Literature DB >> 30996692

Surveillance of laboratory exposures to human pathogens and toxins: Canada 2017.

D Pomerleau-Normandin1, M Heisz1, F Tanguay1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Under Canada's Human Pathogens and Toxins Act and Human Pathogens and Toxins Regulations, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is mandated with monitoring laboratory incident notifications through the Laboratory Incident Notification Canada (LINC) surveillance system. The year 2017 marks the second complete year of data.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the laboratory exposure and laboratory-acquired infection incidents that occurred in Canada in 2017 by sector, human pathogens and toxins involved, number of affected persons, incident type and root causes.
METHODS: The incidents included in the analysis occurred between January 1 and December 31, 2017. They were reported by laboratories with active licences to PHAC through the LINC surveillance system. Microsoft Excel 2010 was used for basic descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: A total of 44 exposure and laboratory-acquired infection incidents were reported to the LINC in 2017. Compared by sector and their respective shares of licences, the number of incidents was highest in the academic and hospital sectors compared with government laboratories and private industry. Altogether 118 people were exposed for an average of 2.7 people per incident (range of 1-29). There were no reports of secondary exposure. Six exposure incidents (14%) led to "suspected" (n=5) or confirmed (n=1) cases of laboratory-acquired infection. Although overall, risk group (RG)2 human pathogens and toxins were involved in the majority of incidents (n=23; 52%), Francisella tularensis (n=4; 9%) and Coccidioides immitis (n=3; 7%) were the most frequently involved in reported exposure incidents. These two pathogens are both RG3 and security-sensitive biological agents (SSBAs). An average of 2.3 root causes were identified per incident (n=101). Problems with standard operating procedures (SOPs) and human error were the two most common causes.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of laboratory exposure incidents was relatively low in 2017. The most common route of exposure was through inhalation and the most common root causes were problems with SOPs and human error. Since this is a new surveillance system, baseline estimates are still being established.

Entities:  

Keywords:  : laboratory exposures; bacteria; biosafety; human pathogens; laboratory incidents; laboratory-acquired infections; surveillance; toxins; virus

Year:  2018        PMID: 30996692      PMCID: PMC6449110          DOI: 10.14745/ccdr.v44i11a05

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Commun Dis Rep        ISSN: 1188-4169


  4 in total

Review 1.  Laboratory-associated infections and biosafety.

Authors:  D L Sewell
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 26.132

2.  Misidentification of Risk Group 3/Security Sensitive Biological Agents by MALDI-TOF MS in Canada: November 2015-October 2017.

Authors:  D Pomerleau-Normandin; M Heisz; M Su
Journal:  Can Commun Dis Rep       Date:  2018-05-03

Review 3.  The importance of implementing safe sharps practices in the laboratory setting in Europe.

Authors:  Gabriella De Carli; Dominique Abiteboul; Vincenzo Puro
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 2.313

4.  Surveillance of laboratory exposures to human pathogens and toxins: Canada 2016.

Authors:  A Bienek; M Heisz; M Su
Journal:  Can Commun Dis Rep       Date:  2017-11-02
  4 in total
  6 in total

1.  Surveillance of laboratory exposures to human pathogens and toxins, Canada 2020.

Authors:  Nicole Atchessi; Megan Striha; Rojiemiahd Edjoc; Emily Thompson; Maryem El Jaouhari; Marianne Heisz
Journal:  Can Commun Dis Rep       Date:  2021-10-14

2.  Matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry-based identification of security-sensitive bacteria: Considerations for Canadian Bruker users.

Authors:  Kym Antonation; Dobryan Tracz; Ashley Dreger; Cindi Corbett
Journal:  Can Commun Dis Rep       Date:  2020-10-01

Review 3.  Clinical Laboratory Biosafety Gaps: Lessons Learned from Past Outbreaks Reveal a Path to a Safer Future.

Authors:  Nancy E Cornish; Nancy L Anderson; Diego G Arambula; Matthew J Arduino; Andrew Bryan; Nancy C Burton; Bin Chen; Beverly A Dickson; Judith G Giri; Natasha K Griffith; Michael A Pentella; Reynolds M Salerno; Paramjit Sandhu; James W Snyder; Christopher A Tormey; Elizabeth A Wagar; Elizabeth G Weirich; Sheldon Campbell
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 50.129

4.  Surveillance of laboratory exposures to human pathogens and toxins: Canada 2018.

Authors:  D Choucrallah; L Sarmiento; S Ettles; F Tanguay; M Heisz; E Falardeau
Journal:  Can Commun Dis Rep       Date:  2019-09-05

5.  Assessment of biorisk management systems in high containment laboratories, 18 countries in Europe, 2016 and 2017.

Authors:  Sandra Appelt; Daniela Jacob; Anna-Maria Rohleder; Andreas Bråve; Åsa Szekely Björndal; Antonino Di Caro; Roland Grunow
Journal:  Euro Surveill       Date:  2020-09

Review 6.  Zika Virus Infection During Research Vaccine Development: Investigation of the Laboratory-Acquired Infection via Nanopore Whole-Genome Sequencing.

Authors:  Eunsik Bang; Sujin Oh; Ho Eun Chang; Il Seob Shin; Kyoung Un Park; Eu Suk Kim
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 5.293

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.