Search

The risk for monkeypox transmission to health care personnel (HCP) caring for symptomatic patients is thought to be low but has not been thoroughly assessed in the context of the current global outbreak (1). Monkeypox typically spreads through close physical (often skin-to-skin) contact with lesions or scabs, body fluids, or respiratory secretions of a person with an active monkeypox infection. CDC currently recommends that HCP wear a gown, gloves, eye protection, and an N95 (or higher-level) respirator while caring for patients with suspected or confirmed monkeypox to protect themselves from infection† (1,2). The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) evaluated HCP exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use in health care settings during care of patients who subsequently received a diagnosis of Orthopoxvirus infection (presumptive monkeypox determined by a polymerase chain reaction [PCR] DNA assay) or monkeypox (real-time PCR assay and genetic sequencing performed by CDC). During May 1-July 31, 2022, a total of 313 HCP interacted with patients with subsequently diagnosed monkeypox infections while wearing various combinations of PPE; 23% wore all recommended PPE during their exposures. Twenty-eight percent of exposed HCP were considered to have had high- or intermediate-risk exposures and were therefore eligible to receive postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with the JYNNEOS vaccine§; among those, 48% (12% of all exposed HCP) received the vaccine. PPE use varied by facility type: HCP in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics and community health centers reported the highest adherence to recommended PPE use, and primary and urgent care settings reported the lowest adherence. No HCP developed a monkeypox infection during the 21 days after exposure. These results suggest that the risk for transmission of monkeypox in health care settings is low. Infection prevention training is important in all health care settings, and these findings can guide future updates to PPE recommendations and risk classification in health care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On April 26, 2015, a case of meningococcal disease in a woman aged 75 years was reported to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). As part of routine public health investigation and control activities, all seven family contacts of the patient were advised to receive appropriate postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) to eradicate nasopharyngeal carriage of meningococci and prevent secondary disease (1), although it is not known whether the family contacts complied with PEP recommendations. Fifteen months later, on June 6, 2016, CDPHE was notified that the grandchild of the first patient, a male infant aged 3 months who lived with the first patient, also had meningococcal disease. The infant's immediate family members (parents and one sibling) were among family contacts for whom PEP was recommended in 2015. Neisseria meningitidis isolates from both patients were found to be serogroup C at the CDPHE laboratory. Whole genome sequence (WGS) analysis at CDC found that both isolates had the same sequence type, indicating close genetic relatedness. These cases represent a possible instance of meningococcal disease transmission within a family, despite appropriate PEP recommendations and with a long interval between cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Several enteroviruses (EVs), including EV-A71 and EV-D68, have been associated with acute flaccid myelitis (AFM). Clinical features distinguishing AFM presentations associated with specific EV types are not well described. Methods EV-associated AFM was defined as any child presenting to Children's Hospital Colorado in 2013–2018 who met the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists definition for confirmed AFM (flaccid limb weakness with longitudinal gray-matter-predominant spinal cord lesion on MRI) and had EV-A71 or EV-D68 identified in any biologic specimen (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF], nasopharyngeal [NP], oropharyngeal [OP], rectal) by VP1-specific RT-PCR and sequencing. Summative limb strength scores (SLSS) were calculated by adding Medical Research Council strength scores (1–5) for all limbs. Results Ten cases of EV-A71-associated AFM were identified, all from 2018; 8 cases of EV-D68-associated AFM were identified from 2013 (1), 2014 (4), 2016 (1), and 2018 (2) [Table 1]. Viral detection rates were higher in rectal and OP swabs in EV-A71 cases and NP specimens in EV-D68 cases. Virus was not detected in CSF of EV-D68 cases and in 1 EV-A71 case. EV-A71 cases were younger (median 19 vs. 100 months) and had neurologic onset earlier after prodromal symptom onset (median 1 vs. 5.5 days) than EV-D68 cases. Hand, foot, and/or mouth lesions distinguished EV-A71 cases, whereas respiratory symptoms were uniformly noted in EV-D68 cases. Associated neurologic findings more commonly associated with EV-A71 cases than EV-D68 cases included irritability, myoclonus, and ataxia. Weakness was more generalized with EV-A71 and more asymmetric with EV-D68, though patterns of brainstem and spinal cord involvement on MRI were similar. Compared with EV-D68, EV-A71 cases had milder weakness at onset and improved strength at 1- to 2-month follow-up (Figure 1), shorter length of stay (median 5.5 vs. 32 days) and a greater rate of full neurologic recovery (90% vs. 13%). Conclusion EV-D68 and EV-A71 are both associated with AFM with similar MRI findings, but cases can be distinguished by associated prodromal symptoms, neurologic findings, and outcomes. Timely collection and testing of nonsterile site specimens, particularly NP for EV-D68 and OP and rectal for EV-A71, are key to case identification. Disclosures All Authors: No reported Disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.