METHODS: Data were collected on travellers evaluated at GeoSentinel Network sites who reported healthcare during travel. Both unplanned and planned healthcare were analysed, including the reason and nature of healthcare sought, characteristics of the treatment provided and outcomes. Travellers that presented for rabies post-exposure prophylaxis were described elsewhere and were excluded from detailed analysis.
RESULTS: From May 2017 through June 2020, after excluding travellers obtaining rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (n= 415), 1093 travellers reported care for a medical or dental issue that was an unanticipated part of the travellers' planned itinerary (unplanned healthcare). Travellers who sought unplanned healthcare abroad had frequent diagnoses of acute diarrhoea, dengue, falciparum malaria and unspecified viral syndrome, and obtained care in 131 countries. Thirty-four (3%) reported subsequent deterioration and 230 (21%) reported no change in condition; a third (n = 405; 37%) had a pre-travel health encounter. Forty-one travellers had sufficient data on planned healthcare abroad for analysis. The most common destinations were the US, France, Dominican Republic, Belgium and Mexico. The top reasons for their planned healthcare abroad were unavailability of procedure at home (n = 9; 19%), expertise abroad (n = 9; 19%), lower cost (n = 8; 17%) and convenience (n = 7; 15%); a third (n = 13; 32%) reported cosmetic or surgical procedures. Early and late complications occurred in 14 (33%) and 4 (10%) travellers, respectively. Four travellers (10%) had a pre-travel health encounter.
CONCLUSIONS: International travellers encounter health problems during travel that often could be prevented by pre-travel consultation. Travellers obtaining planned healthcare abroad can experience negative health consequences associated with treatments abroad, for which pre-travel consultations could provide advice and potentially help to prevent complications.
METHODS: Clinicians reporting patients with suspected AMS to GeoSentinel submitted demographic, clinical, itinerary, and exposure data. We defined a probable case as travel to Tioman Island after 1 March 2011, eosinophilia (>5%), clinical or laboratory-supported myositis, and negative trichinellosis serology. Case confirmation required histologic observation of sarcocysts or isolation of Sarcocystis species DNA from muscle biopsy.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients met the case definition (62 probable and 6 confirmed). All but 2 resided in Europe; all were tourists and traveled mostly during the summer months. The most frequent symptoms reported were myalgia (100%), fatigue (91%), fever (82%), headache (59%), and arthralgia (29%); onset clustered during 2 distinct periods: "early" during the second and "late" during the sixth week after departure from the island. Blood eosinophilia and elevated serum creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) levels were observed beginning during the fifth week after departure. Sarcocystis nesbitti DNA was recovered from 1 muscle biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians evaluating travelers returning ill from Malaysia with myalgia, with or without fever, should consider AMS, noting the apparent biphasic aspect of the disease, the later onset of elevated CPK and eosinophilia, and the possibility for relapses. The exact source of infection among travelers to Tioman Island remains unclear but needs to be determined to prevent future illnesses.