Search

Background: SARS-CoV-2 transmission has been reported to be associated with close contact with infected individuals. However, the mechanistic pathway for transmission in close contact settings is unclear. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies assessing the role of close contact in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, PubMed and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on the QUADAS-2 criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We included 278 studies: 258 primary studies and 20 systematic reviews. The settings for primary studies were predominantly in home/quarantine facilities (39.5%) and acute care hospitals (12%). The overall reporting quality of the studies was low-to-moderate. There was significant heterogeneity in design and methodology. The frequency of attack rates (PCR testing) varied between 2.1-75%; attack rates were highest in prison and wedding venues, and in households. The frequency of secondary attack rates was 0.3-100% with rates highest in home/quarantine settings. Three studies showed no transmission if the index case was a recurrent infection. Viral culture was performed in four studies of which three found replication-competent virus; culture results were negative where index cases had recurrent infections. Eighteen studies performed genomic sequencing with phylogenetic analysis – the completeness of genomic similarity ranged from 77-100%. Findings from systematic reviews showed that children were significantly less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 and household contact was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection. Conclusions: The evidence from published studies demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted in close contact settings. The risk of transmission is greater in household contacts. There was a wide variation in methodology. Standardized guidelines for reporting transmission in close contact settings should be developed.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 transmission has been reported to be associated with close contact with infected individuals. However, the mechanistic pathway for transmission in close contact settings is unclear. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies assessing the role of close contact in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, PubMed and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on the QUADAS-2 criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We included 278 studies: 258 primary studies and 20 systematic reviews. The settings for primary studies were predominantly in home/quarantine facilities (39.5%) and acute care hospitals (12%). The overall reporting quality of the studies was low-to-moderate. There was significant heterogeneity in design and methodology. The frequency of attack rates (PCR testing) varied between 2.1-75%; attack rates were highest in prison and wedding venues, and in households. The frequency of secondary attack rates was 0.3-100% with rates highest in home/quarantine settings. Three studies showed no transmission if the index case was a recurrent infection. Viral culture was performed in four studies of which three found replication-competent virus; culture results were negative where index cases had recurrent infections. Eighteen studies performed genomic sequencing with phylogenetic analysis – the completeness of genomic similarity ranged from 77-100%. Findings from systematic reviews showed that children were significantly less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 and household contact was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection. Conclusions: The evidence from published studies demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted in close contact settings. The risk of transmission is greater in household contacts. There was a wide variation in methodology. Standardized guidelines for reporting transmission in close contact settings should be developed.

Background: Treatments for COVID-19, including steroids, might exacerbate Strongyloides disease in patients with coinfection. We aimed to systematically review clinical and laboratory features of SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides coinfection, investigate possible interventions, assess outcomes, and identify research gaps requiring further attention. Methods: We searched two electronic databases, LitCOVID and WHO, up to August 2022, including SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides coinfection studies. We adapted the World Health Organization—Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) system for standardized case causality assessment to evaluate if using corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs in COVID-19 patients determined acute manifestations of strongyloidiasis. Results: We included 16 studies reporting 25 cases of Strongyloides and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection: 4 with hyperinfection syndrome; 2 with disseminated strongyloidiasis; 3 with cutaneous reactivation of strongyloidiasis; 3 with isolated digestive symptoms; and 2 with solely eosinophilia, without clinical manifestations. Eleven patients were asymptomatic regarding strongyloidiasis. Eosinopenia or normal eosinophil count was reported in 58.3% of patients with Strongyloides reactivation. Steroids were given to 18/21 (85.7%) cases. A total of 4 patients (19.1%) received tocilizumab and/or Anakirna in addition to steroids. Moreover, 2 patients (9.5%) did not receive any COVID-19 treatment. The causal relationship between Strongyloides reactivation and COVID-19 treatments was considered certain (4% of cases), probable (20% of patients), and possible (20% of patients). For 8% of cases, it was considered unlikely that COVID-19 treatment was associated with strongyloidiasis reactivations; the relationship between the Strongyloides infection and administration of COVID-19 treatment was unassessable/unclassifiable in 48% of cases. Of 13 assessable cases, 11 (84.6%) were considered to be causally associated with Strongyloides, ranging from certain to possible. Conclusions: Further research is needed to assess the frequency and risk of Strongyloides reactivation in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our limited data using causality assessment supports recommendations that clinicians should screen and treat for Strongyloides infection in patients with coinfection who receive immunosuppressive COVID-19 therapies. In addition, the male gender and older age (over 50 years) may be predisposing factors for Strongyloides reactivation. Standardized guidelines should be developed for reporting future research.

