occupational exposure to b. pseudomallei 887 B. pseudomallei is regarded as a biothreat, and to date, 2
cases of laboratory-acquired melioidosis have been reported.3 When laboratory workers are exposed to B. pseudomallei, postexposure monitoring and/or postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) according to the risk are recommended.3 However, data are limited regarding the incidence of the development of melioidosis after accidental occupational exposure outside the laboratory. On June 10, 2016, a 64-year-old Korean man presented with
HCWs who were at risk, and classified them as low or high risk, according to the modification of recommendations by Peacock et al.3 Low-risk exposures included (1) plate sniffing, opening of the lid of an agar plate growing B. pseudomallei outside a biological safety cabinet, (2) possible contact with the blood or body fluid (pus or urine) with intact skin or protected body and hands without evidence of aerosols, and (3) spillage of small volumes of liquid culture (1mL) within a biological safety cabinet. High-risk exposures included (1) a penetrating injury with contaminated equipment, (2) any splash causing contamination of the mouth or eyes, (3) contact with the blood or body fluid (pus or urine) with nonintact skin, and (4) aerosol-generating activities performed outside a biological safety cabinet. Exposure of laboratory workers with certain health conditions, such as diabetes mellitus and chronic liver
culture performed on June 10, which was identified using VITEK 2 (BioMerieux, Lyon, France). It was not identifiable via matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time- of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) (BioMerieux, Lyon, France). However, to differentiate between B. cepacia and B. pseudomallei, we performed 16S rRNA sequencing, as previously described.4 Nucleotide BLAST searches (http://
blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) of the isolate sequences showed the following matches: B. pseudomallei strain 982 chromosome 2 (GenBank accession number CP012577.1), 99% (1471 of 1472 bp); B. pseudomallei strain 982 chromo- some 1 (GenBank accession number CP012577.1), 99% (1471 of 1472 bp). The patient had persistent B. pseudomallei bacteremia from June 10 to June 20, and his sputum and pus culture from the wounds also yielded B. pseudomallei. We administered ceftazidime, and the patient survived with pro- longed antibiotic therapy. After we identified B. pseudomallei infection, we contacted
right second-toe pain, cough, sputum, and fever at the tertiary- care center in Ulsan, South Korea. He had been living in Singapore and Indonesia for 20 years. He was a sailor and had recently worked carrying sand in Indonesia. He returned from Indonesia to Korea because of his illness, 1 day before admis- sion. He had been diabetic for the previous 18 years. Magnetic resonance image (MRI) of his foot showed an abscess and osteomyelitis in the second toe, and computed tomography scans of the chest revealed dense consolidation in the left upper lobe and multiple cavitary nodules in both the lungs. We performed incision and drainage of the abscess in the toe multiple times. On June 15, Burkholderia cepacia was observed in the blood
or kidney disease, in the absence of proper personal protective equipment, was also considered high risk. Serological testing of exposedHCWwas performed using indirect hemagglutination assay (IHA) as previously described.5 Thirty HCWs were exposed during 21 days; 5 were classified as high risk because they had been possibly exposed to the patient’sblood andpus through nonintact skin during venipuncture or dressing wounds, and 25 including 2 laboratoryworkerswere classified as low risk, mainly due to contact of blood with intact skin during venipuncture or dressing wounds. Laboratory workers inadver- tently opened the lid of an agar plate growing B. pseudomallei outside a biologic safety cabinet. High-risk HCWs were offered trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole for 21 days. All 30 HCWs were monitored to ascertain whether symptoms developed until September 5, and IHA was performed on July 7–11 (2 weeks or 4 weeks after exposure), July 25 (4–6weeks afterexposure), August 5 (6–8 weeks after exposure), and September 5 (11–13 weeks after exposure). None of the HCWs showed serocon- version or had the symptoms of melioidosis. There have been 2 laboratory-acquired cases to date.3 One occurred after sonication outside a safety hood, and the other after cleaning up a centrifuge spillage of B. pseudomallei culture
with bare hands. This HCW had an ulcerative lesion on the finger at the time of exposure. During 2008–2013, there were 261 persons at risk for occupational exposure to B. pseudo- mallei while performing laboratory diagnostics in the United States; however, no infection occurred.6 In addition, a review of work in a clinical laboratory in an endemic area suggests low risk to laboratory workers.7 Our data suggest that the possi- bility of development of melioidosis after exposure to patient’s body fluid on nonintact skin outside the laboratory may be low. Notably, not following standard precautions led to many exposures identified in this study. Using appropriate personal protection equipment when performing dressing and veni- puncture, expecting to contact patient urine or body fluids, or HCWs having nonintact skin, cannot be overemphasized. In addition, considering potentially false-negative antibody testing, lack of performing longer-term postexposure follow- up is a limitation of our study. In conclusion, delayed diagnosis of melioidosis and not following standard precaution led 30 HCWs to be exposed to patient’s blood or body fluids; however, none developed melioidosis.
acknowledgments
Financial support: No financial support was provided relevant to this article. Potential conflicts of interest: All authors report no conflicts of interest rele- vant to this article.
Jae-Bum Jun, MD;1 Taehoon Lee, MD;2 Joseph Jeong, MD;3
Jeong-Hoon Chun, PhD;4
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
