Search

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and International Travel In this report from five U.S.-based travel clinics, approximately 5% of returning international travelers were found to have asymptomatically ...

Background Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) were common childhood diseases in the United States prior to the introduction of their respective vaccines. Measles was declared eliminated in the United States in 2000. However, 628 cases were reported in 2014, the majority of which have been linked to international travel. The study team set out to investigate the seroprevalence of MMRV in our local population to determine whether such a process can lead to meaningful recommendations for assessing travelers at risk. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional seroprevalence study using a quota sampling method. A total of 460 leftover serum samples were collected from individuals born prior to 1996, who live in the Lehigh Valley region of southeast Pennsylvania. The samples were allocated to five birth-year cohorts, and the seroprevalence of each cohort to MMRV was compared. Additionally, overall seroprevalence of each disease was compared with data from prior national studies. Gender differences within each birth cohort were also assessed. Results The overall seroprevalence values of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were 85.8, 82.8, 96.6, and 97.4%, respectively. There were significant associations between seroprevalence and birth cohort for measles ( p = 0.01) as well as mumps ( p = 0.037). The overall seroprevalence for our study sample was significantly different from the national seroprevalence results of measles, mumps, and rubella. Conclusions Our study showed dramatically lower immunity rates for measles and mumps than those shown by prior national seroprevalence studies. The rates in many of the later birth cohorts born after 1966 were significantly lower than the rates reported as necessary to sustain herd immunity. Given that patients' immunization records are not always available or complete, collecting local seroprevalence data may be necessary to more accurately recommend antibody testing and vaccination during pre-travel assessments.

Introduction: This study investigated factors that influence emergency medicine (EM) patients’ decisionsto participate in clinical trials and whether the impact of these factors differs from those of other medicalspecialties. Methods: A survey was distributed in EM, family medicine (FM), infectious disease (ID), and obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN) outpatient waiting areas. Eligibility criteria included those who were 18 years ofage or older, active patients on the day of the survey, and able to complete the survey without assistance.We used the Kruskal-Wallis test and ordinal logistic regression analyses to identify differences inparticipants’ responses. Results: A total of 2,893 eligible subjects were approached, and we included 1,841 surveys in the final analysis. Statistically significant differences (p≤0.009) were found for eight of the ten motivating factorsbetween EM and one or more of the other specialties. Regardless of a patient’s gender, race, andeducation, the relationship with their doctor was more motivating to patients seen in other specialties thanto EM patients (FM [odds ratio {OR}:1.752, 95% confidence interval {CI}{1.285-2.389}], ID [OR:3.281,95% CI{2.293-4.695}], and OB/GYN [OR:2.408, 95% CI{1.741-3.330}]). EM’s rankings of “how well theresearch was explained” and whether “the knowledge learned would benefit others” as their top twomotivating factors were similar across other specialties. All nine barriers showed statistically significantdifferences (p≤0.008) between EM and one or more other specialties. Participants from all specialtiesindicated “risk of unknown side effects” as their strongest barrier. Regardless of the patients’ race, “timecommitment” was considered to be more of a barrier to other specialties when compared to EM (FM[OR:1.613, 95% CI{1.218-2.136}], ID [OR:1.340, 95% CI{1.006-1.784}], or OB/GYN [OR:1.901, 95%CI{1.431-2.526}]). Among the six resources assessed that help patients decide whether to participate ina clinical trial, only one scored statistically significantly different for EM (p

Background We sought to evaluate and provide better itinerary-specific care to precounseled travelers and to assess diseases occurring while traveling abroad by surveying a community population. An additional quality improvement initiative was to expand our post-travel survey to be a more valuable tool in gathering high-quality quantitative data. Methods From de-identified data collected via post-travel surveys, we identified a cohort of 525 patients for a retrospective observational analysis. We analyzed illness encountered while abroad, medication use, and whether a physician was consulted. We also examined itinerary variables, including continents and countries visited. Results The 525 post-travel surveys collected showed that the majority of respondents traveled to Asia (31%) or Africa (30%). The mean number of travel days was 21.3 (median, 14). Univariate analysis demonstrated a statistically significant increase of risk for general illness when comparing travel duration of less than 14 days to greater than 14 days (11.3% vs 27.7%, p

To identify whether racial differences exist among various factors associated with patients’ decision to participate in clinical research trials. A self-administered, IRB-approved survey was utilized with inclusion criteria requiring subjects to be 18 years of age or older, having active patient status and ability to complete the survey without assistance. Subjects were asked to rate potential influential motivators, barriers, and facilitators on a “no influence” (0) to “most influence” (4) scale for participation in research that tests a new drug or device. Kruskal-Wallis testing was used to identify factors significantly associated with race. Analysis included 1643 surveys: 949 (57.8 %) Caucasian; 217 (13.2 %) African-American; 317 (19.3 %) Hispanic; 62 (3.8 %) Multiracial; and 98 (6.0 %) “Other” minorities. Statistically significant differences (p ≤ .02) by race were found for five out of ten motivating factors. “How well the research study is explained to me” had the highest mean value for all races except other minorities, for whom “Knowledge learned from my participation will benefit someone in the future” scored highest. “Risk of unknown side-effects” was the greatest barrier for all races. Racial differences exist not only between Caucasians and Minorities for the factors associated with their clinical trial participation, but also among different minority races themselves. To promote diversity in research, recruitment strategies for each individual race should be customized based on what matters to the target population.

