Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infections Among Emergency Health Care Personnel: Impact on Delivery of United States Emergency Medical Care, 2020.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and before vaccine availability, there were concerns that infected emergency department (ED) health care personnel could present a threat to the delivery of emergency medical care. We examined how the pandemic affected staffing levels and whether COVID-19 positive staff were potentially infectious at work in a cohort of US ED health care personnel in 2020. METHODS: The COVID-19 Evaluation of Risks in Emergency Departments (Project COVERED) project was a multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED health care personnel conducted from May to December 2020. During surveillance, health care personnel completed weekly electronic surveys and underwent periodic serology and nasal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and investigators captured weekly data on health care facility COVID-19 prevalence and health care personnel staffing. Surveys asked about symptoms, potential exposures, work attendance, personal protective equipment use, and behaviors. RESULTS: We enrolled 1,673 health care personnel who completed 29,825 person weeks of surveillance. Eighty-nine (5.3%) health care personnel documented 90 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2% to 0.4%) person weeks of missed work related to documented or concerns for COVID-19 infection. Health care personnel experienced symptoms of COVID-19 during 1,256 (4.2%) person weeks and worked at least one shift whereas symptomatic during 1,042 (83.0%) of these periods. Seventy-five (4.5%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the surveillance period, including 43 (57.3%) who indicated they never experienced symptoms; 74 (98.7%; 95% CI 90.7% to 99.9%) infected health care personnel worked at least one shift during the initial period of infection, and 71 (94.7%) continued working until laboratory confirmation of their infection. Physician staffing was not associated with the facility or community COVID-19 levels within any time frame studied (Kendall tau's 0.02, 0.056, and 0.081 for no shift, one-week time shift, and 2-week time shift, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the pandemic, COVID-19 infections in ED health care personnel were infrequent, and the time lost from the workforce was minimal. Health care personnel frequently reported for work while infected with SARS-CoV-2 before laboratory confirmation. The ED staffing levels were poorly correlated with facility and community COVID-19 burden.

Development and Validation of an Enzyme Immunoassay for Detection and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 Salivary IgA and IgG.

Oral fluids offer a noninvasive sampling method for the detection of Abs. Quantification of IgA and IgG Abs in saliva allows studies of the mucosal and systemic immune response after natural infection or vaccination. We developed and validated an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) to detect and quantify salivary IgA and IgG Abs against the prefusion-stabilized form of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein expressed in suspension-adapted HEK-293 cells. Normalization against total Ab isotype was performed to account for specimen differences, such as collection time and sample volume. Saliva samples collected from 187 SARS-CoV-2 confirmed cases enrolled in 2 cohorts and 373 prepandemic saliva samples were tested. The sensitivity of both EIAs was high (IgA, 95.5%; IgG, 89.7%) without compromising specificity (IgA, 99%; IgG, 97%). No cross-reactivity with endemic coronaviruses was observed. The limit of detection for SARS-CoV-2 salivary IgA and IgG assays were 1.98 ng/ml and 0.30 ng/ml, respectively. Salivary IgA and IgG Abs were detected earlier in patients with mild COVID-19 symptoms than in severe cases. However, severe cases showed higher salivary Ab titers than those with a mild infection. Salivary IgA titers quickly decreased after 6 wk in mild cases but remained detectable until at least week 10 in severe cases. Salivary IgG titers remained high for all patients, regardless of disease severity. In conclusion, EIAs for both IgA and IgG had high specificity and sensitivity for the confirmation of current or recent SARS-CoV-2 infections and evaluation of the IgA and IgG immune response.

