The global availability of rabies immune globulin and rabies vaccine in clinics providing indirect care to travelers

Evaluation of potential rabies exposure among Japanese international travelers: A retrospective descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Although Japan has been a rabies-free country for >50 years, a few cases have been reported among people traveling abroad. This study aimed to investigate animal exposure among Japanese travelers using the Japanese Registry for Infectious Diseases from Abroad (J-RIDA).

METHOD

In this retrospective analysis, we examined Japanese overseas travelers with animal exposure, as included the J-RIDA database, reported from October 1, 2017, to October 31, 2019, with a focus on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) administration and the animals to which the patients were exposed.

RESULTS

Among the 322 cases included in the analysis, 19 (5.9%) patients received PrEP and 303 did not. The most common purpose of travel was a non-package tour (n = 175, 54.3%). Most trips (n = 213, 66.1%) were to a single country for <2 weeks. Most patients (n = 286, 87.9%) traveled to countries with a rabies risk. The majority of patients with and without PrEP were injured in rabies-risk countries [n = 270 (89.1%) for non-PrEP and n = 16 (84.2%) for PrEP]. Animals associated with injuries included dogs (55.0%), cats (25.5%), and monkeys (15.5%). Most patients were classified as World Health Organization Category II/III for contact with suspected rabid animals (39.5% and 44.1% for categories II and III, respectively) and had exposure within 5 days of travel. Southeast Asia (n = 180, 55.9%) was the most common region in which travelers were exposed to animals.

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese overseas travelers had contact with animals that could possibly transmit the rabies virus, even on short trips. Promoting pre-travel consultation and increasing awareness of the potential for rabies exposure are important for prevention of rabies among Japanese international travelers.

Rabies risk behaviour in a cohort of Dutch travel clinic visitors: A retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Travellers to rabies endemic countries should be counselled on rabies risk and, in case of high-risk, pre-exposure vaccination is advised. However, it is not clear which travellers exactly are at high risk. In this study we determined the incidence of possible rabies exposure in travel clinic visitors and compliance with pre-travel advice.

METHODS

Travellers to rabies endemic countries who visited a Dutch travel clinic between September 2017 and May 2018, were invited to participate.

RESULTS

Of 980 travellers, one percent was injured by a potentially rabid animal. Compliance with advice was low as 59% reported proximity to a potentially rabid animal and only half of those exposed sought medical advice. The most important predictors of proximity to a potentially rabid animal were young age, long travel duration, visiting a monkey forest and hiking for more than one day. Travel for business was associated with lower risk.

CONCLUSION

Despite pre-travel advice, rabies risk behaviour was high. Therefore, we would recommend to keep the threshold for pre-travel vaccination low. Pending more data on rabies exposure risk, the identified predictors of proximity to potentially rabid animals could be used to tailor indications for pre-travel rabies vaccination.

Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis in Germany - What are the challenges?

Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (R-PEP) including wound treatment, vaccination and application of rabies immunoglobulin (RIG) is essential in preventing rabies mortality. Today, Germany is officially declared free from terrestrial rabies and rabies is only found in bats. However, physicians in A&E Departments are frequently consulted on the need for R-PEP. We retrospectively analysed patients who received R-PEP at the A&E Department of the University Hospital Bonn between 01.01.2013 and 30.06.2019. Demographic data, travel history, clinical and laboratory findings, previous rabies vaccinations and R-PEP vaccination regimen were recorded. During the study period, 90 patients received R-PEP at the University Hospital Bonn, in 10 cases without indication for R-PEP. Altogether, we found deviations from R-PEP guidelines in 51% (n = 41/80). Infiltration of RIG was missed in 12 patients and incorrectly administrated in 24 patients. Furthermore, vaccination scheme was incorrect in 11 patients. Correct wound washing and documentation of tetanus status was missing in 14% and 63% of patients, respectively. Despite rabies elimination in Germany patients frequently seek advice for R-PEP, the majority returning from foreign travel. Our data show that there is a high need for education on indication for R-PEP before and after travel and for implementation of precise R-PEP guidelines in daily clinical practice.

A risk scoring system to identify travellers who qualify for pre-exposure rabies vaccination

We want to introduce a free online scoring system to identify high risk travellers who qualify for pre-travel rabies vaccination. The system uses evidence based risk predictors and the probable availability of HRIG at the destination.

Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis started during or after travel: A GeoSentinel analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies demonstrate that rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (RPEP) in international travelers is suboptimal, with only 5-20% of travelers receiving rabies immune globulin (RIG) in the country of exposure when indicated. We hypothesized that travelers may not be receiving RIG appropriately, and practices may vary between countries. We aim to describe the characteristics of travelers who received RIG and/or RPEP during travel.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We conducted a multi-center review of international travelers exposed to potentially rabid animals, collecting information on RPEP administration. Travelers who started RPEP before (Group A) and at (Group B) presentation to a GeoSentinel clinic during September 2014-July 2017 were included. We included 920 travelers who started RPEP. About two-thirds of Group A travelers with an indication for rabies immunoglobulin (RIG) did not receive it. Travelers exposed in Indonesia were less likely to receive RIG in the country of exposure (relative risk: 0.30; 95% confidence interval: 0.12-0.73; P = 0.01). Travelers exposed in Thailand [Relative risk (RR) 1.38, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): 1.0-1.8; P = 0.02], Sri Lanka (RR 3.99, 95% CI: 3.99-11.9; P = 0.013), and the Philippines (RR 19.95, 95% CI: 2.5-157.2; P = 0.01), were more likely to receive RIG in the country of exposure.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

This analysis highlights gaps in early delivery of RIG to travelers and identifies specific countries where travelers may be more or less likely to receive RIG. More detailed country-level information helps inform risk education of international travelers regarding appropriate rabies prevention.

