Health Care Personnel Exposures to Subsequently Laboratory-Confirmed Monkeypox Patients - Colorado, 2022.

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.

Rapid Increase in Circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant - Mesa County, Colorado, April-June 2021.

On May 5, 2021, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) identified the first five COVID-19 cases caused by the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant in Mesa County in western Colorado (population 154,933, <3% of the state population). All five initial cases were associated with school settings. Through early June, Mesa County experienced a marked increase in the proportion of Delta variant cases identified through sequencing: the 7-day proportion of sequenced specimens identified as B.1.617.2 in Mesa County more than doubled, from 43% for the week ending May 1 to 88% for the week ending June 5. As of June 6, more than one half (51%) of sequenced B.1.617.2 specimens in Colorado were from Mesa County. CDPHE assessed data from surveillance, vaccination, laboratory, and hospital sources to describe the preliminary epidemiology of the Delta variant and calculate crude vaccine effectiveness (VE). Vaccination coverage in early May in Mesa County was lower (36% of eligible residents fully vaccinated) than that in the rest of the state (44%). Compared with that in all other Colorado counties, incidence, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and COVID-19 case fatality ratios were significantly higher in Mesa County during the analysis period, April 27-June 6, 2021. In addition, during the same time period, the proportion of COVID-19 cases in persons who were fully vaccinated (vaccine breakthrough cases) was significantly higher in Mesa County compared with that in all other Colorado counties. Estimated crude VE against reported symptomatic infection for a 2-week period ending June 5 was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 71%-84%) for Mesa County and 89% (95% CI = 88%-91%) for other Colorado counties. Vaccination is a critical strategy for preventing infection, serious illness, and death from COVID-19. Enhanced mitigation strategies, including masking in indoor settings irrespective of vaccination status, should be considered in areas with substantial or high case rates.

Severe respiratory illness associated with a nationwide outbreak of enterovirus D68 in the USA (2014): a descriptive epidemiological investigation.

BACKGROUND: Enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) has been infrequently reported historically, and is typically associated with isolated cases or small clusters of respiratory illness. Beginning in August, 2014, increases in severe respiratory illness associated with EV-D68 were reported across the USA. We aimed to describe the clinical, epidemiological, and laboratory features of this outbreak, and to better understand the role of EV-D68 in severe respiratory illness. METHODS: We collected regional syndromic surveillance data for epidemiological weeks 23 to 44, 2014, (June 1 to Nov 1, 2014) and hospital admissions data for epidemiological weeks 27 to 44, 2014, (June 29 to Nov 1, 2014) from three states: Missouri, Illinois and Colorado. Data were also collected for the same time period of 2013 and 2012. Respiratory specimens from severely ill patients nationwide, who were rhinovirus-positive or enterovirus-positive in hospital testing, were submitted between Aug 1, and Oct 31, 2014, and typed by molecular sequencing. We collected basic clinical and epidemiological characteristics of EV-D68 cases with a standard data collection form submitted with each specimen. We compared patients requiring intensive care with those who did not, and patients requiring ventilator support with those who did not. Mantel-Haenszel χ(2) tests were used to test for statistical significance. FINDINGS: Regional and hospital-level data from Missouri, Illinois, and Colorado showed increases in respiratory illness between August and September, 2014, compared with in 2013 and 2012. Nationwide, 699 (46%) of 1529 patients tested were confirmed as EV-D68. Among the 614 EV-D68-positive patients admitted to hospital, age ranged from 3 days to 92 years (median 5 years). Common symptoms included dyspnoea (n=513 [84%]), cough (n=500 [81%]), and wheezing (n=427 [70%]); 294 (48%) patients had fever. 338 [59%] of 574 were admitted to intensive care units, and 145 (28%) of 511 received ventilator support; 322 (52%) of 614 had a history of asthma or reactive airway disease; 200 (66%) of 304 patients with a history of asthma or reactive airway disease required intensive care compared with 138 (51%) of 270 with no history of asthma or reactive airway disease (p=0·0004). Similarly, 89 (32%) of 276 patients with a history of asthma or reactive airway disease required ventilator support compared with 56 (24%) of 235 patients with no history of asthma or reactive airway disease (p=0·039). INTERPRETATION: In 2014, EV-D68 caused widespread severe respiratory illness across the USA, disproportionately affecting those with asthma. This unexpected event underscores the need for robust surveillance of enterovirus types, enabling improved understanding of virus circulation and disease burden. FUNDING: None.

Tickborne relapsing fever - United States, 1990-2011.

Tickborne relapsing fever (TBRF) is a zoonosis caused by spirochetes of the genus Borrelia and transmitted to humans by ticks of the genus Ornithodoros. TBRF is endemic in the western United States, predominately in mountainous regions. Clinical illness is characterized by recurrent bouts of fever, headache, and malaise. Although TBRF is usually a mild illness, severe sequelae and death can occur. This report summarizes the epidemiology of 504 TBRF cases reported from 12 western states during 1990-2011. Cases occurred most commonly among males and among persons aged 10‒14 and 40‒44 years. Most reported infections occurred among nonresident visitors to areas where TBRF is endemic. Clinicians and public health practitioners need to be familiar with current epidemiology and features of TBRF to adequately diagnose and treat patients and recognize that any TBRF case might indicate an ongoing source of potential exposure that needs to be investigated and eliminated.