Search

Importance: The US population is experiencing a resurgence of measles, with more than 1000 cases during the first 6 months of 2019. Imported measles cases among returning international travelers are the source of most US measles outbreaks, and these importations can be reduced with pretravel measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination of pediatric travelers. Although it is estimated that children account for less than 10% of US international travelers, pediatric travelers account for 47% of all known measles importations., Objective: To examine clinical practice regarding MMR vaccination of pediatric international travelers and to identify reasons for nonvaccination of pediatric travelers identified as MMR eligible., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of pediatric travelers (ages ≥6 months and <18 years) attending pretravel consultation at 29 sites associated with Global TravEpiNet (GTEN), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-supported consortium of clinical sites that provide pretravel consultations, was performed from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination among MMR vaccination-eligible pediatric travelers., Results: Of 14 602 pretravel consultations for pediatric international travelers, 2864 travelers (19.6%; 1475 [51.5%] males; 1389 [48.5%] females) were eligible to receive pretravel MMR vaccination at the time of the consultation: 365 of 398 infants aged 6 to 12 months (91.7%), 2161 of 3623 preschool-aged travelers aged 1 to 6 years (59.6%), and 338 of 10 581 school-aged travelers aged 6 to 18 years (3.2%). Of 2864 total MMR vaccination-eligible travelers, 1182 (41.3%) received the MMR vaccine and 1682 (58.7%) did not. The MMR vaccination-eligible travelers who did not receive vaccine included 161 of 365 infants (44.1%), 1222 of 2161 preschool-aged travelers (56.5%), and 299 of 338 school-aged travelers (88.5%). We observed a diversity of clinical practice at different GTEN sites. In multivariable analysis, MMR vaccination-eligible pediatric travelers were less likely to be vaccinated at the pretravel consultation if they were school-aged (model 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.24-0.42; P < .001]; model 2: OR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.14-0.47; P < .001]) or evaluated at specific GTEN sites (South: OR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01-0.52; P < .001]; West: OR, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.02-0.47; P < .001]). The most common reasons for nonvaccination were clinician decision not to administer MMR vaccine (621 of 1682 travelers [36.9%]) and guardian refusal (612 [36.4%])., Conclusions and Relevance: Although most infant and preschool-aged travelers evaluated at GTEN sites were eligible for pretravel MMR vaccination, only 41.3% were vaccinated during pretravel consultation, mostly because of clinician decision or guardian refusal. Strategies may be needed to improve MMR vaccination among pediatric travelers and to reduce measles importations and outbreaks in the United States.

Background Measles importations and the subsequent spread from US travelers returning from abroad are responsible for most measles cases in the United States. Increasing measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination among departing US travelers could reduce the clinical impact and costs of measles in the United States. Methods We designed a decision tree to evaluate MMR vaccination at a pretravel health encounter (PHE), compared with no encounter. We derived input parameters from Global TravEpiNet data and literature. We quantified Riskexposure to measles while traveling and the average number of US-acquired cases and contacts due to a measles importation. In sensitivity analyses, we examined the impact of destination-specific Riskexposure, including hot spots with active measles outbreaks; the percentage of previously-unvaccinated travelers; and the percentage of travelers returning to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage. Results The no-encounter strategy projected 22 imported and 66 US-acquired measles cases, costing $14.8M per 10M travelers. The PHE strategy projected 15 imported and 35 US-acquired cases at $190.3M per 10M travelers. PHE was not cost effective for all international travelers (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $4.6M/measles case averted), but offered better value (ICER <$100 000/measles case averted) or was even cost saving for travelers to hot spots, especially if travelers were previously unvaccinated or returning to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage. Conclusions PHEs that improve MMR vaccination among US international travelers could reduce measles cases, but are costly. The best value is for travelers with a high likelihood of measles exposure, especially if the travelers are previously unvaccinated or will return to US communities with heterogeneous MMR coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although pediatric travelers comprise < 10% of US international travelers, they account for almost half of all measles importations among returning travelers. For travelers 1–18 years with no other evidence of measles immunity, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends 2 MMR vaccine doses before departure; 1 dose is recommended for infant travelers (6 to <12 months) and does not count toward their primary immunization series. All US travelers (6 months to < 6 years) are at risk for being undervaccinated for measles because MMR is routinely given at 1 years and 4–6 years. Methods We developed a decision tree model to evaluate the clinical impact and cost per case averted of pretravel health encounters (PHE) that vaccinate MMR-eligible pediatric international travelers. We compared 2 strategies for infant (6 to < 12 months) and preschool-aged (1 to <6 years) travelers: (1) no PHE : travelers departed with baseline MMR vaccination status vs. (2) PHE : MMR-eligible travelers were offered vaccination. All simulated travelers experienced a destination-specific risk of measles exposure during travel (mean, 237exposures/10M travelers; range, 19–6,750 exposures/10M travelers); if exposed to measles, travelers were at risk of illness stratified by age and MMR vaccination status (range, 0.03–0.90). Costs include direct medical costs and lost work wages for guardians. Model outcomes included measles cases, costs, and cost per case averted. We varied inputs in sensitivity analyses. Results Compared with no PHE , PHE averted 451 measles cases at $985,000/case averted for infant travelers and 54 measles cases at $1.5 million/case averted for preschool-aged travelers (table, bottom). PHE can be cost-saving for travelers to regions with higher risk of measles exposure and if more MMR-eligible travelers are vaccinated at PHE (Figure 1). At a risk of exposure associated with European travel, PHE had better value when a measles importation led to a higher number of contacts or more US-acquired cases per importation (Figure 2). Conclusion PHE for pediatric travelers (6 months to <6 years) decreased the number of imported measles cases and saved costs, especially if targeted to travelers with higher-risk destinations, if more MMR-eligible travelers are vaccinated at PHE, or if outbreaks are larger. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]