Preventing diseases in round-the-world travelers: a contemporary challenge for travel medicine advice

Providing advice for travelers embarking on long-term trips poses a challenge in travel medicine. A long duration of risk exposure is associated with underuse of protective measures and poor adherence to chemoprophylaxis, increasing the chances of acquiring infections. Recently, in our clinic, we observed an increase in the number of travelers undertaking round-the-world trips. These individuals are typically aged around 32 years and quit their jobs to embark on one-to-two-year journeys. Their destinations include countries in two or more continents, invariably Southeast Asia and Indonesia, and mostly involve land travel and visiting rural areas. Such trips involve flexible plans, increasing the challenge, especially with regard to malaria prophylaxis. Advising round-the-world travelers is time-consuming because of the amount of information that must be provided to the traveler. Advisors must develop strategies to commit the traveler to his/her own health, and verify their learnings on disease-prevention measures. Contacting the advisor after the appointment or during the trip can be helpful to clarify unclear instructions or diagnosis made and prescriptions given abroad. Infectious diseases are among the most frequent problems affecting travelers, many of which are preventable by vaccines, medicines, and precautionary measures. The dissemination of counterfeit medicines, particularly antibiotics and antimalarial medicines, emphasizes the need for travelers to carry medicines that they may possibly need on their trip. Additional advice on altitude, scuba diving, and other possible risks may also be given. Considering the difficulties in advising this group, we present a review of the main recommendations on advising these travelers.

Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2013

During 2013, 53 reporting jurisdictions reported 5,865 rabid animals and 3 human rabies cases to the CDC, representing a 4.8% decrease from the 6,162 rabid animals and 1 human case reported in 2012. Ninety-two percent of reported rabid animals were wildlife. Relative contributions by the major animal groups were as follows: 1,898 raccoons (32.4%), 1,598 bats (27.2%), 1,447 skunks (24.7%), 344 foxes (5.9%), 247 cats (4.2%), 86 cattle (1.5%), and 89 dogs (1.5%). One human case was reported from Maryland. The infection was determined to have been transmitted via organ transplantation. Infection in the organ donor, a North Carolina resident, was retrospectively diagnosed. Both the organ donor and the organ recipient were infected with the raccoon rabies virus variant. The third human case, reported by Texas, involved a Guatemalan resident who was detained while crossing the US border. The infection was determined to be caused by a canine rabies virus variant that circulates in Central America.

Vaccine-preventable travel health risks: what is the evidence--what are the gaps?

BACKGROUND

Existing travel health guidelines are based on a variety of data with underpinning evidence ranging from high-quality randomized controlled trials to best estimates from expert opinion. For strategic guidance and to set overall priorities, data about average risk are useful. The World Health Organization (WHO) plans to base future editions of "International Travel and Health" on its new "Handbook for Guideline Development."

METHODS

Based on a systematic search in PubMed, the existing evidence and quality of data on vaccine-preventable disease (VPD) risks in travelers was examined and essentials of vaccine efficacy were briefly reviewed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to evaluate the quality of the data.

RESULTS

Moderate-quality data to determine the risk of VPD exist on those that are frequently imported, whereas in most others the level of confidence with existing data is low or very low.

CONCLUSIONS

In order for the WHO to produce graded risk statements in the updated version of "International Travel and Health," major investment of time plus additional high-quality, generalizable risk data are needed.

Risk factors and pre-travel healthcare of international travellers attending a Dutch travel clinic: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

The number of international travellers is currently estimated to exceed one billion annually. To address travel related health risks and facilitate risk reduction strategies, detailed knowledge of travellers' characteristics is important.

METHOD

In this cross-sectional study, data of a 20% sample of travellers visiting the Academic Medical Center (AMC) travel clinic Amsterdam from July 2011 to July 2012 was collected. Itineraries and protection versus exposure rates of preventable infectious diseases were mapped and reported according to STROBE guidelines.

RESULTS

1749 travellers were included. South-Eastern Asia, South-America and West-Africa were most frequently visited. 26.2% of the population had pre-existing medical conditions (often cardiovascular). Young and VFR travellers had a longer median travel time (28 and 30 days) compared to the overall population (21 days). Young adult travellers were relatively often vaccinated against hepatitis B (43.9% vs. 20.5%, p < .001) and rabies (16.6% vs. 4.3%, p < .001). VFRs were less often vaccinated against hepatitis B (11.6% vs. 30.6%, p < .001) and rabies (1.3% vs. 9.0%, p .012) compared to non-VFR travellers.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-travel guidelines were well adhered to. Young adult travellers had high-risk itineraries but were adequately protected. Improvement of hepatitis B and rabies protection would be desirable, specifically for VFRs.