Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:11:32.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nosocomial Tuberculosis Exposure in an Outpatient Setting Evaluation of Patients Exposed to Healthcare Providers With Tuberculosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Naomi N. Bock ,
Mark J. Sotir ,
Patricia L. Parrott  and
Henry M. Blumberg
Naomi N. Bock*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine and Epidemiology Department, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia
Mark J. Sotir
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine and Epidemiology Department, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia
Patricia L. Parrott
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine and Epidemiology Department, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia
Henry M. Blumberg
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine and Epidemiology Department, Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia
*
Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, 69 Butler St, Atlanta, GA30303
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the risk of tuberculosis (TB) transmission to patients potentially exposed to two healthcare providers who worked in outpatient settings for several weeks prior to being diagnosed with acid-fast bacilli smear-positive pulmonary TB.

Design:

Potentially exposed patients were notified by letter and television reports of the recommended evaluation for TB infection or disease and availability of free screening at the hospital. Prevalence of infection in the screened patients and the incidence rate of TB over the subsequent 2 years were compared to those of a control group of unexposed outpatients.

Setting:

An urban inner-city hospital.

Patients:

1,905 patients with potential exposure to the ill healthcare workers; 487 (25%) presented for evaluation. Controls consisted of 951 unexposed patients.

Results:

361 potentially exposed patients had their tuberculin test read; 97 (27%) had a purified protein derivative ≥10 mm. In the comparison group, 148 (25%) of 600 with test readings had a ≥10-mm reaction (risk ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.60). In multivariate analysis, male gender, non-white race, and older age were significantly associated with a positive tuberculin test; exposure was not. No TB cases were identified during screening. Two years after the exposure, 7 TB cases had been reported to the state registry among 1,905 potentially exposed patients (184 cases/100,000 person-years) versus 4 cases in the comparison group of 951 (210 cases/100,000 person-years).

Conclusions:

Evaluation of patients exposed to health-care workers with TB disease in ambulatory settings of an inner-city hospital revealed no evidence of transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis due to the exposure.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 20 , Issue 6 , June 1999 , pp. 421 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Centers for Disease Control. Nosocomial transmission of multdrug-resistant TB to health-care workers and HIV-infected patients in an urban hospital: Florida. MMWR 1990;39:718–722.Google Scholar
2. Edlin, BR, Tokars, JI, Grieco, MH, Crawford, JT, Williams, J, Sordillo, EM, et al. An outbreak of multidrug resistant tuberculosis among hospitalized patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1514–1521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Pearson, ML, Jereb, JA, Frieden, TR, Crawford, JT, Davis, BJ, Dooley, SW, et al. Nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis. A risk to patients and health care workers. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:191–196.Google Scholar
4. Centers for Disease Control. Nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis among HIV-infected persons: Florida and New York, 1988-1991. MMWR 1991;40:585–591.Google Scholar
5. Beck-Sagué, C, Dooley, SW, Hutton, MD, Orten, J, Breeden, A, Crawford, JT, et al. Hospital outbreak of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections. Factors in transmission to staff and HIV-infected patients. JAMA 1992;268:1280–1286.Google Scholar
6. Fischl, MA, Uttamchandani, RB, Daikos, GL, Poblete, RB, Moreno, JN, Reyes, RR, et al. An outbreak of tuberculosis caused by multiple-drug-resistant tubercle bacilli among patients with HIV infection. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:177–183.Google Scholar
7. Ross, BC, Raios, K, Jackson, K, Dwyer, B. Molecular cloning of a highly repeated DNA element from Mycobacterium tuberculosis and its uses as an epidemiological tool. J Clin Microbiol 1992;30:942–946.Google Scholar
8. American Thoracic Society. Treatment of tuberculosis and tuberculosis infection in adults and children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149:1359–1374.Google Scholar
9. Kleinbaum, DG, Kupper, LL, Morganstern, H. Epidemiologic Research: Principles and Quantitative Methods. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications; 1982.Google Scholar
10. Zaza, S, Blumberg, HM, Beck-Sagué, C, Haas, WH, Woodley, CL, Pineda, M, et al. Nosocomial transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: role of health care workers in outbreak propagation. J Infect Dis 1995;172:1542–1549.Google Scholar
11. Haley, CE, McDonald, RC, Rossi, L, Jones, WD, Haley, RW, Luby, JP. Tuberculosis epidemic among hospital personnel. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1989;10:204–210.Google Scholar
12. Bock, NN, McGowan, JE Jr, Blumberg, HM. Few opportunities found for tuberculosis prevention among the urban poor. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1998;2:124–129.Google Scholar
13. Veen, J. Microepidemics of tuberculosis: the stone-in-the-pond principle. Tuber Lung Dis 1992;73:73–76.Google Scholar