PURPOSE OF REVIEW:Novel vaccines for dengue and chikungunya viruses offer new prevention options against two globally important arboviral diseases. This review summarizes recent developments in vaccine licensure, implementation, real-world experience and research priorities, with emphasis on implications for both endemic populations and travelers. RECENT FINDINGS:Of the three live-attenuated dengue vaccines licensed to date, TAK-003 is authorized in >40 countries and Butantan-DV in Brazil, while manufacturing of CYD-TDV is discontinued. Long-term and postmarketing data continue to refine understanding of serotype-specific protection, waning immunity, and rare adverse events.For chikungunya, two single-dose vaccines are licensed-a live-attenuated vaccine (VLA1553) and virus-like particle vaccine (PXVX0317). Uptake is guided by emerging safety and effectiveness data, with each platform offering potential advantages in different settings.Further data on long-term protection, safety, effectiveness, use in vulnerable populations and integration into outbreak management and immunization systems is anticipated. SUMMARY:Dengue and chikungunya vaccines are increasingly being used in immunization programs and pretravel consultations. Further real-world data are needed-particularly for seronegative dengue vaccine recipients and older, immunocompromised or medically at-risk adults. Research priorities include developing single-dose, nonlive dengue vaccines suitable for high-risk groups, understanding long-term chikungunya vaccine performance, and exploring broader flaviviral or pan-arboviral platforms.

BACKGROUND:Long-term follow-up data on the travel-associated burden of vector-borne diseases (VBDs) are scarce. A prospective multi-site observational study was conducted to delineate the longitudinal course, symptom patterns, physical and mental burden and factors associated with prolonged illness in travellers after four VBDs. METHODS:Patients with confirmed travel-associated acute chikungunya, dengue, Zika or falciparum malaria were recruited at 15 GeoSentinel sites from 2016 to 2021. Persistent signs and symptoms were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months (M) post-diagnosis, using a multi-modular study questionnaire with quality of life (QOL) evaluated by 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12). Demographic, premorbid and acute disease characteristics were tested in multivariate analyses to determine factors associated with persistence of symptoms at M3. Missing data were imputed by rules and statistical methods. RESULTS:Among 273 patients enrolled, 35 (13%) had chikungunya, 110 (40%) dengue, 19 (7%) Zika and 109 (40%) falciparum malaria. Median age was 38 years (interquartile range 30-49), 148/273 (54%) were men. At M3, 24/35 (69%) of chikungunya, 27/110 (25%) of dengue, 8/19 (42%) of Zika and 12/109 (11%) of malaria patients had persistent symptoms. The proportion of symptomatic chikungunya patients was 18/35 (51%) at M6, mainly due to musculoskeletal symptoms including arthritis and stiffness. In dengue patients, fatigue and musculoskeletal symptoms without arthritis persisted until 1 year. Zika patients reported persisting headaches, musculoskeletal symptoms including arthritis and fatigue. One month after malaria, fatigue was the main persisting symptom, which resolved almost completely at M3. At M12, 6/35 (17%) of chikungunya, 5/110 (5%) dengue, 3/19 (16%) Zika and only 1/109 (1%) of malaria patients were still symptomatic.Impaired QOL was noted at M3 by 23/35 (66%) of patients with chikungunya, 20/110 (18%) with dengue and 6/19 (32%) with Zika but only 4/109 (4%) with malaria. Female sex, Zika, chikungunya and musculoskeletal symptoms during acute infection were associated with persistent M3 symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:Post-arboviral symptoms and impaired QOL persisted beyond 6 months after chikungunya, dengue and Zika. In contrast, post-malaria fatigue syndrome resolved within 3 months.

INTRODUCTION:Dengue has emerged as the most widespread and rapidly increasing vector-borne disease globally and is currently a global public health threat. Geographical, environmental, host and/or vector-specific factors can act as drivers of dengue epidemics globally. AREAS COVERED:The current dengue virus distribution and the geographical expansion of competent Aedes spp. vectors are reviewed. Recent advances in vaccine development and novel treatment options under evaluation are highlighted, including novel antivirals and monoclonal antibodies. EXPERT OPINION:Climate change and human-related factors are driving the global expansion of dengue risk, including in temperate regions. While licensed vaccines offer new prevention opportunities, limitations remain, especially for vulnerable populations. Continued research into effective antivirals and innovative vaccines is critical. A multidisciplinary approach integrating vector control, vaccination, and emerging therapies is essential to address the growing dengue burden in a warming world.

