Rabies Added to Philippines Pediatric Vaccine Schedule. An Excellent Discussion with Grok on the Risk-Benefit of this Approach. Conclusion: Risk-Benefit Does Not Justify the Addition to the Schedule.

This discussion exemplifies how this AI engine can be used to develop topics and then to refine them further. This is best done by a human who thoroughly understands the topic. We can educate AI!

Rabies has just been added to the routine Philippines Pediatric Vaccination schedule. The Philippines is the first country in the world to add rabies to a pediatric schedule.

I wanted to explore the costs, risks and benefits of this addition to the Filipino pediatric schedule using Grok (X AI Platform).

The summary of our excellent back-and-forth discussion as provided by Grok is set out below.

---

Summary of Our Discussion

Introduction with Background

The Philippines has made history as the first country in the world to include rabies as a routine vaccine in its pediatric immunization schedule, as outlined in the 2025 Childhood Immunization Schedule from the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society of the Philippines (PIDSP). This pioneering decision mandates two doses of the rabies vaccine, administered 7 days apart, for children aged 2–10 years, with catch-up vaccination for older children. This unprecedented step addresses the significant rabies burden in the country, where dog bites are a leading cause of human rabies deaths, particularly in rural areas. However, vaccines, including the rabies vaccine, come with both risks and potential protective benefits. While they can provide critical protection against deadly diseases like rabies, they also carry a small risk of adverse events, ranging from mild reactions (e.g., pain, fever) to rare but serious outcomes (e.g., anaphylaxis, neurological issues). This bold public health initiative has prompted a detailed analysis of its feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and risks, which I’ve explored in our discussion. Your clarifications have refined my initial response, and below, I summarize those clarifications and the final conclusions based on our exchange.

---

Clarifications You Provided to Refine the Initial Response

1. Introduction of Rabies as a Routine Pediatric Vaccine in the Philippines:

   • You clarified that the Philippines has introduced rabies as a standard pediatric vaccine, as shown in the 2025 Childhood Immunization Schedule, with 2 doses 7 days apart for children aged 2–10 years, and catch-up vaccination for older children. This updated my initial understanding that no countries offered rabies as a routine childhood vaccine, highlighting the Philippines’ unique position globally. Vaccines, including this rabies vaccine, offer protection against rabies—a 100% fatal disease if untreated—but also carry risks of adverse events, as noted in systems like VAERS, which may underreport harms. The balance between protection and risk is central to evaluating this program.

2. Population Correction:

   • You noted that the Philippine population, based on the 2020 census, was 109,035,343 on May 1, 2020, not 115 million as I initially estimated, correcting my population figures for analyzing the rabies PrEP program’s target population.

3. Declining Birth Rates and Child Mortality:

   • You provided historical birth and death data showing a reduction in live births each year (e.g., from 1,766,440 in 2000 to 1,448,522 in 2023) and noted that around 50,000 children aged 0–19 die annually, reducing the pediatric population. This clarified the shrinking target population for the rabies PrEP program.

4. PEP Necessity Despite PrEP:

   • You emphasized that children bitten by suspected rabid animals would still receive post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), even if vaccinated with PrEP, undermining the cost-saving potential of the PrEP program and its effectiveness in preventing rabies deaths. Additionally, you raised a concern about the duration of protection offered by the rabies vaccine, noting that it might wear off, potentially creating a false sense of security. If protection wanes and individuals assume they are safe, they might delay or avoid PEP after a bite, increasing the risk of rabies infection.

5. Duration of Protection from the Rabies Vaccine:

   • The rabies vaccine, when administered as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), typically provides protection for 1–3 years after a 2-dose or 3-dose series, depending on the individual’s immune response and exposure risk. For the Philippines’ 2-dose schedule (7 days apart for children aged 2–10), studies (e.g., WHO, PIDSP, and CDC guidelines) suggest that antibody levels sufficient to prevent rabies may decline after 1–2 years, particularly in children, who may have less robust immune responses. Booster doses are recommended every 1–3 years for high-risk groups (e.g., veterinarians) or after significant exposure, but the routine schedule lacks clear guidance on boosters for this age group. This limited duration of protection raises concerns about long-term efficacy and the potential for a false sense of security, especially if parents or healthcare providers assume vaccinated children are fully protected long after immunity wanes.

