Search

Background Pediatric international travelers account for nearly half of measles importations in the United States. Over one third of pediatric international travelers depart the United States without the recommended measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations: 2 doses for travelers ≥12 months and 1 dose for travelers 6 to <12 months. Methods We developed a model to compare 2 strategies among a simulated cohort of international travelers (6 months to <6 years): (1) No pretravel health encounter (PHE): travelers depart with baseline MMR vaccination status; (2) PHE: MMR-eligible travelers are offered vaccination. All pediatric travelers experience a destination-specific risk of measles exposure (mean, 30 exposures/million travelers). If exposed to measles, travelers' age and MMR vaccination status determine the risk of infection (range, 3%-90%). We included costs of medical care, contact tracing, and lost wages from the societal perspective. We varied inputs in sensitivity analyses. Model outcomes included projected measles cases, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($/quality-adjusted life year [QALY], cost-effectiveness threshold ≤$100 000/QALY). Results Compared with no PHE, PHE would avert 57 measles cases at $9.2 million/QALY among infant travelers and 7 measles cases at $15.0 million/QALY among preschool-aged travelers. Clinical benefits of PHE would be greatest for infants but cost-effective only for travelers to destinations with higher risk for measles exposure (ie, ≥160 exposures/million travelers) or if more US-acquired cases resulted from an infected traveler, such as in communities with limited MMR coverage. Conclusions Pretravel MMR vaccination provides the greatest clinical benefit for infant travelers and can be cost-effective before travel to destinations with high risk for measles exposure or from communities with low MMR vaccination coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Globally mobile populations are at higher risk of acquiring geographically restricted infections and may play a role in the international spread of infectious diseases. Despite this, data about sources of health information used by international travelers are limited. We surveyed 1,254 travelers embarking from Boston Logan International Airport regarding sources of health information. We focused our analysis on travelers to low or low-middle income (LLMI) countries, as defined by the World Bank 2009 World Development Report. A total of 476 survey respondents were traveling to LLMI countries. Compared with travelers to upper-middle or high income (UMHI) countries, travelers to LLMI countries were younger, more likely to be foreign-born, and more frequently reported visiting family as the purpose of their trip. Prior to their trips, 46% of these travelers did not pursue health information of any type. In a multivariate analysis, being foreign-born, traveling alone, traveling for less than 14 days, and traveling for vacation each predicted a higher odds of not pursuing health information among travelers to LLMI countries. The most commonly cited reason for not pursuing health information was a lack of concern about health problems related to the trip. Among travelers to LLMI countries who did pursue health information, the internet was the most common source, followed by primary care practitioners. Less than a third of travelers to LLMI countries who sought health information visited a travel medicine specialist. In our study, 46% of travelers to LLMI countries did not seek health advice prior to their trip, largely due to a lack of concern about health issues related to travel. Among travelers who sought medical advice, the internet and primary care providers were the most common sources of information. These results suggest the need for health outreach and education programs targeted at travelers and primary care practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]