Search

Objective: To describe the pattern of transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during 2 nosocomial outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with regard to the possibility of airborne transmission., Design: Contact investigations with active case finding were used to assess the pattern of spread from 2 COVID-19 index patients., Setting: A community hospital and university medical center in the United States, in February and March, 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic., Patients: Two index patients and 421 exposed healthcare workers., Methods: Exposed healthcare workers (HCWs) were identified by analyzing the electronic medical record (EMR) and conducting active case finding in combination with structured interviews. Healthcare coworkers (HCWs) were tested for COVID-19 by obtaining oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal specimens, and RT-PCR testing was used to detect SARS-CoV-2., Results: Two separate index patients were admitted in February and March 2020, without initial suspicion for COVID-19 and without contact or droplet precautions in place; both patients underwent several aerosol-generating procedures in this context. In total, 421 HCWs were exposed in total, and the results of the case contact investigations identified 8 secondary infections in HCWs. In all 8 cases, the HCWs had close contact with the index patients without sufficient personal protective equipment. Importantly, despite multiple aerosol-generating procedures, there was no evidence of airborne transmission., Conclusion: These observations suggest that, at least in a healthcare setting, most SARS-CoV-2 transmission is likely to take place during close contact with infected patients through respiratory droplets, rather than by long-distance airborne transmission.

Background: The use of a clinical prediction score to improve the practice of instituting airborne-transmission precautions in patients with suspected tuberculosis holds promise for increasing appropriate isolation and decreasing unnecessary isolation. The objective of this study was to derive and validate a clinical prediction score for patients with suspected tuberculosis., Methods: We used a case-control study design to evaluate differences between patients with a diagnosis of tuberculosis and those placed under airborne precautions who had negative culture results. We developed risk scores based on a multivariable analysis of independently significant factors associated with tuberculosis. Subsequently, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the score in a separate (validation) cohort of patients., Results: Within our population, we found 4 clinical factors associated with tuberculosis: chronic symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 10.2 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.95-35.4]), upper lobe disease on chest radiograph (OR, 5.27 [95% CI, 1.6-17.23]), foreign-born status (OR, 7.01 [95% CI, 2.1-23.8]), and immunocompromised state other than human immunodeficiency virus infection (OR, 8.14 [95% CI, 2.08-31.8]). Shortness of breath (OR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.04-0.45]) was found to be associated with non-tuberculosis diagnoses and considered a negative predictor in the model. Using a cut-off point to maximize sensitivity, we applied the prediction rule to the validation cohort, resulting in a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 42%., Conclusion: The tuberculosis prediction rule derived from our patient population could improve utilization of airborne precautions. Clinical prediction rules continue to show their utility for improvement in isolation practices in different demographic areas.