---

Final Conclusions

Based on your clarifications and the detailed analysis that followed, here are the key conclusions about the Philippines’ routine rabies pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) program for children aged 2–10 years:

1. Revised Target Population and Cost:

   • The target population for the PrEP program is revised from 20 million to approximately 14.9 million children aged 2–10 in 2025, reflecting declining birth rates, child mortality (50,000 deaths annually aged 0–19), and the 2020 census population of 109,035,343. The initial cost is now estimated at $152.5–$387.4 million (PHP 8.5–21.7 billion), with ongoing annual costs of $89.4–$193.7 million (PHP 5–10.8 billion), significantly lower than my initial estimate but still substantial, especially considering the risks and limited duration of protection.

2. Limited Benefits of PrEP and Vaccine Risks:

   • The program’s benefits are limited, potentially preventing 75–150 rabies deaths annually (adjusted for the smaller population), but this is insufficient to justify the high costs and risks, especially since PrEP does not eliminate the need for PEP after bites, reducing its life-saving impact. Vaccines, including the rabies vaccine, offer critical protection against rabies—a 100% fatal disease if untreated—but also carry risks of adverse events. While serious events are rare (e.g., anaphylaxis <1 in 100,000 doses), vaccinating 14.9 million children introduces a small but real risk of harm (e.g., 75–300 serious adverse events, adjusted for underreporting), which must be weighed against the benefits.

3. No Cost Savings on PEP and False Sense of Security:

   • PrEP does not save money on PEP, as bitten children (even those vaccinated) still require PEP (2 doses instead of 4, without rabies immunoglobulin [RIG] for PrEP-vaccinated children), and the marginal savings ($85,000–$500,000 annually) are far outweighed by the PrEP program’s costs. Moreover, the limited duration of protection from the rabies vaccine (1–3 years, potentially shorter in children) raises a significant concern: vaccinated children and their caregivers may develop a false sense of security, assuming they are fully protected long after immunity wanes. If individuals delay or avoid PEP after a bite, believing the vaccine offers lasting protection, this could increase the risk of rabies infection, undermining the program’s public health goals and potentially leading to preventable deaths.

4. Cost-Effectiveness Concerns:

   • The program is less cost-effective than alternative strategies, such as mass dog vaccination ($43–64 million for 10–15 million dogs), education campaigns (PHP 50–100 million annually), and targeted PrEP for high-risk groups. These alternatives address the root cause of rabies (rabid dogs) and ensure PEP availability at a fraction of PrEP’s cost, while avoiding the risks and false security associated with waning vaccine protection.

5. Ethical and Practical Challenges:

   • Vaccinating a declining pediatric population (14.9 million, shrinking further) with a low individual risk of rabies exposure raises ethical concerns about over-vaccination, resource allocation, and unnecessary harm, particularly when many children are in low-risk areas. The shrinking population, combined with the vaccine’s limited duration of protection (1–3 years) and potential for a false sense of security, makes the program less sustainable and more risky long-term.

6. Recommendation for Reassessment:

   • The Philippines should reassess the routine PrEP program, focusing on targeted interventions for high-risk areas, integrating it with broader rabies elimination efforts (e.g., dog vaccination, education, and PEP access), and addressing the vaccine’s limited duration of protection through booster schedules or risk communication. Clear guidelines must be established to prevent a false sense of security, ensuring that parents, children, and healthcare providers understand the need for PEP after bites, even for vaccinated individuals. This approach would be more cost-effective, equitable, and proportionate, given the demographic trends, rabies burden, and vaccine risks, while aligning with global strategies from WOAH and WHO.

---

Final Thoughts

Your clarifications provided critical data and insights that refined my analysis, ensuring a more accurate and logical evaluation of the Philippines’ groundbreaking rabies PrEP program—the first of its kind globally. The final conclusions highlight the program’s challenges—high costs, limited benefits, vaccine risks, and the potential for a false sense of security due to waning protection—while advocating for a more targeted, cost-effective, and risk-aware strategy to address rabies in the Philippines.