Natural History of Clostridioides difficile Colonization and Infection Following New Acquisition of Carriage in Healthcare Settings: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the natural history of Clostridioides difficile colonization and infection in patients with new acquisition of C. difficile in healthcare settings. METHODS: In 3 hospitals and affiliated long-term care facilities, we collected serial perirectal cultures from patients with no diarrhea on enrollment to identify new acquisition of toxigenic C. difficile carriage and determined the duration and burden of carriage. Asymptomatic carriage was defined as transient if only 1 culture was positive, with negative cultures before and after, or persistent if 2 or more cultures were positive. Clearance of carriage was defined as 2 consecutive negative perirectal cultures. RESULTS: Of 1432 patients with negative initial cultures and at least 1 follow-up culture, 39 (2.7%) developed C. difficile infection (CDI) without prior detection of carriage and 142 (9.9%) acquired asymptomatic carriage, with 19 (13.4%) subsequently diagnosed with CDI. Of 82 patients analyzed for persistence of carriage, 50 (61.0%) had transient carriage and 32 (39.0%) had persistent carriage, with an estimated median of 77 days to clearance of colonization (range, 14-133 days). Most persistent carriers had a relatively high burden of carriage and maintained the same ribotype over time, whereas most transient carriers had a low burden of carriage detected only using broth enrichment cultures. CONCLUSIONS: In 3 healthcare facilities, 9.9% of patients acquired asymptomatic carriage of toxigenic C. difficile, and 13.4% were subsequently diagnosed with CDI. Most carriers had transient rather than persistent carriage and most patients developing CDI did not have prior detection of carriage.

Assessing the Impact of 2-Step Clostridioides difficile Testing at the Healthcare Facility Level.

BACKGROUND: Two-step testing for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) aims to improve diagnostic specificity but may also influence reported epidemiology and patterns of treatment. Some providers fear that 2-step testing may result in adverse outcomes if C. difficile is underdiagnosed. METHODS: Our primary objective was to assess the impact of 2-step testing on reported incidence of hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI). As secondary objectives, we assessed the impact of 2-step testing on C. difficile-specific antibiotic use and colectomy rates as proxies for harm from underdiagnosis or delayed treatment. This longitudinal cohort study included 2 657 324 patient-days across 8 regional hospitals from July 2017 through March 2022. Impact of 2-step testing was assessed by time series analysis with generalized estimating equation regression models. RESULTS: Two-step testing was associated with a level decrease in HO-CDI incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.53 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .48-.60]; P < .001), a similar level decrease in utilization rates for oral vancomycin and fidaxomicin (utilization rate ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, .58-.70]; P < .001), and no significant level (rate ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, .93-1.43]; P = .18) or trend (rate ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, .52-1.39]; P = .51) change in emergent colectomy rates. CONCLUSIONS: Two-step testing is associated with decreased reported incidence of HO-CDI, likely by improving diagnostic specificity. The parallel decrease in C. difficile-specific antibiotic use offers indirect reassurance against underdiagnosis of C. difficile infections still requiring treatment by clinician assessment. Similarly, the absence of any significant change in colectomy rates offers indirect reassurance against any rise in fulminant C. difficile requiring surgical management.

Vital Signs: Health Disparities in Hemodialysis-Associated Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections - United States, 2017-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). ESKD patients on dialysis are at increased risk for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections, but racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities associated with this outcome are not well described. METHODS: Surveillance data from the 2020 National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and the 2017-2020 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) were used to describe bloodstream infections among patients on hemodialysis (hemodialysis patients) and were linked to population-based data sources (CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] Social Vulnerability Index [SVI], United States Renal Data System [USRDS], and U.S. Census Bureau) to examine associations with race, ethnicity, and social determinants of health. RESULTS: In 2020, 4,840 dialysis facilities reported 14,822 bloodstream infections to NHSN; 34.2% were attributable to S. aureus . Among seven EIP sites, the S. aureus bloodstream infection rate during 2017-2020 was 100 times higher among hemodialysis patients (4,248 of 100,000 person-years) than among adults not on hemodialysis (42 of 100,000 person-years). Unadjusted S. aureus bloodstream infection rates were highest among non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) and Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) hemodialysis patients. Vascular access via central venous catheter was strongly associated with S. aureus bloodstream infections (NHSN: adjusted rate ratio [aRR] = 6.2; 95% CI = 5.7-6.7 versus fistula; EIP: aRR = 4.3; 95% CI = 3.9-4.8 versus fistula or graft). Adjusting for EIP site of residence, sex, and vascular access type, S. aureus bloodstream infection risk in EIP was highest in Hispanic patients (aRR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.2-1.7 versus non-Hispanic White [White] patients), and patients aged 18-49 years (aRR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.5-1.9 versus patients aged ≥65 years). Areas with higher poverty levels, crowding, and lower education levels accounted for disproportionately higher proportions of hemodialysis-associated S. aureus bloodstream infections. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE: Disparities exist in hemodialysis-associated S. aureus infections. Health care providers and public health professionals should prioritize prevention and optimized treatment of ESKD, identify and address barriers to lower-risk vascular access placement, and implement established best practices to prevent bloodstream infections.

