Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Within a Psychiatric Hospital and Considerations for Limiting Transmission Within Residential Psychiatric Facilities - Wyoming, 2020.

In the United States, approximately 180,000 patients receive mental health services each day at approximately 4,000 inpatient and residential psychiatric facilities (1). SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can spread rapidly within congregate residential settings (2-4), including psychiatric facilities. On April 13, 2020, two patients were transferred to Wyoming's state psychiatric hospital from a private psychiatric hospital that had confirmed COVID-19 cases among its residents and staff members (5). Although both patients were asymptomatic at the time of transfer and one had a negative test result for SARS-CoV-2 at the originating facility, they were both isolated and received testing upon arrival at the state facility. On April 16, 2020, the test results indicated that both patients had SARS-CoV-2 infection. In response, the state hospital implemented expanded COVID-19 infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures (e.g., enhanced screening, testing, and management of new patient admissions) and adapted some standard IPC measures to facilitate implementation within the psychiatric patient population (e.g., use of modified face coverings). To assess the likely effectiveness of these procedures and determine SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence among patients and health care personnel (HCP) (6) at the state hospital, a point prevalence survey was conducted. On May 1, 2020, 18 days after the patients' arrival, 46 (61%) of 76 patients and 171 (61%) of 282 HCP had nasopharyngeal swabs collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. All patients and HCP who received testing had negative test results, suggesting that the hospital's expanded IPC strategies might have been effective in preventing the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection within the facility. In congregate residential settings, prompt identification of COVID-19 cases and application of strong IPC procedures are critical to ensuring the protection of other patients and staff members. Although standard guidance exists for other congregate facilities (7) and for HCP in general (8), modifications and nonstandard solutions might be needed to account for the specific needs of psychiatric facilities, their patients, and staff members.

Notes from the Field: Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis Misdiagnoses at a Rural Urgent-Care Clinic--Wyoming, March 2015.

Group A Streptococcus (GAS) is the most common bacterial cause of pharyngitis, implicated in 20%-30% of pediatric and 5%-15% of adult health care visits for sore throat (1). Along with the sudden onset of throat pain, GAS pharyngitis symptoms include fever, headache, and bilateral tender cervical lymphadenopathy (1,2). Accurate diagnosis and management of GAS pharyngitis is critical for limiting antibiotic overuse and preventing rheumatic fever (2), but distinguishing between GAS and viral pharyngitis clinically is challenging (1). Guidelines for diagnosis and management of GAS pharyngitis have been published by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)* (1). IDSA recommends that patients with sore throat be tested for GAS to distinguish between GAS and viral pharyngitis; however, IDSA emphasizes the use of selective testing based on clinical symptoms and signs to avoid identifying GAS carriers rather than acute GAS infections (1). Therefore, testing for GAS usually is not recommended for the following: patients with sore throat and accompanying symptoms (e.g., cough, rhinorrhea) that strongly suggest a viral etiology; children aged <3 years, because acute rheumatic fever is extremely rare in this age group; and asymptomatic household contacts of patients with GAS pharyngitis (1). IDSA recommends penicillin or amoxicillin as the treatment of choice based on effectiveness and narrow spectrum of activity. To date, penicillin-resistant GAS has never been documented (1).

Evaluating the public health response to a mass bat exposure-Wyoming, 2017.

Mass bat exposures (MBEs) occur when multiple people are exposed to a bat or a bat colony, often over an extended period. In August 2017, a public health investigation was started in response to an MBE that occurred during May-August 2017 at a national park research station in Wyoming. We identified 176 people who had slept primarily in two lodges (Lodges A and B) at the research station, and successfully contacted 165 (93.8%) of these individuals. Risk assessments (RAs) were administered to all 165 individuals to determine degree and type of exposures to bats (e.g., biting or scratching). Exposure status for research station guests was classified as "non-exposed," "low risk" or "high risk," and counselling was provided to guide post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) recommendations. Prior to public health notification and intervention, 19 persons made the decision to pursue PEP. The healthcare-seeking behaviours of this group were taken to represent outcomes in the absence of public health intervention. (These persons received a RA, and their risk classification was retrospectively assigned.) Approximately 1-2 weeks after conducting the RAs, we conducted a follow-up survey to determine whether recommendations regarding PEP were ultimately followed. The proportion of individuals that unnecessarily pursued PEP was higher among the 19 individuals that sought health care prior to receiving the RA (p < 0.00001). Among those receiving the RA first, all persons classified as high risk followed public health guidance to seek PEP treatment. Despite this, upon re-interview, only 21/79 (26.6%) of guests could accurately recall their risk classification, with most people (55.7%) overestimating their risk. Study findings demonstrate that early public health interventions such as RAs can reduce unnecessary use of PEP and that messaging used during rabies counselling should be clear.

