Both groups also matched for age and country of birth, but selleck compound not for gender: travelers with diabetes were more often male. Yet, prospective studies on travel-related infectious diseases found no association of symptoms of infectious diseases and gender.20,21 Theoretically, if one

of the sexes document their symptoms better than the other, differences between travelers with diabetes and their travel companions may have been underestimated or overestimated. Groups did not match for cardiovascular disease and dyslipidemia. However, we are not aware of any association of travel-related infection and cardiovascular disease or dyslipidemia. The prevalence of diabetes among visitors of our clinic was 3.1%, comparable with the general population.12 Also, age and male–female ratio of our subjects with diabetes were comparable with the general diabetic population. Participants’ travel destinations were equally distributed across the four regions. Their median travel duration of 20 days corresponded well with the median travel duration GSI-IX ic50 of the average traveler.22,23 Thus, the study sample can be considered representative, and results can reasonably be applied to the average traveler with diabetes to a developing country.

This study also had some limitations. Sample size may not have been large enough to detect small differences. Secondly, some of the symptomatic illnesses could have been due to a non-infectious cause. Although the study design with a travel companion serving as a matched control minimized differences in exposure to environmental and infectious agents between the two groups, this may have overestimated AZD9291 in vivo the (absolute) rate of infection in all groups. Thirdly, although the diary provided information on symptom duration, it did not distinguish mild symptomatology from severe. For example, travelers with diabetes could

have had more bowel movements or more water loss. Finally, travelers with diabetes and controls differed in counseling and prescription; some travelers with diabetes did use the stand-by antibiotics. Therefore, the data may be skewed toward seeing less differences in outcome measures between both groups. Regular testing of blood glucose levels during travel was not part of the study protocol. Yet, three IDD (4.3%) and two NIDD (2.4%) reported dysregulation of blood glucose levels during travel. Two IDD reported hypoglycemia coinciding with non-febrile diarrhea, for which one took stand-by antibiotics. Both NIDD only reported hyperglycemia; in one traveler this coincided with non-febrile diarrhea, for which no stand-by antibiotics were taken. There is only one previous publication on travel-related dysregulation, which suggested that travel to the tropics is a risk factor for metabolic dysregulation.4 Yet, data were collected retrospectively, by telephone interviewing, and the study sample comprised only 19 subjects, all IDD.