BACKGROUND:Two vaccines have been licensed to prevent chikungunya, a live attenuated vaccine (IXCHIQ) manufactured by Valneva and a virus-like particle chikungunya vaccine (VIMKUNYA) manufactured by Bavarian Nordic. One or both vaccines are now available in many countries globally, including Brazil, Canada, United Kingdom, United States and some European countries and territories. KEY FINDINGS:While the absence of a head-to-head study limits comparative inferences, the two vaccines have several different characteristics that should be considered when advising individual travellers. We outline key information on the vaccines including immunogenicity and safety data, recommendations for use in travellers and guidance for use in pregnancy and breastfeeding. CONCLUSION:Knowledge of the profiles and key features of the live attenuated and virus-like particle vaccines will enable healthcare providers to better advise travellers who are considering chikungunya vaccination.

Pretravel consultation by healthcare providers (HCPs) with travel medicine expertise can mitigate travel-related health risks. This analysis aimed to understand US-based HCPs' pretravel consultation educational gaps, priorities, barriers, and opportunities. An electronic survey was conducted May-June 2024, using a convenience sample of HCPs identified through the Med Learning Group and travel specialists from the International Society of Travel Medicine and American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. In total, 205 HCPs completed the survey, including physicians (50 %), nurse practitioners (19 %), nurses (12 %), pharmacists (11 %), physician associates (7 %). Most (66 %) provided pretravel consultations and only 21 % held formal travel medicine certification. HCPs not providing pretravel consultation were less comfortable with traveler's diarrhea self-treatment, malaria chemoprophylaxis, altitude illness prevention, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, rabies, and typhoid vaccination management. The most desired topics for education were travel vaccinations (94, 46 %), travel medicine insurance (89, 43 %), and altitude illness prevention (86, 42 %). Major barriers to providing pretravel consultation were lack of clarity about reimbursement (110, 54 %), lack of insurance coverage (89, 43 %), and inability to stock travel vaccines (73, 36 %). Top interventions suggested to increase access to and awareness of pretravel consultation included primary care physician education and community outreach. Most HCPs were interested in pretravel educational opportunities, but comfort varied by experience and certification, highlighting need for targeted training, especially for primary care providers. Top barriers were insurance coverage for pretravel consultation and access to travel vaccines, underscoring critical gaps in the US healthcare system.

Highlight: The rigorous process of the US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has guided vaccine policy in the USA and has been adopted broadly. Given recent disruptions to ACIP leading to distrust in the new committee, possible strategies are discussed for guiding travel medicine providers that have relied on ACIP recommendations.

Transmission routes of Mycobacterium ulcerans to humans are not clear, but the predominance of long-term travellers and migrants in imported cases reflect possible prolonged exposures to specific factors in rural environments. Buruli ulcer should always be considered in cases of non-healing ulcers, even if other infectious agents are identified initially.

Endemic in over 45 countries globally, recent reports of locally acquired melioidosis in novel geographical areas, such as Southern US, have highlighted the expanding geographical range of Burkholderia pseudomallei. Climate change and severe weather events have been linked to an increase in cases of melioidosis, which follows environmental exposure to the bacterium. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the possibility of the disease, with its diverse and often delayed presentations, even in areas not previously known to have risk. Over 200 cases of travel-associated melioidosis have been reported in the literature, highlighting the need to consider this disease in non-endemic areas, as diagnostic delays of up to 18 months have been identified. The review updates the global epidemiology of melioidosis focusing on new geographical areas where cases have been diagnosed and imported cases, unusual clinical presentations and co-infections, and less frequent modes of transmission (laboratory exposures and the risk of acquisition due to imported infected animals and contaminated products).

