MUSTID - Search

To ensure continuity of operations of essential functions, CDC advises that critical infrastructure workers may be permitted to continue work following potential exposure to COVID-19, provided they remain asymptomatic and additional precautions are implemented to protect them and the community. A potential exposure means being a household contact or having close contact within 6 feet of an individual with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. The timeframe for having contact with an individual includes the period of time of 48 hours before the individual became symptomatic.

This alert is a call to action to address the shortage of PPE and respirators needed to protect healthcare workers who are assigned to care for patients who are suspect or confirmed COVID-19 cases. We know from past pandemics that frontline healthcare workers have a high risk of exposure. Historically and in the current pandemic there have beenreports of large numbers of healthcare workers being infectedand some deaths. Protecting our healthcare workers is not only a moral imperative but essential to maintaining the necessary professional staff to provide care to the infected and diseased during this crisis.

Objective: The concept of aerosol transmission is developed to resolve limitations in conventional definitions of airborne and droplet transmission. Methods: The method was literature review. Results: An infectious aerosol is a collection of pathogen-laden particles in air. Aerosol particles may deposit onto or be inhaled by a susceptible person. Aerosol transmission is biologically plausible when infectious aerosols are generated by or from an infectious person, the pathogen remains viable in the environment for some period of time, and the target tissues in which the pathogen initiates infection are accessible to the aerosol. Biological plausibility of aerosol transmission is evaluated for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus and norovirus and discussed for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, influenza, and Ebola virus. Conclusions: Aerosol transmission reflects a modern understanding of aerosol science and allows physically appropriate explanation and intervention selection for infectious diseases.

This document recommends practices for extended use and limited reuse of NIOSH-certified N95 filtering facepiece respirators (commonly called N95 respirators). The recommendations are intended for use by professionals who manage respiratory protection programs in healthcare institutions to protect health care workers from job-related risks of exposure to infectious respiratory illnesses.

Rationale: We compared three policy options for the use of medical masks and N95 respirators in healthcare workers (HCWs). Objectives: A cluster randomized clinical trial of 1,669 hospital-based HCWs in Beijing, China in the winter of 2009-2010. Methods: Participants were randomized to medical masks, N95 respirators, or targeted use of N95 respirators while doing high-risk procedures or barrier nursing. Outcomes included clinical respiratory illness (CRI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory pathogens in symptomatic subjects. Measurements and main results: The rate of CRI was highest in the medical mask arm (98 of 572; 17 ), followed by the targeted N95 arm (61 of 516; 11.8 ), and the N95 arm (42 of 581; 7.2 ) (P 0.05). Bacterial respiratory tract colonization in subjects with CRI was highest in the medical mask arm (14.7 ; 84 of 572), followed by the targeted N95 arm (10.1 ; 52 of 516), and lowest in the N95 arm (6.2 ; 36 of 581) (P = 0.02). After adjusting for confounders, only continuous use of N95 remained significant against CRI and bacterial colonization, and for just CRI compared with targeted N95 use. Targeted N95 use was not superior to medical masks. Conclusions: Continuous use of N95 respirators was more efficacious against CRI than intermittent use of N95 or medical masks. Most policies for HCWs recommend use of medical masks alone or targeted N95 respirator use. Continuous use of N95s resulted in significantly lower rates of bacterial colonization, a novel finding that points to more research on the clinical significance of bacterial infection in symptomatic HCWs. This study provides further data to inform occupational policy options for HCWs. Clinical trial registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry http://www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN 12609000778280).

Background: To prepare for a possible influenza pandemic, a better understanding of the potential for the airborne transmission of influenza from person to person is needed. Objectives: The objective of this study was to directly compare the generation of aerosol particles containing viable influenza virus during coughs and exhalations. Methods: Sixty-one adult volunteer outpatients with influenza-like symptoms were asked to cough and exhale three times into a spirometer. Aerosol particles produced during coughing and exhalation were collected into liquid media using aerosol samplers. The samples were tested for the presence of viable influenza virus using a viral replication assay (VRA). Results: Fifty-three test subjects tested positive for influenza A virus. Of these, 28 (53 ) produced aerosol particles containing viable influenza A virus during coughing, and 22 (42 ) produced aerosols with viable virus during exhalation. Thirteen subjects had both cough aerosol and exhalation aerosol samples that contained viable virus, 15 had positive cough aerosol samples but negative exhalation samples, and 9 had positive exhalation samples but negative cough samples. Conclusions: Viable influenza A virus was detected more often in cough aerosol particles than in exhalation aerosol particles, but the difference was not large. Because individuals breathe much more often than they cough, these results suggest that breathing may generate more airborne infectious material than coughing over time. However, both respiratory activities could be important in airborne influenza transmission. Our results are also consistent with the theory that much of the aerosol containing viable influenza originates deep in the lungs.

