2023). Terrestrial Animal Health Code (32nd ed.), Chapter 8.14/8.15. https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/
34. World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). (2024). Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals (13th ed.), Chapter 3.1.17. https://www.woah.org/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/A_summry.htm
35. Zoetis. (2023). Defensor® 3: Product Information and Prescribing Information. Zoetis Inc.