Mycotic aneurysms of the carotid arteries are rare. We describe a right carotid artery mycotic aneurysm in a 70-year-old man. His symptoms began immediately after a complicated molar extraction and persisted until the diagnosis was made and surgical resection and repair were undertaken. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated from multiple blood cultures and excised tissues. We review another 73 cases uncovered by an extensive literature search. Bacteremia, recent surgery, head and neck infections, dental infections, and endocarditis are the most common predisposing conditions. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging are techniques for accurately confirming the suspicion of any aneurysm, but angiography is the gold standard. Primary resection of the aneurysm with native vein interposition, in conjunction with prolonged antibiotic therapy, is the preferred strategy. A total of 6 cases thus far, including ours, have been clearly associated with dental surgical procedures. These cases are characterized by rapidly enlarging neck masses in the presence of fever. Microorganisms, particularly gram-negative rods, in contrast to normal oral flora, eg, streptococci and anaerobes, are often isolated. With prompt diagnosis and treatment, outcome is often satisfactory.

People who travel to areas with high rabies endemicity and have animal contact are at increased risk for rabies exposure. We examined characteristics of international travelers queried regarding rabies vaccination during pretravel consultations at Global TravEpiNet (GTEN) practices during 2009-2010.We performed bivariate and multivariable analyses of data collected from 18 GTEN clinics. Travel destinations were classified by strength level of rabies vaccination recommendation.Of 13,235 travelers, 226 (2%) reported previous rabies vaccination, and 406 (3%) received rabies vaccine at the consultation. Common travel purposes for these 406 travelers were leisure (26%), research/education (17%), and nonmedical service work (14%). Excluding the 226 who were previously vaccinated, 8070 (62%) of 13,009 travelers intended to visit one or more countries with a strong recommendation for rabies vaccination; 1675 (21%) of these 8070 intended to travel for 1 month or more. Among these 1675 travelers, 145 (9%) were vaccinated, 498 (30%) declined vaccination, 832 (50%) had itineraries that clinicians determined did not indicate vaccination, and 200 (12%) remained unvaccinated for other reasons. In both bivariate and multivariate analyses, travelers with trip durations6 months versus 1-3 months (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=4.9 [95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1, 11.4]) and those traveling for "research/education" or to "provide medical care" (adjusted OR=5.1 [95% CI 1.9, 13.7] and 9.5 [95% CI 2.2, 40.8], respectively), compared with leisure travelers, were more likely to receive rabies vaccination.Few travelers at GTEN clinics received rabies vaccine, although many planned trips 1 month long or more to a strong-recommendation country. Clinicians often determined that vaccine was not indicated, and travelers often declined vaccine when it was offered. The decision to vaccinate should take into account the strength of the vaccine recommendation at the destination country, duration of stay, availability of postexposure prophylaxis, potential for exposure to animals, and likelihood of recurrent travel to high-risk destinations.

Background International travel poses a risk of destination-specific illness and may contribute to the global spread of infectious diseases. Despite this, little is known about the health characteristics and pretravel healthcare of US international travelers, particularly those at higher risk of travel-associated illness. Methods We formed a national consortium (Global TravEpiNet) of 18 US clinics registered to administer yellow fever vaccination. We collected data regarding demographic and health characteristics, destinations, purpose of travel, and pretravel healthcare from 13235 international travelers who sought pretravel consultation at these sites from January 2009 through January 2011. Results The destinations and itineraries of Global TravEpiNet travelers differed from those of the overall population of US international travelers. The majority of Global TravEpiNet travelers were visiting low- or lower-middle-income countries, and Africa was the most frequently visited region. Seventy-five percent of travelers were visiting malaria-endemic countries, and 38% were visiting countries endemic for yellow fever. Fifty-nine percent of travelers reported ≥1 medical condition. Atovaquone/proguanil was the most commonly prescribed antimalarial drug, and most travelers received an antibiotic for self-treatment of travelers' diarrhea. Hepatitis A and typhoid were the most frequently administered vaccines. Conclusions Data from Global TravEpiNet provide insight into the characteristics and pretravel healthcare of US international travelers who are at increased risk of travel-associated illness due to itinerary, purpose of travel, or existing medical conditions. Improved understanding of this epidemiologically significant population may help target risk-reduction strategies and interventions to limit the spread of infections related to global travel.

Pseudomonas stutzeriis a rare cause of nosocomial infection. We report a pediatric case of nosocomially acquiredP. stutzeribrain abscess after subdural grid implantation before surgery for refractory epilepsy and review the literature.