Vital Signs: Health Disparities in Hemodialysis-Associated Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections - United States, 2017-2020.

Introduction: Racial and ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). ESKD patients on dialysis are at increased risk for Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections, but racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities associated with this outcome are not well described. Methods: Surveillance data from the 2020 National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and the 2017-2020 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) were used to describe bloodstream infections among patients on hemodialysis (hemodialysis patients) and were linked to population-based data sources (CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry [ATSDR] Social Vulnerability Index [SVI], United States Renal Data System [USRDS], and U.S. Census Bureau) to examine associations with race, ethnicity, and social determinants of health. Results: In 2020, 4,840 dialysis facilities reported 14,822 bloodstream infections to NHSN; 34.2% were attributable to S. aureus. Among seven EIP sites, the S. aureus bloodstream infection rate during 2017-2020 was 100 times higher among hemodialysis patients (4,248 of 100,000 person-years) than among adults not on hemodialysis (42 of 100,000 person-years). Unadjusted S. aureus bloodstream infection rates were highest among non-Hispanic Black or African American (Black) and Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic) hemodialysis patients. Vascular access via central venous catheter was strongly associated with S. aureus bloodstream infections (NHSN: adjusted rate ratio [aRR] = 6.2; 95% CI = 5.7-6.7 versus fistula; EIP: aRR = 4.3; 95% CI = 3.9-4.8 versus fistula or graft). Adjusting for EIP site of residence, sex, and vascular access type, S. aureus bloodstream infection risk in EIP was highest in Hispanic patients (aRR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.2-1.7 versus non-Hispanic White [White] patients), and patients aged 18-49 years (aRR = 1.7; 95% CI = 1.5-1.9 versus patients aged ≥65 years). Areas with higher poverty levels, crowding, and lower education levels accounted for disproportionately higher proportions of hemodialysis-associated S. aureus bloodstream infections. Conclusions and implications for public health practice: Disparities exist in hemodialysis-associated S. aureus infections. Health care providers and public health professionals should prioritize prevention and optimized treatment of ESKD, identify and address barriers to lower-risk vascular access placement, and implement established best practices to prevent bloodstream infections.

Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

Vaccines, Variants, and Vigilance: Strengthening the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Public Health Response Through Partnerships and Collaborations.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); state, tribal, local, and territorial health departments; other US government departments and agencies; the private sector; and international partners have engaged in a real-time public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Vaccination, variants, and vigilance were themes that arose in the second year of pandemic response in the United States. The findings included in this supplement emerged from these themes and represent some of the many collaborative efforts to improve public health knowledge and action to reduce transmission, infection, and disease severity.

Performance Evaluation of Serial SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing During a Nursing Home Outbreak.

BACKGROUND: To address high COVID-19 burden in U.S. nursing homes, rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have been widely distributed in those facilities. However, performance data are lacking, especially in asymptomatic people. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing when used for facility-wide testing during a nursing home outbreak. DESIGN: A prospective evaluation involving 3 facility-wide rounds of testing where paired respiratory specimens were collected to evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared with virus culture and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Early and late infection were defined using changes in RT-PCR cycle threshold values and prior test results. SETTING: A nursing home with an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. PARTICIPANTS: 532 paired specimens collected from 234 available residents and staff. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of positive agreement (PPA) and percentage of negative agreement (PNA) for BinaxNOW compared with RT-PCR and virus culture. RESULTS: BinaxNOW PPA with virus culture, used for detection of replication-competent virus, was 95%. However, the overall PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 69%, and PNA was 98%. When only the first positive test result was analyzed for each participant, PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 82% among 45 symptomatic people and 52% among 343 asymptomatic people. Compared with RT-PCR and virus culture, the BinaxNOW test performed well in early infection (86% and 95%, respectively) and poorly in late infection (51% and no recovered virus, respectively). LIMITATION: Accurate symptom ascertainment was challenging in nursing home residents; test performance may not be representative of testing done by nonlaboratory staff. CONCLUSION: Despite lower positive agreement compared with RT-PCR, antigen test positivity had higher agreement with shedding of replication-competent virus. These results suggest that antigen testing could be a useful tool to rapidly identify contagious people at risk for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 during nascent outbreaks and help reduce COVID-19 burden in nursing homes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

