Background

Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are very common bacterial infections. There are few data on the microbiome of persons with and without SSTIs and the effects of systemic antibiotic therapy.

Methods

We sampled the skin microbiome from 10 outpatients with acute suppurative SSTI before and after systemic antibiotic therapy and enrolled 10 matched controls. Samples were collected at 6 skin body sites (occipital scalp, axilla, interdigital hand web spaces, gluteal crease, inguinal creases, and popliteal fossa), 2 mucosal sites (throat, anterior nares), and the site of skin infection (for case subjects) at baseline and a week later after abscess incision, drainage, and oral antibiotics.

Result

Among 10 SSTI cases, mean age was 41.5 years and 3 had diabetes mellitus. The gluteal crease at baseline had higher α-diversity in controls vs cases (P = .039); β-diversity analysis showed significant differences in overall bacterial community composition (P = .046). However, at other body sites there were no significant differences by either α- or β-diversity. Systemic antibiotic use did not affect body site diversity indices except at the SSTI site (α-diversity increased, P = .001).

Conclusions

We surprisingly found no significant differences in microbiome comparing noninfected skin sites before and after systemic SSTI antibiotic therapy nor significant differences at noninfected skin sites between SSTI cases and uninfected controls. We also found minimal significant differences between microbiome diversity and bacterial signatures at noninfected skin sites between patients with acute skin infection and uninfected controls. Our findings challenge the dogma that systemic antibiotics impact the skin microbiome.

Accurately identifying carbapenem resistant enterobacteriace (CRE) from fomites is critical for infection control practices, research, and assessing patient risk. We compared a commercial CRE agar intended for patient use with a modified MacConkey agar. We found that our modified MacConkey agar was more selective at identifying CRE from environmental sources.

Background

Before SARS-CoV-2 vaccination availability, medical center employees were at high risk of COVID-19. However, risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical center employees, both healthcare and non-healthcare workers, are poorly understood.

Methods

From September-December 2020, free IgG antibody testing was offered to all employees at a large urban medical center. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on work and non-work related risk factors for COVID-19 infection.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was found in 4.7%. Seropositivity was associated with close contact with COVID-19 cases with or without the use of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), (OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.4-6.9] and OR 4.7 [95% CI 2.0-11.0] respectively), never wearing a mask outside of work (OR 10.1 [95% CI 1.9-57]), and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander race (OR 6.3 95% CI (1.6-25)].

Conclusions

Among workers in a large urban medical center, SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was associated with work-related COVID-19 close contacts and low mask use outside of work, suggesting that non-workplace close contacts are also relevant routes of COVID-19 spread among healthcare workers.

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2 is the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Questions remain regarding correlates of risk and immune protection against COVID-19.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 200 participants with a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 occupational exposure at a U.S. medical center between December 2020 and April 2022. Participant exposure risks, vaccination/infection status, and symptoms were followed longitudinally at 3, 6, and 12 months, with blood and saliva collection. Serological response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike holoprotein (S), receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid proteins (NP) were quantified by ELISA assay.

Results

Based on serology, 40 of 200 (20%) participants were infected. Healthcare and non-healthcare occupations had equivalent infection incidence. Only 79.5% of infected participants seroconverted for NP following infection, and 11.5% were unaware they had been infected. The antibody response to S was greater than to RBD. Hispanic ethnicity was associated with 2-fold greater incidence of infection despite vaccination in this cohort.

Discussion

Overall, our findings demonstrate: 1) variability in the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection despite similar exposure risk; 2) the concentration of binding antibody to the SARS-CoV-2 S or RBD proteins is not directly correlated with protection against infection in vaccinated individuals; and 3) determinants of infection risk include Hispanic ethnicity despite vaccination and similar occupational exposure.

Objectives

Vaccine hesitancy among essential workers remains a significant public health challenge. We examined psychological constructs of perceived susceptibility, threat, and self-efficacy and their associations with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among a racially and ethnically diverse essential workforce population.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional survey of essential workers from September-December 2020 at a large Los Angeles safety-net medical center as part of a program offering free COVID-19 serology testing. Program participants completed a standardized survey at the time of phlebotomy. Hierarchical logistic regression was utilized to determine factors independently associated with vaccine hesitancy.

Results

Among 1327 persons who had serology testing, 1235 (93%) completed the survey. Of these, 958 (78%) were healthcare workers. Based on expressed intent, 22% were vaccine-hesitant 78% were vaccine acceptors. In our multivariate model, vaccine hesitancy was associated with female gender [aOR = 2.09; 95% CI (1.44-3.05)], African American race [aOR = 4.32; (2.16-8.62)], LatinX ethnicity [aOR = 2.47; 95% CI (1.51-4.05)] and history of not/sometimes receiving influenza vaccination [aOR = 4.39; 95% CI (2.98-6.48)]. Compared to nurses, vaccine hesitancy was lower among physicians [aOR = 0.09; 95% CI (0.04-0.23)], non-nursing/non-physician healthcare workers [aOR = 0.55; 95% CI (0.33-0.92)], and non-healthcare care workers [aOR = 0.53; 95% CI (0.36-0.78)].

Conclusions

Among a racially/ethnically diverse group of safety net medical center essential workers, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with racial/ethnic minority groups, employment type, and prior influenza vaccination hesitancy. Interestingly, we found no association with the Health Belief Model construct measures of perceived susceptibility, threat, and self-efficacy. Psychological constructs not assessed may be drivers of vaccine hesitancy in our population.