Background Chikungunya is an important travel-related disease because of its rapid geographical expansion and potential for prolonged morbidity. Improved understanding of the epidemiology of travel-related chikungunya infections may influence prevention strategies including education and vaccination.Methods We analysed data from travellers with confirmed or probable chikungunya reported to GeoSentinel sites from 2005 to 2020. Confirmed chikungunya was defined as a compatible clinical history plus either virus isolation, positive nucleic acid test or seroconversion/rising titre in paired sera. Probable chikungunya was defined as a compatible clinical history with a single positive serology result.Results 1202 travellers (896 confirmed and 306 probable) with chikungunya were included. The median age was 43 years (range 0-91; interquartile range [IQR]: 31-55); 707 (58.8%) travellers were female. Most infections were acquired in the Caribbean (28.8%), Southeast Asia (22.8%), South Central Asia (14.2%) and South America (14.2%). The highest numbers of chikungunya cases reported to GeoSentinel were in 2014 (28.3%), 2015 (14.3%) and 2019 (11.9%). The most frequent reasons for travel were tourism (n = 592; 49.3%) and visiting friends or relatives (n = 334; 27.7%). The median time to presentation to a GeoSentinel site was 23 days (IQR: 7-52) after symptom onset. In travellers with confirmed chikungunya and no other reported illnesses, the most frequently reported symptoms included musculoskeletal symptoms (98.8%), fever/chills/sweats (68.7%) and dermatologic symptoms (35.5%). Among 917 travellers with information available, 296 (32.3%) had a pretravel consultation.Conclusions Chikungunya was acquired by international travellers in almost 100 destinations globally. Vector precautions and vaccination where recommended should be integrated into pretravel visits for travellers going to areas with chikungunya or areas with the potential for transmission. Continued surveillance of travel-related chikungunya may help public health officials and clinicians limit the transmission of this potentially debilitating disease by defining regions where protective measures (e.g. pretravel vaccination) should be strongly considered.

