Update on Managing the Risks of Exposure to Lentiviral and Retroviral Vectors.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to review the risks associated with using lentiviral and retroviral vectors in research and clinical settings and to propose an update to an effective treatment plan. METHODS: Risks of exposure were evaluated based on vector design, safety features, viral tropism, transgene, and means and modes of transmission. These risks were weighed against the potential risks and benefits of current HIV medications. RESULTS: We recommend the following post-exposure prophylactic treatment for significant lentiviral vector exposures: 1) dolutegravir 50 mg. taken once a day for 7 days; and 2) tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg. taken once a day for 7 days (28 days of both medications for replication-competent vectors). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the highly efficient delivery of transgenes by modern lentiviral and retroviral vectors, post-exposure prophylaxis is indicated to prevent vector integration and oncogenic risks.

Biosafety Practices When Working with Bats: A Guide to Field Research Considerations.

Introduction: Field work with bats is an important contribution to many areas of research in environmental biology and ecology, as well as microbiology. Work with bats poses hazards such as bites and scratches, and the potential for exposure to infectious pathogens such as rabies virus. It also exposes researchers to many other potential hazards inherent to field work, such as environmental conditions, delayed emergency responses, or challenging work conditions. Methods: This article discusses the considerations for a thorough risk assessment process around field work with bats, pre- and post-occupational health considerations, and delves into specific considerations for areas related to biosafety concerns-training, personal protective equipment, safety consideration in field methods, decontamination, and waste. It also touches on related legal and ethical issues that sit outside the realm of biosafety, but which must be addressed during the planning process. Discussion: Although the focal point of this article is bat field work located in northern and central America, the principles and practices discussed here are applicable to bat work elsewhere, as well as to field work with other animal species, and should promote careful considerations of how to safely conduct field work to protect both researchers and animals.

Tuberculosis Screening, Testing, and Treatment of US Health Care Personnel: ACOEM and NTCA Joint Task Force on Implementation of the 2019 MMWR Recommendations.

: On May 17, 2019, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Tuberculosis Controllers Association issued new Recommendations for Tuberculosis Screening, Testing, and Treatment of Health Care Personnel, United States, 2019, updating the health care personnel-related sections of the Guidelines for Preventing the Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Health-Care Settings, 2005. This companion document offers the collective effort and experience of occupational health, infectious disease, and public health experts from major academic and public health institutions across the United States and expands on each section of the 2019 recommendations to provide clarifications, explanations, and considerations that go beyond the 2019 recommendations to answer questions that may arise and to offer strategies for implementation.

Vaccines for Health Care Personnel.

Medical Center Occupational Health (MCOH) programs must protect health care personnel (HCP) against the occupational risk of vaccine-preventable diseases. This thematic review outlines the rationale for the use of recommended vaccines in HCP; summarizes the available evidence regarding vaccine effectiveness, administration, and assessment of immunity; and provides guidance for MCOH programs navigating challenging situations.

Physician attitudes towards influenza immunization and vaccine mandates.

AIM: We surveyed physicians' opinions and acceptance of influenza immunization. SCOPE: A web-based survey was sent to all physicians in two academic departments during spring 2009. RESULTS: 227 (40.5%) physicians responded. Physicians who frequently cared for high-risk patients self-reported higher immunization rates than physicians with infrequent contact (P=0.0002). There were no significant differences in immunization rates between emergency medicine (EM) and internal medicine (IM), between those with and without children at home, nor by age group. A majority (84.6%) supported mandatory vaccination. IM physicians were more supportive of mandates than EM physicians (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Self-reported immunization rates were high among study physicians. Acceptance of mandatory vaccination was substantial, but varied by specialty.