Contact Tracing and Exposure Investigation in Response to the First Case of Monkeypox Virus Infection in the United States During the 2022 Global Monkeypox Outbreak.

BACKGROUND: In May 2022, the first case of monkeypox virus (MPXV) infection in the United States in the current global outbreak was identified. As part of the public health and health care facility response, a contact tracing and exposure investigation was done. OBJECTIVE: To describe the contact tracing, exposure identification, risk stratification, administration of postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), and exposure period monitoring for contacts of the index patient, including evaluation of persons who developed symptoms possibly consistent with MPXV infection. DESIGN: Contact tracing and exposure investigation. SETTING: Multiple health care facilities and community settings in Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Persons identified as contacts of the index patient. INTERVENTION: Contact notification, risk stratification, and symptom monitoring; PEP administration in a subset of contacts. MEASUREMENTS: Epidemiologic and clinical data collected through standard surveillance procedures at each facility and then aggregated and analyzed. RESULTS: There were 37 community and 129 health care contacts identified, with 4 at high risk, 49 at intermediate risk, and 113 at low or uncertain risk. Fifteen health care contacts developed symptoms during the monitoring period. Three met criteria for MPXV testing, with negative results. Two community contacts developed symptoms. Neither met criteria for MPXV testing, and neither showed disease progression consistent with monkeypox. Among 4 persons with high-risk exposures offered PEP, 3 elected to receive PEP. Among 10 HCP with intermediate-risk exposures for which PEP was offered as part of informed clinical decision making, 2 elected to receive PEP. No transmissions were identified at the conclusion of the 21-day monitoring period, despite the delay in recognition of monkeypox in the index patient. LIMITATION: Descriptions of exposures are subject to recall bias, which affects risk stratification. CONCLUSION: In a contact tracing investigation involving 166 community and health care contacts of a patient with monkeypox, no secondary cases were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Correlation of Hand Hygiene Compliance Measured by Direct Observation with Estimates Obtained from Product Usage.

Improving compliance with hand hygiene is a cornerstone of infection prevention. However, data regarding practical methods for monitoring compliance are limited. We found that product use metrics have a moderate correlation with direct observation in ward settings and limited correlation in intensive care units.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:746-749.

Randomized Comparison of 3 High-Level Disinfection and Sterilization Procedures for Duodenoscopes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Duodenoscopes have been implicated in the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). We compared the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with MDRO or any other bacteria after disinfection or sterilization by 3 different methods. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective randomized study in which duodenoscopes were randomly reprocessed by standard high-level disinfection (sHLD), double high-level disinfection (dHLD), or standard high-level disinfection followed by ethylene oxide gas sterilization (HLD/ETO). Samples were collected from the elevator mechanism and working channel of each duodenoscope and cultured before use. The primary outcome was the proportion of duodenoscopes with an elevator mechanism or working channel culture showing 1 or more MDRO; secondary outcomes included the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with more than 0 and 10 or more colony-forming units (CFU) of aerobic bacterial growth on either sampling location. RESULTS: After 3 months of enrollment, the study was closed because of the futility; we did not observe sufficient events to evaluate the primary outcome. Among 541 duodenoscope culture events, 516 were included in the final analysis. No duodenoscope culture in any group was positive for MDRO. Bacterial growth of more than 0 CFU was noted in 16.1% duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 16.0% in the dHLD group, and 22.5% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .21). Bacterial growth or 10 or more CFU was noted in 2.3% of duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 4.1% in the dHLD group, and 4.2% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .36). MRDOs were cultured from 3.2% of pre-procedure rectal swabs and 2.5% of duodenal aspirates. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of duodenoscopes reprocessed by sHLD, dHLD, or HLD/ETO, we found no significant differences between groups for MDRO or bacteria contamination. Enhanced disinfection methods (dHLD or HLD/ETO) did not provide additional protection against contamination. However, insufficient events occurred to assess our primary study end-point. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02611648.