Problem/Condition: During 2012-2021, the volume of international travel reached record highs and lows. This period also was marked by the emergence or large outbreaks of multiple infectious diseases (e.g., Zika virus, yellow fever, and COVID-19). Over time, the growing ease and increased frequency of travel has resulted in the unprecedented global spread of infectious diseases. Detecting infectious diseases and other diagnoses among travelers can serve as sentinel surveillance for new or emerging pathogens and provide information to improve case identification, clinical management, and public health prevention and response.Reporting Period: 2012-2021.Description of System: Established in 1995, the GeoSentinel Network (GeoSentinel), a collaboration between CDC and the International Society of Travel Medicine, is a global, clinical-care-based surveillance and research network of travel and tropical medicine sites that monitors infectious diseases and other adverse health events that affect international travelers. GeoSentinel comprises 71 sites in 29 countries where clinicians diagnose illnesses and collect demographic, clinical, and travel-related information about diseases and illnesses acquired during travel using a standardized report form. Data are collected electronically via a secure CDC database, and daily reports are generated for assistance in detecting sentinel events (i.e., unusual patterns or clusters of disease). GeoSentinel sites collaborate to report disease or population-specific findings through retrospective database analyses and the collection of supplemental data to fill specific knowledge gaps. GeoSentinel also serves as a communications network by using internal notifications, ProMed alerts, and peer-reviewed publications to alert clinicians and public health professionals about global outbreaks and events that might affect travelers. This report summarizes data from 20 U.S. GeoSentinel sites and reports on the detection of three worldwide events that demonstrate GeoSentinel's notification capability.Results: During 2012-2021, data were collected by all GeoSentinel sites on approximately 200,000 patients who had approximately 244,000 confirmed or probable travel-related diagnoses. Twenty GeoSentinel sites from the United States contributed records during the 10-year surveillance period, submitting data on 18,336 patients, of which 17,389 lived in the United States and were evaluated by a clinician at a U.S. site after travel. Of those patients, 7,530 (43.3%) were recent migrants to the United States, and 9,859 (56.7%) were returning nonmigrant travelers.Among the recent migrants to the United States, the median age was 28.5 years (range = <19 years to 93 years); 47.3% were female, and 6.0% were U.S. citizens. A majority (89.8%) were seen as outpatients, and among 4,672 migrants with information available, 4,148 (88.8%) did not receive pretravel health information. Of 13,986 diagnoses among migrants, the most frequent were vitamin D deficiency (20.2%), Blastocystis (10.9%), and latent tuberculosis (10.3%). Malaria was diagnosed in 54 (<1%) migrants. Of the 26 migrants diagnosed with malaria for whom pretravel information was known, 88.5% did not receive pretravel health information. Before November 16, 2018, patients' reasons for travel, exposure country, and and latent tuberculosis (10.3%). Malaria was diagnosed in 54 (<1%) migrants. Of the 26 migrants diagnosed with malaria for whom pretravel information was known, 88.5% did not receive pretravel health information. Before November 16, 2018, patients' reasons for travel, exposure country, and exposure region were not linked to an individual diagnosis. Thus, results of these data from January 1, 2012, to November 15, 2018 (early period), and from November 16, 2018, to December 31, 2021 (later period), are reported separately. During the early and later periods, the most frequent regions of exposure were Sub-Saharan Africa (22.7% and 26.2%, respectively), the Caribbean (21.3% and 8.4%, respectively), Central America (13.4% and 27.6%, respectively), and South East Asia (13.1% and 16.9%, respectively). Migrants with diagnosed malaria were most frequently exposed in Sub-Saharan Africa (89.3% and 100%, respectively). Among nonmigrant travelers returning to the United States, the median age was 37 years (range = <19 years to 96 years); 55.7% were female, 75.3% were born in the United States, and 89.4% were U.S. citizens. A majority (90.6%) were seen as outpatients, and of 8,967 nonmigrant travelers with available information, 5,878 (65.6%) did not receive pretravel health information. Of 11,987 diagnoses, the most frequent were related to the gastrointestinal system (5,173; 43.2%). The most frequent diagnoses among nonmigrant travelers were acute diarrhea (16.9%), viral syndrome (4.9%), and irritable bowel syndrome (4.1%). Malaria was diagnosed in 421 (3.5%) nonmigrant travelers. During the early (January 1, 2012, to November 15, 2018) and later (November 16, 2018, to December 31, 2021) periods, the most frequent reasons for travel among nonmigrant travelers were tourism (44.8% and 53.6%, respectively), travelers visiting friends and relatives (VFRs) (22.0% and 21.4%, respectively), business (13.4% and 12.3%, respectively), and missionary or humanitarian aid (13.1% and 6.2%, respectively). The most frequent regions of exposure for any diagnosis among nonmigrant travelers during the early and later period were Central America (19.2% and 17.3%, respectively), Sub-Saharan Africa (17.7% and 25.5%, respectively), the Caribbean (13.0% and 10.9%, respectively), and South East Asia (10.4% and 11.2%, respectively).Nonmigrant travelers who had malaria diagnosed were most frequently exposed in Sub-Saharan Africa (88.6% and 95.9% during the early and later period, respectively) and VFRs (70.3% and 57.9%, respectively). Among VFRs with malaria, a majority did not receive pretravel health information (70.2% and 83.3%, respectively) or take malaria chemoprophylaxis (88.3% and 100%, respectively).Interpretation: Among ill U.S. travelers evaluated at U.S. GeoSentinel sites after travel, the majority were nonmigrant travelers who most frequently received a gastrointestinal disease diagnosis, implying that persons from the United States traveling internationally might be exposed to contaminated food and water. Migrants most frequently received diagnoses of conditions such as vitamin D deficiency and latent tuberculosis, which might result from adverse circumstances before and during migration (e.g., malnutrition and food insecurity, limited access to adequate sanitation and hygiene, and crowded housing,). Malaria was diagnosed in both migrants and nonmigrant travelers, and only a limited number reported taking malaria chemoprophylaxis, which might be attributed to both barriers to acquiring pretravel health care (especially for VFRs) and lack of prevention practices (e.g., insect repellant use) during travel. The number of ill travelers evaluated by U.S. GeoSentinel sites after travel decreased in 2020 and 2021 compared with previous years because of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated travel restrictions. GeoSentinel detected limited cases of COVID-19 and did not detect any sentinel cases early in the pandemic because of the lack of global diagnostic testing capacity.Public Health Action: The findings in this report describe the scope of health-related conditions that migrants and returning nonmigrant travelers to the United States acquired, illustrating risk for acquiring illnesses during travel. In addition, certain travelers do not seek pretravel health care, even when traveling to areas in which high-risk, preventable diseases are endemic. Health care professionals can aid international travelers by providing evaluations and destination-specific advice. Health care professionals should both foster trust and enhance pretravel prevention messaging for VFRs, a group known to have a higher incidence of serious diseases after travel (e.g., malaria and enteric fever). Health care professionals should continue to advocate for medical care in underserved populations (e.g., VFRs and migrants) to prevent disease progression, reactivation, and potential spread to and within vulnerable populations. Because both travel and infectious diseases evolve, public health professionals should explore ways to enhance the detection of emerging diseases that might not be captured by current surveillance systems that are not site based.

