[7-14] In contrast, our literature search highlighted only three articles reporting a definite association of pulmonary histoplasmosis with short-term travel to Africa in immunocompetent SCH727965 mouse persons.[15-17] Diagnosis of histoplasmosis in returning travelers can be difficult because of its nonspecific presentation. Furthermore, the differential diagnosis of an acute febrile respiratory illness in adventure travelers is broad and may include, in addition to histoplasmosis, Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia, legionellosis, mycoplasma, Q fever,

leptospirosis, tuberculosis, schistosomiasis, Loeffler’s syndrome, coccidioidomycosis, paracoccidioidomycosis, influenza, measles, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, and malaria.[9, 18] In the outbreak of histoplasmosis described here, a number of cases had been misdiagnosed RAD001 clinical trial as miliary tuberculosis. Four out of 13 (31%) received antifungals and 10 out of 13 (77%) received other antimicrobial agents including antituberculous therapy and antimalarial treatment. Similarly, in a large outbreak of APH in American travelers vacationing in Acapulco, Mexico, in 2001, 25% of symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed cases received antifungal treatment and 56% received other antimicrobials.[10] Reporting

“sentinel” cases on ProMED-mail can alert other physicians to possible outbreaks of pulmonary histoplasmosis, facilitating diagnosis and management. This is an unusual outbreak of APH following short-term travel to Africa. Histoplasmosis is an important consideration in the differential diagnosis of an acute febrile respiratory illness in travelers reporting risk factors for exposure in endemic areas. Recognition of outbreaks such as this, affecting individuals in multiple nations, can be hugely assisted by on-line e-alerts such as ProMED-mail. We acknowledge the students who responded to our enquiries and consented to only publication of this report. E. G.-K. is supported by the Cambridge Biomedical

Research Center. All the authors state they have no conflicts of interest to declare. “
“This Editorial refers to the articles by Cramer et al., pp. 226–232 and Mitruka et al., pp. 233–237 of this issue. It is still deeply engraved in the collective memory of nautical personnel that health authorities in global ports focus on the transmission of yellow fever, plague, smallpox, and cholera. But the scope and purpose of the recently updated International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR 2005)[1] is much broader: health measures at ports now aim to prevent and control all kinds of public health threats from spreading internationally. Five years into the global implementation of the IHR 2005 we do recognize a great acceptance with the new scope and procedures, such as the Sanitary Ships Inspections.