Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research agenda for healthcare epidemiology

This SHEA white paper identifies knowledge gaps and challenges in healthcare epidemiology research related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a focus on core principles of healthcare epidemiology. These gaps, revealed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, are described in 10 sections: epidemiology, outbreak investigation, surveillance, isolation precaution practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental contamination and disinfection, drug and supply shortages, antimicrobial stewardship, healthcare personnel (HCP) occupational safety, and return to work policies. Each section highlights three critical healthcare epidemiology research questions with detailed description provided in supplementary materials. This research agenda calls for translational studies from laboratory-based basic science research to well-designed, large-scale studies and health outcomes research. Research gaps and challenges related to nursing homes and social disparities are included. Collaborations across various disciplines, expertise and across diverse geographic locations will be critical.

Usefulness of a rapid human immunodeficiency virus-1 antibody test for the management of occupational exposure to blood and body fluid

OBJECTIVE

To describe the usefulness of the OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test (OraSure Technologies, Bethlehem, PA) in cases of occupational exposure regarding its use with source-patient sera, effects on post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) use, potential cost savings, and effects on healthcare worker (HCW) stress reaction symptoms.

DESIGN

Before-and-after analysis.

SETTING

A 269-bed, tertiary-care medical center with adjacent clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

All source-patients and HCWs experiencing an occupational exposure during the study period.

METHODS

Use of the OraQuick test with patient sera was validated prior to its use for occupational exposures. Exposures from January 1 through July 10, 2003 (enzyme immunoassay [EIA] group) and July 11 through December 31, 2003 (OraQuick group) were retrospectively reviewed and the use and cost of PEP was compared for each group. Randomly selected HCWs from both groups completed a survey to assess their stress reaction symptoms.

RESULTS

After exclusion, there were 71 exposures in the EIA group and 79 in the OraQuick group. OraQuick results were 100% concordant with the reference standard of EIA and Western blot using patient sera. The mean number of doses ingested per course of PEP was significantly higher for HCWs in the EIA group (3.8; range, 0 to 6) compared with the OraQuick group (1.2; range, 0 to 3; P = .016). Cost analysis revealed a mean savings of dollar 6.62 with the OraQuick test per occupational exposure. Although the survey failed to detect an overall reduction in HCW stress reaction symptoms using OraQuick for source-patient testing, 11 HCWs in the EIA group had repetitive thoughts of the exposure compared with 5 in the OraQuick group (P = .049).

CONCLUSION

Because of the reduction in ingested doses of unnecessary PEP and reduced cost of occupational exposure management with their use, rapid HIV-antibody tests should be the preferred method for source-patient testing following an occupational exposure.