Search

The Sudan virus disease outbreak in 2022 prompted the Denver Health High-Risk Infection Team (HITeam) to evaluate and implement novel strategies to respond to viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF) events. To improve the VHF response, HITeam members developed a virtual assessment model (VAM) for at-home evaluation of individuals who are suspected of having a VHF. The VAM incorporates aspects of care that would normally be rendered in a high-level isolation unit—including assessment and monitoring, specimen collection, provider consultation, patient and family teaching, and pharmaceutical intervention—into a mobile framework in which team members respond to a suspected case at the individual's home. Building this capability allows for more thorough assessment of a suspect case in the field, as well as the postponement of a decision about activation of the high-level isolation unit until more information is available. Development, testing, and implementation of the VAM required input from an interdisciplinary group of partners that demonstrated the ability of nurses, physicians, laboratorians, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, and public health personnel to integrate into 1 cohesive care team. The resulting model recenters VHF care on the patient by allowing the care team to gather critical information in an environment that is more comfortable for the suspect case while keeping communities safe and lowering exposure risks. The VAM has long-term sustainability implications for global VHF programs and provides solutions for broader challenges in healthcare by modeling cost-effective, patient-centered care within the highly nuanced subspecialty of special pathogen care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy and safety of daptomycin as compared with standard therapy for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and endocarditis are assessed. The results have shown that daptomycin is not inferior to standard therapy for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and right-sided endocarditis.

Background: The association of hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) antibodies with protection from influenza among healthcare personnel (HCP) with occupational exposure to influenza viruses has not been well-described.Methods: The Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial was a cluster-randomized, multisite study that compared medical masks to N95 respirators in preventing viral respiratory infections among HCP in outpatient healthcare settings for 5180 participant-seasons. Serum HAI antibody titers before each influenza season and influenza virus infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction were studied over 4 study years.Results: In univariate models, the risk of influenza A(H3N2) and B virus infections was associated with HAI titers to each virus, study year, and site. HAI titers were strongly associated with vaccination. Within multivariate models, each log base 2 increase in titer was associated with 15%, 26% and 33%-35% reductions in the hazard of influenza A(H3N2), A(H1N1), and B infections, respectively. Best models included preseason antibody titers and study year, but not other variables.Conclusions: HAI titers were associated with protection from influenza among HCP with routine exposure to patients with respiratory illness and influenza season contributed to risk. HCP can be reassured about receiving influenza vaccination to stimulate immunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents a large risk to healthcare personnel (HCP). Quantifying the risk of coronavirus infection associated with workplace activities is an urgent need. Methods We assessed the association of worker characteristics, occupational roles and behaviors, and participation in procedures with the risk of endemic coronavirus infection among HCP who participated in the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Clinical Trial (ResPECT), a cluster randomized trial to assess personal protective equipment to prevent respiratory infections and illness conducted from 2011 to 2016. Results Among 4689 HCP seasons, we detected coronavirus infection in 387 (8%). HCP who participated in an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP) at least once during the viral respiratory season were 105% (95% confidence interval, 21%–240%) more likely to be diagnosed with a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection. Younger individuals, those who saw pediatric patients, and those with household members <5 years of age were at increased risk of coronavirus infection. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that the risk of HCP becoming infected with an endemic coronavirus increases approximately 2-fold with exposures to AGPs. Our findings may be relevant to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; however, SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, may differ from endemic coronaviruses in important ways. Clinical Trials Registration NCT01249625. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Clinical studies have been inconclusive about the effectiveness of N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health care personnel (HCP) from acquiring workplace viral respiratory infections.Objective: To compare the effect of N95 respirators vs medical masks for prevention of influenza and other viral respiratory infections among HCP.Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster randomized pragmatic effectiveness study conducted at 137 outpatient study sites at 7 US medical centers between September 2011 and May 2015, with final follow-up in June 2016. Each year for 4 years, during the 12-week period of peak viral respiratory illness, pairs of outpatient sites (clusters) within each center were matched and randomly assigned to the N95 respirator or medical mask groups.Interventions: Overall, 1993 participants in 189 clusters were randomly assigned to wear N95 respirators (2512 HCP-seasons of observation) and 2058 in 191 clusters were randomly assigned to wear medical masks (2668 HCP-seasons) when near patients with respiratory illness.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza. Secondary outcomes included incidence of acute respiratory illness, laboratory-detected respiratory infections, laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness, and influenzalike illness. Adherence to interventions was assessed.Results: Among 2862 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 43 [11.5] years; 2369 [82.8%]) women), 2371 completed the study and accounted for 5180 HCP-seasons. There were 207 laboratory-confirmed influenza infection events (8.2% of HCP-seasons) in the N95 respirator group and 193 (7.2% of HCP-seasons) in the medical mask group (difference, 1.0%, [95% CI, -0.5% to 2.5%]; P = .18) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.18 [95% CI, 0.95-1.45]). There were 1556 acute respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 1711 in the mask group (difference, -21.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -48.2 to 4.4]; P = .10); 679 laboratory-detected respiratory infections in the respirator group vs 745 in the mask group (difference, -8.9 per 1000 HCP-seasons, [95% CI, -33.3 to 15.4]; P = .47); 371 laboratory-confirmed respiratory illness events in the respirator group vs 417 in the mask group (difference, -8.6 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -28.2 to 10.9]; P = .39); and 128 influenzalike illness events in the respirator group vs 166 in the mask group (difference, -11.3 per 1000 HCP-seasons [95% CI, -23.8 to 1.3]; P = .08). In the respirator group, 89.4% of participants reported "always" or "sometimes" wearing their assigned devices vs 90.2% in the mask group.Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01249625. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]