Background International travellers may seek care abroad to address health problems that arise during their trip or plan healthcare outside their country of residence as medical tourists. 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.

Background International travellers frequently acquire infectious diseases whilst travelling, yet relatively little is known about the impact and economic burden of these illnesses on travellers. We conducted a prospective exploratory costing study on adult returning travellers with falciparum malaria, dengue, chikungunya or Zika virus. Methods Patients were recruited in eight Travel and Tropical Medicine clinics between June 2016 and March 2020 upon travellers' first contact with the health system in their country of residence. The patients were presented with a structured 52-question self-administered questionnaire after full recovery to collect information on patients' healthcare utilization and out-of-pocket costs both in the destination and home country, and about income and other financial losses due to the illness. Results A total of 134 patients participated in the study (malaria, 66; dengue, 51; chikungunya, 8; Zika virus, 9; all fully recovered; median age 40; range 18-72 years). Prior to travelling, 42% of patients reported procuring medical evacuation insurance. Across the four illnesses, only 7% of patients were hospitalized abroad compared with 61% at home. Similarly, 15% sought ambulatory services whilst abroad compared with 61% at home. The average direct out-of-pocket hospitalization cost in the destination country (USD $2236; range: $108-$5160) was higher than the direct out-of-pocket ambulatory cost in the destination country (USD $327; range: $0-$1560), the direct out-of-pocket hospitalization cost at home (USD $35; range: $0-$120) and the direct out-of-pocket ambulatory costs at home (US$45; range: $0-$192). Respondents with dengue or malaria lost a median of USD $570 (Interquartile range [IQR] 240-1140) and USD $240 (IQR 0-600), respectively, due to their illness, whilst those with chikungunya and Zika virus lost a median of USD $2400 (IQR 1200-3600) and USD $1500 (IQR 510-2625), respectively. Conclusion Travellers often incur significant costs due to travel-acquired diseases. Further research into the economic impact of these diseases on travellers should be conducted.

Rationale for review Giardiasis is one of the most common human protozoal infections worldwide. First-line therapy of giardiasis includes nitroimidazole antibiotics. However, treatment failure with nitroimidazoles is increasingly reported, with up to 45% of patients not responding to initial treatment. There is no clear consensus on the approach to the management of nitroimidazole-refractory giardiasis. This systematic review aims to summarize the literature on pharmacotherapy for nitroimidazole-refractory giardiasis. Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine the optimal management strategies for nitroimidazole-refractory giardiasis. We searched Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane library using the following search terms ‘Giardia’ AND ‘treatment failure’ OR ‘refractory giardia’ OR ‘resistant giardia’ with date limits of 1 January 1970 to 30 June 2021. We included all reports on humans, which described clinical outcomes of individuals with treatment refractory giardiasis, including case series and case reports. A descriptive synthesis of the data was conducted with pooling of data for interventions. Key findings Included in this review were five prospective studies, three retrospective studies, seven case series and nine case reports. Across these reports, a wide heterogeneity of treatment regimens was employed, including retreatment with an alternative nitroimidazole, combination therapy with a nitroimidazole and another agent and monotherapy with non-nitroimidazole regimens, including quinacrine, paromomycin and nitazoxanide. Retreatment with a nitroimidazole was not an effective therapy for refractory giardiasis. However, treatment with a nitroimidazole in combination with albendazole had a cure rate of 66.9%. In the included studies, quinacrine monotherapy was administered to a total of 179 patients, with a clinical cure rate of 88.8%. Overall, quinacrine was fairly well tolerated. Conclusions Reports on the treatment of nitroimidazole-refractory giardiasis demonstrate a heterogeneous approach to treatment. Of these, quinacrine appeared to be highly effective, though more data on its safety are needed.

