No abstract

The majority of travelers seeking PEP at this clinic initiated treatment overseas. Most had not received RIG abroad, when it would have been appropriate. Initiation of appropriate treatment is often delayed and is a concern to those without preexposure rabies immunization. In view of the scarcity of RIG, travelers need to be aware of the risks, consider preexposure immunization, and present early for PEP.

This commentary discusses the findings and conclusions of the paper "Drug resistant human Staphylococcus aureus findings in sanctuary apes and its threat to wild ape populations." This paper confirms the zoonotic transfer of Staphylococcus aureus in a sanctuary setting. The assertion that this in itself is enough to reconsider the conservation potential of ape reintroduction provides an opportunity to discuss risk analysis of pathogen transmission, following IUCN guidelines, using S. aureus as an example. It is concluded that ape reintroduction projects must have disease risk mitigation strategies that include effective biosecurity protocols and pathogen surveillance. These strategies will assist with creating a well planned and executed reintroduction. This provides one way to enforce habitat protection, to minimise human encroachment and the risks from the illegal wildlife trade. Thus reintroduction must remain a useful tool in the conservation toolbox.

Available online xxxKeywords: Travel Vaccination Healthcare system Viral hepatitis infection a b s t r a c tObjectives: A routine review of hepatitis A travel vaccination recommendations was brought forward in June 2017 due to hepatitis A vaccine shortages and a concurrent outbreak in men who have sex with men (MSM). There were three objectives: first, to document the review process for changing the recommendations for the UK travellers in June 2017.Second, to study the impact of these changes on prescribing in general practice in 2017 compared with the previous 5 years. Third, to study any changes in hepatitis A notifications in JuneeOctober 2017 compared with the previous 5 years.Study design: This is an observational study. Methods: Travel vaccination recommendations for countries with either low-risk (<20%) or high-risk (>90%) status according to child hepatitis A seroprevalence were not changed. A total of 67 intermediate-risk countries with existing recommendations for most travellers and with new data on rural sanitation levels were shortlisted for the analysis. Data on child hepatitis A seroprevalence, country income status, access to sanitation in rural areas and traveller volumes were obtained. Information about the vaccine supply was obtained from Public Health England. Changes to the existing classification were made through expert consensus, based on countries' hepatitis A seroprevalence, sanitation levels, level of income, volume of travel and hepatitis A traveller cases. Data on the number of combined and monovalent hepatitis Aecontaining vaccines prescribed in England, 2012e2017, were obtained from the National Health Service Business Service Authorities. The number of monthly prescriptions for JanuaryeSeptember 2017 was compared with the mean numberof prescriptions for the same month in the previous 5 years (t-test, a ¼ 5%, df ¼ 4). The Improved access to good sanitation in rural areas and low seroprevalence estimates among children have led to 36 countries to no longer require vaccination for most travellers. These changes do not seem to have impacted on hepatitis A notifications in England, although further research will be needed to quantify the impact more precisely.