A Comparison of Less Invasive Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Diagnostic Specimens in Nursing Home Residents-Arkansas, June-August 2020.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing remains essential for early identification and clinical management of cases. We compared the diagnostic performance of 3 specimen types for characterizing SARS-CoV-2 in infected nursing home residents. METHODS: A convenience sample of 17 residents were enrolled within 15 days of first positive SARS-CoV-2 result by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and prospectively followed for 42 days. Anterior nasal swabs (AN), oropharyngeal swabs (OP), and saliva specimens (SA) were collected on the day of enrollment, every 3 days for the first 21 days, and then weekly for 21 days. Specimens were tested for presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using RT-PCR and replication-competent virus by viral culture. RESULTS: Comparing the 3 specimen types collected from each participant at each time point, the concordance of paired RT-PCR results ranged from 80% to 88%. After the first positive result, SA and OP were RT-PCR-positive for ≤48 days; AN were RT-PCR-positive for ≤33 days. AN had the highest percentage of RT-PCR-positive results (21/26 [81%]) when collected ≤10 days of participants' first positive result. Eleven specimens were positive by viral culture: 9 AN collected ≤19 days following first positive result and 2 OP collected ≤5 days following first positive result. CONCLUSIONS: AN, OP, and SA were effective methods for repeated testing in this population. More AN than OP were positive by viral culture. SA and OP remained RT-PCR-positive longer than AN, which could lead to unnecessary interventions if RT-PCR detection occurred after viral shedding has likely ceased.

Interim Estimate of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) Vaccine in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Adolescents Aged 12-17 Years - Arizona, July-December 2021.

The BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has demonstrated high efficacy in preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials in persons aged 12-17 years (referred to as adolescents in this report) (1); however, data on real-word vaccine effectiveness (VE) among adolescents are limited (1-3). As of December 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adolescents aged 16-17 years and under FDA emergency use authorization for those aged 12-15 years. In a prospective cohort in Arizona, 243 adolescents aged 12-17 years were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) each week, irrespective of symptoms, and upon onset of COVID-19-like illness during July 25-December 4, 2021; the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was the predominant strain during this study period. During the study, 190 adolescents contributed fully vaccinated person-time (≥14 days after receiving 2 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine), 30 contributed partially vaccinated person-time (receipt of 1 dose or receipt of 2 doses but with the second dose completed <14 days earlier), and 66 contributed unvaccinated person-time. Using the Cox proportional-hazards model, the estimated VE of full Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was 92% (95% CI = 79%-97%), adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, health information, frequency of social contact, mask use, location, and local virus circulation. These findings from a real-world setting indicate that 2 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among Arizona adolescents. CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible persons in the United States, including persons aged 12-17 years.

Interim Estimates of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 Vaccines in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Health Care Personnel, First Responders, and Other Essential and Frontline Workers - Eight U.S. Locations, December 2020-March 2021.

Messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials (1,2); however, the benefits of these vaccines for preventing asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection, particularly when administered in real-world conditions, is less well understood. Using prospective cohorts of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers* in eight U.S. locations during December 14, 2020-March 13, 2021, CDC routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 infections every week regardless of symptom status and at the onset of symptoms consistent with COVID-19-associated illness. Among 3,950 participants with no previous laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,479 (62.8%) received both recommended mRNA doses and 477 (12.1%) received only one dose of mRNA vaccine.† Among unvaccinated participants, 1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) per 1,000 person-days.§ In contrast, among fully immunized (≥14 days after second dose) persons, 0.04 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported, and among partially immunized (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) persons, 0.19 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported. Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization. These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.

