Background: The early epidemiology of the 2022 monkeypox epidemic in non-endemic countries differs substantially from the epidemiology previously reported from endemic countries. We aimed to describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics among individuals with confirmed cases of monkeypox infection. Methods: We descriptively analysed data for patients with confirmed monkeypox who were included in the GeoSentinel global clinical-care-based surveillance system between May 1 and July 1 2022, across 71 clinical sites in 29 countries. Data collected included demographics, travel history including mass gathering attendance, smallpox vaccination history, social history, sexual history, monkeypox exposure history, medical history, clinical presentation, physical examination, testing results, treatment, and outcomes. We did descriptive analyses of epidemiology and subanalyses of patients with and without HIV, patients with CD4 counts of less than 500 cells per mm3 or 500 cells per mm3 and higher, patients with one sexual partner or ten or more sexual partners, and patients with or without a previous smallpox vaccination. Findings: 226 cases were reported at 18 sites in 15 countries. Of 211 men for whom data were available, 208 (99%) were gay, bisexual, or men who have sex with men (MSM) with a median age of 37 years (range 18–68; IQR 32–43). Of 209 patients for whom HIV status was known, 92 (44%) men had HIV infection with a median CD4 count of 713 cells per mm3 (range 36–1659; IQR 500–885). Of 219 patients for whom data were available, 216 (99%) reported sexual or close intimate contact in the 21 days before symptom onset; MSM reported a median of three partners (IQR 1–8). Of 195 patients for whom data were available, 78 (40%) reported close contact with someone who had confirmed monkeypox. Overall, 30 (13%) of 226 patients were admitted to hospital; 16 (53%) of whom had severe illness, defined as hospital admission for clinical care rather than infection control. No deaths were reported. Compared with patients without HIV, patients with HIV were more likely to have diarrhoea (p=0·002), perianal rash or lesions (p=0·03), and a higher rash burden (median rash burden score 9 [IQR 6–21] for patients with HIV vs median rash burden score 6 [IQR 3–14] for patients without HIV; p<0·0001), but no differences were identified in the proportion of men who had severe illness by HIV status. Interpretation: Clinical manifestations of monkeypox infection differed by HIV status. Recommendations should be expanded to include pre-exposure monkeypox vaccination of groups at high risk of infection who plan to engage in sexual or close intimate contact. Funding: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, International Society of Travel Medicine.

None

Background: More than 30,000 malaria cases are reported annually among international travellers. Despite improvements in malaria control, malaria continues to threaten travellers due to inaccurate perception of risk and sub-optimal pre-travel preparation. Methods: Records with a confirmed malaria diagnosis after travel from January 2003 to July 2016 were obtained from GeoSentinel, a global surveillance network of travel and tropical medicine providers that monitors travel-related morbidity. Records were excluded if exposure country was missing or unascertainable or if there was a concomitant acute diagnosis unrelated to malaria. Records were analyzed to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of international travellers with malaria. Results: There were 5689 travellers included; 325 were children < 18 years. More than half (53%) were visiting friends and relatives (VFRs). Most (83%) were exposed in sub-Saharan Africa. The median trip duration was 32 days (interquartile range 20-75); 53% did not have a pre-travel visit. More than half (62%) were hospitalized; children were hospitalized more frequently than adults (73 and 62%, respectively). Ninety-two per cent had a single Plasmodium species diagnosis, most frequently Plasmodium falciparum (4011; 76%). Travellers with P. falciparum were most frequently VFRs (60%). More than 40% of travellers with a trip duration ≤7 days had Plasmodium vivax. There were 444 (8%) travellers with severe malaria; 31 children had severe malaria. Twelve travellers died. Conclusion: Malaria remains a serious threat to international travellers. Efforts must focus on preventive strategies aimed on children and VFRs, and chemoprophylaxis access and preventive measure adherence should be emphasized.

Background The failure to consider travel-related diagnoses, the lack of diagnostic capacity for specialized laboratory testing, and the declining number of autopsies may affect the diagnosis and management of travel-related infections. Pre- and post-mortem pathology can help determine causes of illness and death in international travelers. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of biopsy and autopsy specimens sent to the Infectious Diseases Pathology Branch laboratory (IDPBL) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for diagnostic testing from 1995 through 2015. Cases were included if the specimen submitted for diagnosis was from a traveler with prior international travel during the disease incubation period and the cause of illness or death was unknown at the time of specimen submission. Results Twenty-one travelers, six (29%) with biopsy specimens and 15 (71%) with autopsy specimens, met the inclusion criteria. Among the 15 travelers who underwent autopsies, the most common diagnoses were protozoal infections (7 travelers; 47%), including five malaria cases, followed by viral infections (6 travelers; 40%). Conclusions Biopsy or autopsy specimens can assist in diagnosing infectious diseases in travelers, especially from pathogens not endemic in the U.S. CDC's IDPBL provides a useful resource for clinicians considering infectious diseases in returned travelers.

Introduction: As international travel increases, travellers may be at increased risk of acquiring infectious diseases not endemic in their home countries. Many journal articles and reference books related to travel medicine cite that between 22-64% of international travellers become ill during or after travel; however, this information is minimal, outdated and limited by poor generalizability. We aim to provide a current and more accurate estimate of the proportion of international travellers who acquire a travel-related illness.Methods: We identified studies via PubMed or travel medicine experts, published between January 1, 1976-December 31, 2016 that included the number of international travellers acquiring a travel-related illness. We excluded studies that focused on a single disease or did not determine a rate based on the total number of travellers. We abstracted information on traveller demographics, trip specifics, study enrollment and follow-up and number of ill travellers and their illnesses.Results: Of 743 studies, nine met the inclusion criteria. The data sources were from North America (four studies) and Europe (five studies). Most travellers were tourists, the most frequent destination regions were Asia and Africa, and the median trip duration ranged from 8-21 days. Six studies enrolled participants at the travellers' pre-travel consultation. All studies collected data through either extraction from the medical record, weekly diaries, or pre- and post-travel questionnaires. Data collection timeframes varied by study. Between 6-87% of travellers became ill across all studies. Four studies provided the best estimate: between 43-79% of travellers who frequently visited developing nations (e.g. India, Tanzania, and Kenya) became ill; travellers most frequently reported diarrhoea.Conclusion: This is the most comprehensive assessment available on the proportion of international travellers that develop a travel-related illness. Additional cohort studies would provide needed data to more precisely determine the rates of illness in international travellers.Keywords: International travel, travel, illness.

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.