Cargando…

1524. SARS-CoV-2 Infection Incidence Following Exposure Assessments for Healthcare Workers

BACKGROUND: Although healthcare worker (HCW) absenteeism due to COVID-19 exposure represents a significant challenge, there are currently no evidence-based criteria for assessing infection risk based on COVID-19 exposure type. We aimed to identify the incidence of acquiring infection following varyi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vaisman, Alon, Cairns, Rob, De Graeve, Danielle, Dus, Tamara, Hota, Susy S, Granton, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9752059/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.086
_version_ 1784850626085126144
author Vaisman, Alon
Cairns, Rob
De Graeve, Danielle
Dus, Tamara
Hota, Susy S
Granton, John
author_facet Vaisman, Alon
Cairns, Rob
De Graeve, Danielle
Dus, Tamara
Hota, Susy S
Granton, John
author_sort Vaisman, Alon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although healthcare worker (HCW) absenteeism due to COVID-19 exposure represents a significant challenge, there are currently no evidence-based criteria for assessing infection risk based on COVID-19 exposure type. We aimed to identify the incidence of acquiring infection following varying exposures to COVID-19 to guide safe return-to-work policies for staff in healthcare settings. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data at an academic centre with approximately 17 000 active staff between January 1 - April 30, 2022 during a large BA.1 Omicron surge. More than 99% of staff received >2 vaccine doses. All staff self-reporting household, community, and workplace exposure to confirmed cases of COVID-19 submitted attestation to the Occupational Health department detailing the nature of the exposure, the duration, and setting. Staff were required to report all positive test results by rapid antigen or PCR testing. RESULTS: A total of 3209 staff submitted exposure reports (2493 household, 539 community, and 177 workplace). Of these, 1008 (31.4%) tested positive 2 days prior to or 14 days after the exposure (36% household; 19% community, 7% workplace). In the community exposure group, 19% tested positive due to a discrete exposure of < 4 hours and 21% tested positive with an exposure >4 hours. For household exposures and workplace exposures, these values were 25%/27% and 6%/10%, respectively (Figure 1). The median time to testing positive was 2 days for household exposures and 3 days for community and workplace exposures (Figure 2, Panels A-C). By day 4 post-exposure, more than 80% of positive results were reported (Figure 2, Panel D). Risk of testing positive differed based on baseline symptom status at the time of reporting (Table 1). [Figure: see text] Risk of infection during the peri-exposure period (2 days before reported exposure and 14 days after) according to type and duration of exposure. Background rate of infection based on regional incidence of disease due to BA.1 Omicron wave. [Figure: see text] SARS-CoV-2 Infection Risk (A - household; B - Community; C - Workplace) after exposure. Time to infection in all groups is shown in panel D. [Figure: see text] The risk of infection amongst healthcare workers reporting exposures, according to their symptom status at the time of reporting their exposures. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that the highest risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 was via household contacts, regardless of exposure duration, with workplace exposures carrying less risk. Using a cut-off of 4 hours for exposure duration to delineate risk may be of limited value. These data could help workplaces predict infection risk following exposure and guide return-to-work policies that balance the need to staff workplaces, including hospitals, with reducing risk of on-site transmission during periods of increased community transmission (Figure 3). Risk of Infection in the Context of Background Infection [Figure: see text] Background general population infection risk based on regional incidence of disease due to BA.1 Omicron wave. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9752059