Evidence from surveillance studies indicates gaps in hospitals' respiratory protection programmatic operations and healthcare workers' (HCWs) marginal compliance with respiratory protection recommended practices. Improper use of respiratory protective devices (RPDs) may expose HCWs to infectious respiratory illnesses. In this document, NIOSH addresses common myths related to respiratory protection and provides information to reinforce respiratory protection program administrator responsibilities and HCW knowledge concerning the proper use of these devices so that they can be prepared for the next public health emergency and best protect themselves in daily practice.

Importance: In December 2019, novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)-infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, China. The number of cases has increased rapidly but information on the clinical characteristics of affected patients is limited. Objective: To describe the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of NCIP. Design, setting, and participants: Retrospective, single-center case series of the 138 consecutive hospitalized patients with confirmed NCIP at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in Wuhan, China, from January 1 to January 28, 2020; final date of follow-up was February 3, 2020. Exposures: Documented NCIP. Main outcomes and measures: Epidemiological, demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiological, and treatment data were collected and analyzed. Outcomes of critically ill patients and noncritically ill patients were compared. Presumed hospital-related transmission was suspected if a cluster of health professionals or hospitalized patients in the same wards became infected and a possible source of infection could be tracked. Results: Of 138 hospitalized patients with NCIP, the median age was 56 years (interquartile range, 42-68; range, 22-92 years) and 75 (54.3%) were men. Hospital-associated transmission was suspected as the presumed mechanism of infection for affected health professionals (40 [29%]) and hospitalized patients (17 [12.3%]). Common symptoms included fever (136 [98.6%]), fatigue (96 [69.6%]), and dry cough (82 [59.4%]). Lymphopenia (lymphocyte count, 0.8 × 109/L [interquartile range {IQR}, 0.6-1.1]) occurred in 97 patients (70.3%), prolonged prothrombin time (13.0 seconds [IQR, 12.3-13.7]) in 80 patients (58%), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (261 U/L [IQR, 182-403]) in 55 patients (39.9%). Chest computed tomographic scans showed bilateral patchy shadows or ground glass opacity in the lungs of all patients. Most patients received antiviral therapy (oseltamivir, 124 [89.9%]), and many received antibacterial therapy (moxifloxacin, 89 [64.4%]; ceftriaxone, 34 [24.6%]; azithromycin, 25 [18.1%]) and glucocorticoid therapy (62 [44.9%]). Thirty-six patients (26.1%) were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) because of complications, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (22 [61.1%]), arrhythmia (16 [44.4%]), and shock (11 [30.6%]). The median time from first symptom to dyspnea was 5.0 days, to hospital admission was 7.0 days, and to ARDS was 8.0 days. Patients treated in the ICU (n = 36), compared with patients not treated in the ICU (n = 102), were older (median age, 66 years vs 51 years), were more likely to have underlying comorbidities (26 [72.2%] vs 38 [37.3%]), and were more likely to have dyspnea (23 [63.9%] vs 20 [19.6%]), and anorexia (24 [66.7%] vs 31 [30.4%]). Of the 36 cases in the ICU, 4 (11.1%) received high-flow oxygen therapy, 15 (41.7%) received noninvasive ventilation, and 17 (47.2%) received invasive ventilation (4 were switched to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). As of February 3, 47 patients (34.1%) were discharged and 6 died (overall mortality, 4.3%), but the remaining patients are still hospitalized. Among those discharged alive (n = 47), the median hospital stay was 10 days (IQR, 7.0-14.0). Conclusions and relevance: In this single-center case series of 138 hospitalized patients with confirmed NCIP in Wuhan, China, presumed hospital-related transmission of 2019-nCoV was suspected in 41% of patients, 26% of patients received ICU care, and mortality was 4.3%.

Background Approximately half of the reported laboratory-confirmed infections of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have occurred in healthcare settings, and healthcare workers constitute over one third of all secondary infections. This study aimed to describe secondary cases of MERS-CoV infection among healthcare workers and to identify risk factors for death. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on epidemiological data of laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV cases reported to the World Health Organization from September 2012 to 2 June 2018. We compared all secondary cases among healthcare workers with secondary cases among non-healthcare workers. Multivariable logistic regression identified risk factors for death. Results Of the 2223 laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV cases reported to WHO, 415 were healthcare workers and 1783 were non-healthcare workers. Compared with non-healthcare workers cases, healthcare workers cases were younger (P?