Background: Maritime and river travel may be associated with respiratory viral spread via infected passengers and/or crew and potentially through other transmission routes. The transmission models of SARS-CoV-2 associated with cruise ship travel are based on transmission dynamics of other respiratory viruses. We aimed to provide a summary and evaluation of relevant data on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard cruise ships, report policy implications, and highlight research gaps. Methods: We searched four electronic databases (up to 26 May 2022) and included studies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard cruise ships. The quality of the studies was assessed based on five criteria, and relevant findings were reported. Results: We included 23 papers on onboard SARS-CoV-2 transmission (with 15 reports on different aspects of the outbreak on Diamond Princess and nine reports on other international cruises), 2 environmental studies, and 1 systematic review. Three articles presented data on both international cruises and the Diamond Princess. The quality of evidence from most studies was low to very low. Index case definitions were heterogeneous. The proportion of traced contacts ranged from 0.19 to 100%. Studies that followed up >80% of passengers and crew reported attack rates (AR) up to 59%. The presence of a distinct dose–response relationship was demonstrated by findings of increased ARs in multi-person cabins. Two studies performed viral cultures with eight positive results. Genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analyses were performed in individuals from three cruises. Two environmental studies reported PCR-positive samples (cycle threshold range 26.21–39.00). In one study, no infectious virus was isolated from any of the 76 environmental samples. Conclusion: Our review suggests that crowding and multiple persons per cabin were associated with an increased risk of transmission on cruise ships. Variations in design, methodology, and case ascertainment limit comparisons across studies and quantification of transmission risk. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting studies on cruise ships of acute respiratory infection transmission should be developed.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 transmission has been reported to be associated with close contact with infected individuals. However, the mechanistic pathway for transmission in close contact settings is unclear. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies assessing the role of close contact in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, PubMed and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on the QUADAS-2 criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We included 278 studies: 258 primary studies and 20 systematic reviews. The settings for primary studies were predominantly in home/quarantine facilities (39.5%) and acute care hospitals (12%). The overall reporting quality of the studies was low-to-moderate. There was significant heterogeneity in design and methodology. The frequency of attack rates (PCR testing) varied between 2.1-75%; attack rates were highest in prison and wedding venues, and in households. The frequency of secondary attack rates was 0.3-100% with rates highest in home/quarantine settings. Three studies showed no transmission if the index case was a recurrent infection. Viral culture was performed in four studies of which three found replication-competent virus; culture results were negative where index cases had recurrent infections. Eighteen studies performed genomic sequencing with phylogenetic analysis – the completeness of genomic similarity ranged from 77-100%. Findings from systematic reviews showed that children were significantly less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 and household contact was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection. Conclusions: The evidence from published studies demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted in close contact settings. The risk of transmission is greater in household contacts. There was a wide variation in methodology. Standardized guidelines for reporting transmission in close contact settings should be developed.

Background: Airborne transmission is the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in the air. We carried out a systematic review to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies of the role of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We searched LitCovid, MedRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database from 1 February 2020 to 30 May 2022 and included studies on airborne transmission. Data were dual extracted, and we assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool. Results: We included 128 primary studies and 29 reviews on airborne SARS-CoV-2. Of the 128 primary studies, 105 (82%) reported data on RT-PCR from air samples, 28 (22%) report cycle threshold values and 36 (28%) copies per sample volume. All primary studies were observational. The research often lacked standard methods, standard sampling sizes and reporting items. We found 69 descriptions of different air samplers deployed. Of the 80 in-hospital studies that reported binary RT-PCR tests, 362/3079 air samples from 75 studies conducted in hospital ward environments were positive (median 8%, IQR=0 to 23%); 23 studies reported 74/703 RT-PCR positive air samples in the ICU setting (median 17%, IQR=0% to 38%) Thirty-eight studies reported potential air transmission in the outdoors or in the community. Twenty-six studies attempted viral culture, none of which definitively demonstrated that replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 could be recovered in the air. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detectable intermittently in the air in various settings. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on airborne transmission are needed. The lack of recoverable viral culture of SARS-CoV-2 from air samples prevents firm conclusions about the definitive role of airborne transmission in SARS-CoV-2.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 transmission has been reported to be associated with close contact with infected individuals. However, the mechanistic pathway for transmission in close contact settings is unclear. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies assessing the role of close contact in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, PubMed and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on the QUADAS-2 criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We included 278 studies: 258 primary studies and 20 systematic reviews. The settings for primary studies were predominantly in home/quarantine facilities (39.5%) and acute care hospitals (12%). The overall reporting quality of the studies was low-to-moderate. There was significant heterogeneity in design and methodology. The frequency of attack rates (PCR testing) varied between 2.1-75%; attack rates were highest in prison and wedding venues, and in households. The frequency of secondary attack rates was 0.3-100% with rates highest in home/quarantine settings. Three studies showed no transmission if the index case was a recurrent infection. Viral culture was performed in four studies of which three found replication-competent virus; culture results were negative where index cases had recurrent infections. Eighteen studies performed genomic sequencing with phylogenetic analysis – the completeness of genomic similarity ranged from 77-100%. Findings from systematic reviews showed that children were significantly less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 and household contact was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection. Conclusions: The evidence from published studies demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted in close contact settings. The risk of transmission is greater in household contacts. There was a wide variation in methodology. Standardized guidelines for reporting transmission in close contact settings should be developed.

BackgroundThe optimal time for initiation of dialysis and which modality to choose as the starting therapy is currently unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the recommendations across high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) related to the start of dialysis.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, and databases of organisations that develop CPGs between September 2008 to August 2021 for CPGs that addressed recommendations on the timing of initiation of dialysis, selection of dialysis modality, and interventions to support the decision-making process to select a dialysis modality. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument to assess the methodological quality of the CPGs and included only high-quality CPGs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42018110325.ResultsWe included 12 high-quality CPGs. Six CPGs addressed recommendations related to the timing of initiating dialysis, and all agreed on starting dialysis in the presence of symptoms or signs. Six CPGs addressed recommendations related to the selection of modality but varied greatly in their content. Nine CPGs addressed recommendations related to interventions to support the decision-making process. Eight CPGs agreed on recommended educational programs that include information about dialysis options. One CPG considered using patient decision aids a strong recommendation.LimitationsWe could have missed potentially relevant guidelines since we limited our search to CPGs published from 2008, and we set up a cut-off point of 60% in domains of the rigour of development and editorial independence.ConclusionHigh-quality CPGs related to the process of starting dialysis were consistent in initiating dialysis in the presence of symptoms or signs and offering patients education at the point of decision-making. There was variability in how CPGs addressed the issue of dialysis modality selection. CPGs should improve strategies on putting recommendations into practice and the quality of evidence to aid decision-making for patients.RegistrationThe protocol of this systematic review has been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the registration number: CRD CRD42018110325. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/CRD42018110325.