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97520592022-12-16 1524. SARS-CoV-2 Infection Incidence Following Exposure Assessments for Healthcare Workers Vaisman, Alon Cairns, Rob De Graeve, Danielle Dus, Tamara Hota, Susy S Granton, John Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Although healthcare worker (HCW) absenteeism due to COVID-19 exposure represents a significant challenge, there are currently no evidence-based criteria for assessing infection risk based on COVID-19 exposure type. We aimed to identify the incidence of acquiring infection following varying exposures to COVID-19 to guide safe return-to-work policies for staff in healthcare settings. METHODS: We analyzed prospectively collected data at an academic centre with approximately 17 000 active staff between January 1 - April 30, 2022 during a large BA.1 Omicron surge. More than 99% of staff received >2 vaccine doses. All staff self-reporting household, community, and workplace exposure to confirmed cases of COVID-19 submitted attestation to the Occupational Health department detailing the nature of the exposure, the duration, and setting. Staff were required to report all positive test results by rapid antigen or PCR testing. RESULTS: A total of 3209 staff submitted exposure reports (2493 household, 539 community, and 177 workplace). Of these, 1008 (31.4%) tested positive 2 days prior to or 14 days after the exposure (36% household; 19% community, 7% workplace). In the community exposure group, 19% tested positive due to a discrete exposure of < 4 hours and 21% tested positive with an exposure >4 hours. For household exposures and workplace exposures, these values were 25%/27% and 6%/10%, respectively (Figure 1). The median time to testing positive was 2 days for household exposures and 3 days for community and workplace exposures (Figure 2, Panels A-C). By day 4 post-exposure, more than 80% of positive results were reported (Figure 2, Panel D). Risk of testing positive differed based on baseline symptom status at the time of reporting (Table 1). [Figure: see text] Risk of infection during the peri-exposure period (2 days before reported exposure and 14 days after) according to type and duration of exposure. Background rate of infection based on regional incidence of disease due to BA.1 Omicron wave. [Figure: see text] SARS-CoV-2 Infection Risk (A - household; B - Community; C - Workplace) after exposure. Time to infection in all groups is shown in panel D. [Figure: see text] The risk of infection amongst healthcare workers reporting exposures, according to their symptom status at the time of reporting their exposures. CONCLUSION: Our data suggests that the highest risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 was via household contacts, regardless of exposure duration, with workplace exposures carrying less risk. Using a cut-off of 4 hours for exposure duration to delineate risk may be of limited value. These data could help workplaces predict infection risk following exposure and guide return-to-work policies that balance the need to staff workplaces, including hospitals, with reducing risk of on-site transmission during periods of increased community transmission (Figure 3). Risk of Infection in the Context of Background Infection [Figure: see text] Background general population infection risk based on regional incidence of disease due to BA.1 Omicron wave. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2022-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9752059/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.086 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Abstracts
Vaisman, Alon
Cairns, Rob
De Graeve, Danielle
Dus, Tamara
Hota, Susy S
Granton, John
1524. SARS-CoV-2 Infection Incidence Following Exposure Assessments for Healthcare Workers
title 1524. SARS-CoV-2 Infection Incidence Following Exposure Assessments for Healthcare Workers
title_full 1524. SARS-CoV-2 Infection Incidence Following Exposure Assessments for Healthcare Workers
title_fullStr 1524. SARS-CoV-2 Infection Incidence Following Exposure Assessments for Healthcare Workers
title_full_unstemmed 1524. SARS-CoV-2 Infection Incidence Following Exposure Assessments for Healthcare Workers
title_short 1524. SARS-CoV-2 Infection Incidence Following Exposure Assessments for Healthcare Workers
title_sort 1524. sars-cov-2 infection incidence following exposure assessments for healthcare workers
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9752059/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac492.086
work_keys_str_mv AT vaismanalon 1524sarscov2infectionincidencefollowingexposureassessmentsforhealthcareworkers
AT cairnsrob 1524sarscov2infectionincidencefollowingexposureassessmentsforhealthcareworkers
AT degraevedanielle 1524sarscov2infectionincidencefollowingexposureassessmentsforhealthcareworkers
AT dustamara 1524sarscov2infectionincidencefollowingexposureassessmentsforhealthcareworkers
AT hotasusys 1524sarscov2infectionincidencefollowingexposureassessmentsforhealthcareworkers
AT grantonjohn 1524sarscov2infectionincidencefollowingexposureassessmentsforhealthcareworkers