An outbreak of hepatitis B virus infection among methamphetamine injectors: the role of sharing injection drug equipment.

AIM: To identify risk factors for acute hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection among Wyoming methamphetamine injectors. DESIGN: A case-control study conducted in the setting of an outbreak. SETTING: A county in central Wyoming, United States. PARTICIPANTS: Cases were identified through surveillance and contact tracing and were defined as Natrona County, Wyoming, residents who were either symptomatic or confirmed serologically to be acutely infected with HBV during January-August, 2003. Controls were susceptible to HBV infection. All participants identified themselves as methamphetamine injectors. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were administered a survey that inquired about risk factors for HBV infection, including drug use practices and sexual behaviors. Controls were also tested serologically for acute HBV infection. FINDINGS: Among the 18 case-patients and 49 controls who participated in the study, sharing water used to prepare injections and/or rinse syringes was associated with HBV infection (94% of case-participants versus 44% of controls; OR = 21.9, 95% CI: 2.7, 177.8), as was sharing cotton filters (89% of case-participants versus 52% of controls; OR = 7.4, 95% CI: 1.5, 35.6); sharing syringes was not statistically associated. In logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, and interview site, sharing rinse water and sharing cotton remained statistically associated. CONCLUSIONS: Methamphetamine use has become increasingly prevalent in the United States. Our findings highlight the need for awareness of risks associated with injection drug use and sharing behaviors. Enhanced hepatitis B vaccination programs and educational campaigns that target methamphetamine injectors specifically, including those living in rural areas, should be developed and implemented.

Validation of a Brucella abortus competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for use in Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni).

Brucellosis caused by infection with Brucella abortus is present in some elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) of the Greater Yellowstone Area (parts of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, USA). Since 1985, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department has vaccinated elk on elk feedgrounds in northwestern Wyoming during the winter months using B. abortus strain 19 (strain 19). Analysis of this vaccination program is hampered by the inability of standard serologic tests to differentiate between strain 19 vaccinated elk and those exposed to field strain B. abortus. In 1993, a competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA) was licensed to serologically differentiate between strain 19 vaccinated cattle and cattle exposed to field strain B. abortus. Seven groups of elk sera representing various B. abortus exposure histories were used to validate the cELISA test for elk. The cELISA test differentiated strain 19 vaccinated elk from elk that were challenged with B. abortus strain 2308, a pathogenic laboratory strain. The specificity of the cELISA was 96.8% for elk vaccinated with strain 19 only and sampled between 6 mo and 2 yr post vaccination, or with no B. abortus exposure. The sensitivity of the cELISA was 100%. The cELISA test will be useful in evaluating sera collected from elk in vaccinated, brucellosis endemic herds in the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Infection with Colorado tick fever virus among humans and ticks in a national park and forest, Wyoming, 2010.

BACKGROUND: Colorado tick fever (CTF) is an underreported tick-borne viral disease occurring in the western United States. CTF illness includes fever, headache, and severe myalgia lasting for weeks. Wyoming has one of the highest CTF incidence rates with approximately 30% of infected persons reporting tick exposure in a Wyoming National Park or Forest before symptom onset. We assessed CTF virus infections among humans and Dermacentor andersoni ticks in Grand Teton National Park (GRTE) and Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF). METHODS: In June of 2010, 526 eligible employees were approached to participate in a baseline and 3-month follow-up serosurvey and risk behavior survey. Seropositivity was defined as antibody titers against CTF virus ≥10, as measured by the plaque reduction neutralization test. Ticks were collected at 27 sites within GRTE/BTNF and tested by RT-PCR for the CTF virus. RESULTS: A total of 126 (24%) employees participated in the baseline and follow-up study visits. Three (2%) employees were seropositive for CTF virus infection at baseline. During the study, 47 (37%) participants found unattached ticks on themselves, and 12 (10%) found attached ticks; however, no participants seroconverted against CTF virus. Walking through sagebrush (p=0.04) and spending time at ≥7000 feet elevation (p<0.01) were significantly associated with tick exposure. Ninety-nine percent (174/176) of ticks were D. andersoni, and all were found at ≥7000 feet elevation in sagebrush areas; 37 (21%) ticks tested positive for CTF virus and were found at 10 (38%) of 26 sites sampled. CONCLUSIONS: Although no GRTE or BTNF employees were infected with CTF virus during the study period, high rates of infected ticks were identified in areas with sagebrush at ≥7000 feet. CTF education and personal protection measures against tick exposure should be targeted to visitors and employees traveling to the high-risk environs identified in this study.