Format

Send to

Choose Destination
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Nov 13;12(11):e0006951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006951. eCollection 2018 Nov.

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

Author information

1
Institut Méditerranée Infection, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France.
2
Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
3
Department of Infectious Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, and Unit of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
4
Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
5
Public Health and Tropical Medicine Department, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia, and WORLDWISE Travellers Health Centres of New Zealand.
6
The Center of Geographical Medicine, Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, and Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
7
J.D. MacLean Centre for Tropical Diseases, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
8
Tropical Disease Unit, UHN-Toronto General Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
9
Department of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
10
CIWEC Hospital and Travel Medicine Center, Kathmandu, Nepal.
11
School of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, and Victorian Infectious Disease Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital at the Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Australia.
12
Clinique Santé-voyage, Fondation du CHUM, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
13
Department of Infectious Diseases - Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
14
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
15
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
16
TravelSafe Medical Centre - Central Health Medical Practice, Hong Kong, China.
17
National Institute for Communicable Diseases, South Africa.
18
University of Zürich Centre for Travel Medicine, WHO Collaborating Centre for Travellers' Health, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zürich, Switzerland.
19
Maxwell Finland Laboratory for Infectious Diseases, Boston Medical Center, and Department of Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
20
Department of Global Health, Boston University School of Public Health and Section of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Abstract

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.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Public Library of Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center