Diagnosed and Undiagnosed COVID-19 in US Emergency Department Health Care Personnel: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the percentage of diagnosed and undiagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among a sample of US emergency department (ED) health care personnel before July 2020. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of ED health care personnel in 20 geographically diverse university-affiliated EDs from May 13, to July 8, 2020, including case counts of prior laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses among all ED health care personnel, and then point-in-time serology (with confirmatory testing) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in a sample of volunteers without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Health care staff were categorized as clinical (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) and nonclinical (clerks, social workers, and case managers). Previously undiagnosed infection was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 serology or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction result among health care personnel without prior diagnosis. RESULTS: Diagnosed COVID-19 occurred in 2.8% of health care personnel (193/6,788), and the prevalence was similar for nonclinical and clinical staff (3.8% versus 2.7%; odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.2). Among 1,606 health care personnel without previously diagnosed COVID-19, 29 (1.8%) had evidence of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most (62%; 18/29) who were seropositive did not think they had been infected, 76% (19/25) recalled COVID-19-compatible symptoms, and 89% (17/19) continued to work while symptomatic. Accounting for both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections, 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 7.5%) of ED health care personnel were estimated to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 38% of those infections undiagnosed. CONCLUSION: In late spring and early summer 2020, the estimated prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was 4.6%, and greater than one third of infections were undiagnosed. Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose substantial risk for transmission to other staff and patients.

Characterization of COVID-19 in Assisted Living Facilities - 39 States, October 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of residents and staff members in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) (1). Although skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have federal COVID-19 reporting requirements, national surveillance data are less readily available for other types of LTCFs, such as assisted living facilities (ALFs) and those providing similar residential care. However, many state and territorial health departments publicly report COVID-19 surveillance data across various types of LTCFs. These data were systematically retrieved from health department websites to characterize COVID-19 cases and deaths in ALF residents and staff members. Limited ALF COVID-19 data were available for 39 states, although reporting varied. By October 15, 2020, among 28,623 ALFs, 6,440 (22%) had at least one COVID-19 case among residents or staff members. Among the states with available data, the proportion of COVID-19 cases that were fatal was 21.2% for ALF residents, 0.3% for ALF staff members, and 2.5% overall for the general population of these states. To prevent the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in their facilities, ALFs should 1) identify a point of contact at the local health department; 2) educate residents, families, and staff members about COVID-19; 3) have a plan for visitor and staff member restrictions; 4) encourage social (physical) distancing and the use of masks, as appropriate; 5) implement recommended infection prevention and control practices and provide access to supplies; 6) rapidly identify and properly respond to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases in residents and staff members; and 7) conduct surveillance of COVID-19 cases and deaths, facility staffing, and supply information (2).

Mycoplasma pneumoniae Among Children Hospitalized With Community-acquired Pneumonia.

Background: The epidemiology of Mycoplasma pneumoniae (Mp) among US children (<18 years) hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is poorly understood. Methods: In the Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community study, we prospectively enrolled 2254 children hospitalized with radiographically confirmed pneumonia from January 2010-June 2012 and tested nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs for Mp using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Clinical and epidemiological features of Mp PCR-positive and -negative children were compared using logistic regression. Macrolide susceptibility was assessed by genotyping isolates. Results: One hundred and eighty two (8%) children were Mp PCR-positive (median age, 7 years); 12% required intensive care and 26% had pleural effusion. No in-hospital deaths occurred. Macrolide resistance was found in 4% (6/169) isolates. Of 178 (98%) Mp PCR-positive children tested for copathogens, 50 (28%) had ≥1 copathogen detected. Variables significantly associated with higher odds of Mp detection included age (10-17 years: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 10.7 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.4-21.1] and 5-9 years: aOR, 6.4 [95% CI, 3.4-12.1] vs 2-4 years), outpatient antibiotics ≤5 days preadmission (aOR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.5-3.5]), and copathogen detection (aOR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.3]). Clinical characteristics were non-specific. Conclusions: Usually considered as a mild respiratory infection, Mp was the most commonly detected bacteria among children aged ≥5 years hospitalized with CAP, one-quarter of whom had codetections. Although associated with clinically nonspecific symptoms, there was a need for intensive care in some cases. Mycoplasma pneumoniae should be included in the differential diagnosis for school-aged children hospitalized with CAP.

Clostridioides difficile Infection.

Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile) infection is the most frequently identified health care-associated infection in the United States. C difficile has also emerged as a cause of community-associated diarrhea, resulting in increased incidence of community-associated infection. Clinical illness ranges in severity from mild diarrhea to fulminant colitis and death. Appropriate management of infection requires understanding of the various diagnostic assays and therapeutic options as well as relevant measures to infection prevention. This article provides updated recommendations regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of incident and recurrent C difficile infection.