Travel, a major contributor to global economy, needs to adapt to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Restarting business and travel share convergent considerations. Travel health preparation will require detailed assessment to specifically address COVID-19: the individual's personal risk stratification, elements of travel and policies imposed on each traveller and itinerary. Precise details of the trip will help to formulate beneficial recommendations.

Although the costs of dengue illness to patients and households have been extensively studied in endemic populations, international travelers have not been the focus of costing studies. As globalization and human travel activities intensify, travelers are increasingly at risk for emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, such as dengue. This exploratory study aims to investigate the impact and out-of-pocket costs of dengue illness among travelers. We conducted a prospective study in adult travelers with laboratory-confirmed dengue and recruited patients at travel medicine clinics in eight different countries from December 2013 to December 2015. Using a structured questionnaire, we collected information on patients and their health-care utilization and out-of-pocket expenditures, as well as income and other financial losses they incurred because of dengue illness. A total of 90 patients participated in the study, most of whom traveled for tourism (74%) and visited countries in Asia (82%). Although 22% reported hospitalization and 32% receiving ambulatory care while traveling, these percentages were higher at 39% and 71%, respectively, after returning home. The out-of-pocket direct and indirect costs of dengue illness were US$421 (SD 744) and US$571 (SD 1,913) per episode, respectively, averaging to a total out-of-pocket cost of US$992 (SD 2,052) per episode. The study findings suggest that international travelers incur important direct and indirect costs because of dengue-related illness. This study is the first to date to investigate the impact and out-of-pocket costs of travel-related dengue illness from the patient’s perspective and paves the way for future economic burden studies in this population.

Despite the availability of a highly efficacious vaccine against yellow fever, 1 Lindsey NP Horiuchi KA Fulton C et al. Persistence of yellow fever virus-specific neutralizing antibodies after vaccination among US travellers. J Travel Med. 2018; 25: tay108 Crossref Scopus (37) Google Scholar an unprecedented resurgence of the virus has recently occurred, initially in densely populated urban areas of Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2016, 2 Kraemer MUG Faria NR Reiner Jr, RC et al. Spread of yellow fever virus outbreak in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2015–16: a modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2017; 17: 330-338 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (140) Google Scholar and subsequently as an ongoing epizootic disease with sylvatic transmission encroaching on periurban areas in Brazil between 2016 and 2018. 3 Possas C Lourenço-de-Oliveira RL Tauil PL et al. Yellow fever outbreak in Brazil: the puzzle of rapid viral spread and challenges for immunisation. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2018; 113: e180278 Crossref PubMed Scopus (104) Google Scholar Between January, 2016, and June, 2018, 2153 confirmed cases and 744 deaths were recorded in Brazil, with most cases occurring in the southeast region according to the Ministry of Health of Brazil. 4 Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde - Ministério da SaúdeBoletim Epidemiológico. Volume 48. No 28–2017. Emergência epidemiológica de febre amarela no Brasil, no período de dezembro de 2016 a julho de 2017. http://portalarquivos2.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2017/setembro/06/2017_027.pdfDate: Sept 6, 2017 Date accessed: April 29, 2019 Google Scholar Yellow fever is feared because severe disease has a high case fatality rate. However, data correlating virological or patient characteristics with death are scarce. Predictors of mortality in patients with yellow fever: an observational cohort studyWe identified clinical and laboratory predictors of mortality at hospital admission that could aid in the care of patients with yellow fever virus. Identification of these prognostic markers in patients could help clinicians prioritise admission to the intensive care unit, as patients often deteriorate rapidly. Moreover, resource allocation could be improved to prioritise key laboratory examinations that might be more useful in determining whether a patient could have a better outcome. Our findings support the important role of the virus in disease pathogenesis, suggesting that an effective antiviral could alter the clinical course for patients with the most severe forms of yellow fever. Full-Text PDF