Compendium of Measures to Control Chlamydia psittaci Infection Among Humans (Psittacosis) and Pet Birds (Avian Chlamydiosis), 2017.

Psittacosis, also known as parrot fever and ornithosis, is a bacterial infection that can cause severe pneumonia and other serious health problems in humans. It is caused by Chlamydia psittaci. Reclassification of the order Chlamydiales in 1999 into 2 genera (Chlamydia and Chlamydophila) was not wholly accepted or adopted. This resulted in a reversion to the single, original genus Chlamydia, which now encompasses all 9 species including Chlamydia psittaci. During 2003-2014, 112 human cases of psittacosis were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the Nationally Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. While many types of birds can be infected by C psittaci, in general, the literature suggests that human cases can most often occur after exposure to infected parrot-type birds kept as pets, especially cockatiels, parakeets, and conures. In birds, C psittaci infection is referred to as avian chlamydiosis. Infected birds shed the bacteria through feces and nasal discharges, and humans become infected from exposure to these materials. This compendium provides information about psittacosis and avian chlamydiosis to public health officials, physicians, veterinarians, the pet bird industry, and others concerned with controlling these diseases and protecting public health. The recommendations in this compendium provide standardized procedures to control C psittaci infections. This document will be reviewed and revised as necessary, and the most current version replaces all previous versions. This document was last revised in 2010. Major changes in this version include a recommendation for a shorter treatment time for birds with avian chlamydiosis, additional information about diagnostic testing, including genotyping, clearer language associated with personal protective equipment recommended for those caring for confirmed or exposed birds, and incorporating a grading scale with recommendations generally based on the United States Preventive Services Task Force's methods.

Mycoplasma pneumoniae outbreak in a long-term care facility--Nebraska, 2014.

On June 20, 2014, a Nebraska long-term care facility notified the East Central District Health Department (ECDHD) and Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS) of an outbreak of respiratory illness characterized by cough and fever in 22 residents and resulting in four deaths during the preceding 2 weeks. To determine the etiologic agent, identify additional cases, and implement control measures, Nebraska and CDC investigators evaluated the facility's infection prevention measures and collected nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs or autopsy specimens from patients for real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at CDC. The facility was closed to new admissions until 1 month after the last case, droplet precautions were implemented, ill residents were isolated, and group activities were canceled. During the outbreak, a total of 55 persons experienced illnesses that met the case definition; 12 were hospitalized, and seven died. PCR detected Mycoplasma pneumoniae DNA in 40% of specimens. M. pneumoniae should be considered a possible cause of respiratory illness outbreaks in long-term care facilities. Morbidity and mortality from respiratory disease outbreaks at long-term care facilities might be minimized if facilities monitor for respiratory disease clusters, report outbreaks promptly, prioritize diagnostic testing in outbreak situations, and implement timely and strict infection control measures to halt transmission.

Surveillance for Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated with Drinking Water - United States, 2011-2012.

Advances in water management and sanitation have substantially reduced waterborne disease in the United States, although outbreaks continue to occur. Public health agencies in the U.S. states and territories* report information on waterborne disease outbreaks to the CDC Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System (http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/surveillance/index.html). For 2011-2012, 32 drinking water-associated outbreaks were reported, accounting for at least 431 cases of illness, 102 hospitalizations, and 14 deaths. Legionella was responsible for 66% of outbreaks and 26% of illnesses, and viruses and non-Legionella bacteria together accounted for 16% of outbreaks and 53% of illnesses. The two most commonly identified deficiencies† leading to drinking water-associated outbreaks were Legionella in building plumbing§ systems (66%) and untreated groundwater (13%). Continued vigilance by public health, regulatory, and industry professionals to identify and correct deficiencies associated with building plumbing systems and groundwater systems could prevent most reported outbreaks and illnesses associated with drinking water systems.

Outbreaks Associated With Environmental and Undetermined Water Exposures - United States, 2011-2012.

Exposures to contaminated water can lead to waterborne disease outbreaks associated with various sources, including many that are classified and reported separately as drinking water or recreational water. Waterborne disease outbreaks can also involve a variety of other exposures (e.g., consuming water directly from backcountry or wilderness streams, or inhaling aerosols from cooling towers and ornamental fountains). Additionally, outbreaks might be epidemiologically linked to multiple water sources or may not have a specific water source implicated.