Transmission among healthcare worker contacts with a Middle East respiratory syndrome patient in a single Korean centre

MERS-CoV Confirmation among 6,873 suspected persons and relevant Epidemiologic and Clinical Features, Saudi Arabia - 2014 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Of the three lethal coronaviruses, in addition to the ongoing pandemic-causing SARS-CoV 2, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) remains in circulation. Information on MERS-CoV has relied on small sample of patients. We updated the epidemiology, laboratory and clinical characteristics, and survival patterns of MERS-CoV retrospectively with the largest sample of followed patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of line-listed records of non-random, continuously admitted patients who were suspected (6,873) or confirmed with MERS-CoV (501) admitted to one of the four MERS-CoV referral hospitals in Saudi Arabia, 2014-2019.

FINDINGS

Of the 6,873 MERS-CoV suspected persons, the majority were male (56%) and Saudi nationals (83%) and 95% had no known history that increased their risk of exposure to MERS-CoV patients or vectors (95%). More confirmed cases reported history that increased their risk of MERS-CoV infection (41%). Among the suspected, MERS-CoV confirmation (7.4% overall) was independently associated with being male, known transmission link to MERS-CoV patients or vectors, fever, symptoms for 7 days, admission through intensive care unit, and diabetes. Among persons with confirmed MERS-CoV, single symptoms were reported by 20%, 3-symptom combinations (fever, cough and dyspnea) reported by 21% and 2-symptom combinations (fever, cough) reported by 16%. Of the two-thirds (62%) of MERS-CoV confirmed patients who presented with co-morbidity, 32% had 2-"comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension). More than half of the MERS-CoV patents showed abnormal chest X-ray, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, and creatinine kinase. About a quarter of MERS-CoV patients had positive cultures on blood, urine, or respiratory secretions. During an average hospital stay of 18 days (range 11 to 30), 64% developed complications involving liver, lungs, or kidneys. Ventilation requirement (29% of MERS-CoV cases) was independently associated with abnormal chest X-ray, viremia (Ct value <30), elevated creatinine, and prothrombin time. Death (21% overall) was independently associated with older age, dyspnea and abnormal chest X-ray on admission, and low hemoglobulin levels.

INTERPRETATIONS

With two-thirds of the symptomatic persons developing multiorgan complications MERS-CoV remains the coronavirus with the highest severity (29%) and case fatality rate (21%) among the three lethal coronaviruses. Metabolic abnormalities appear to be an independent risk factor for sustained MERS-CoV transmission. The poorly understood transmission dynamics and non-specific clinical and laboratory features call for high index of suspicion among respiratory disease experts to help early detection of outbreaks. We reiterate the need for case control studies on transmission.

FUNDING

No special funding to declare.

Protective efficient comparisons among all kinds of respirators and masks for health-care workers against respiratory viruses: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no definite conclusion about comparison of better effectiveness between N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health-care workers (HCWs) from respiratory infectious diseases, so that conflicting results and recommendations regarding the protective effects may cause difficulties for selection and compliance of respiratory personal protective equipment use for HCWs, especially facing with pandemics of corona virus disease 2019.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Google Scholar from initiation to November 10, 2020 for randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies that reported protective effects of masks or respirators for HCWs against respiratory infectious diseases. We gathered data and pooled differences in protective effects according to different types of masks, pathogens, occupations, concurrent measures, and clinical settings. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: 42020173279).

RESULTS

We identified 4165 articles, reviewed the full text of 66 articles selected by abstracts. Six randomized clinical trials and 26 observational studies were included finally. By 2 separate conventional meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials of common respiratory viruses and observational studies of pandemic H1N1, pooled effects show no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks against common respiratory viruses for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.13, I2 = 0.0%), clinical respiratory illness (risk ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.45-1.09, I2 = 83.7%, P = .002), influenza-like illness (risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.54-1.05, I2 = 0.0%), and pandemic H1N1 for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.49-1.70, I2 = 0.0%, P = .967). But by network meta-analysis, N95 respirators has a significantly stronger protection for HCWs from betacoronaviruses of severe acute respiratory syndrome, middle east respiratory syndrome, and corona virus disease 2019 (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide moderate and very-low quality evidence of no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks for common respiratory viruses and pandemic H1N1, respectively. And we found low quality evidence that N95 respirators had a stronger protective effectiveness for HCWs against betacoronaviruses causative diseases compared to medical masks. The evidence of comparison between N95 respirators and medical masks for corona virus disease 2019 is open to question and needs further study.

A rapid review of the use of face mask in preventing the spread of COVID-19

Introduction

The original use of face masks was to help protect surgical wounds from staff-generated nasal and oral bacteria. Currently governments across the world have instituted the mandatory use of masks and other face coverings so that face masks now find much broader usage in situations where close contact of people is frequent and inevitable, particularly inside public transport facilities, shopping malls and workplaces in response to the COVID-19.

Objective

We conducted a rapid review to investigate the impact face mask use has had in controlling transmission of respiratory viral infections.

Method

A rapid review was conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and Global Health) were searched from database inception to date, using pre-defined search terms. We included all studies of any design and used descriptive analysis to report summary statistics of search results. Data were extracted including sample characteristics, study design, respiratory virus being controlled, type of face masks used and their effectiveness.

Results

58 out of 84 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 13 were classified as systematic reviews and 45 were quantitative studies (comprising randomised controlled trials, retrospective cohort studies, case control, cross-sectional, surveys, observational and descriptive studies). N = 27 studies were conducted amongst healthcare workers wearing face masks, n = 19 studies among the general population, n = 9 studies among healthcare workers the general population and patients wearing masks, and n = 3 among only patients. Face masks use have shown a great potential for preventing respiratory virus transmission including COVID-19.

Conclusion

Regardless of the type, setting, or who wears the face mask, it serves primarily a dual preventive purpose; protecting oneself from getting viral infection and protecting others. Therefore, if everyone wears a face mask in public, it offers a double barrier against COVID-19 transmission.

Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers: A Living Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Health care workers (HCWs) are at risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

PURPOSE

To examine the burden of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV on HCWs and risk factors for infection, using rapid and living review methods.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple electronic databases, including the WHO database of publications on coronavirus disease and the medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 27 March 2020, with ongoing surveillance through 24 April 2020), and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published in any language reporting incidence of or outcomes associated with coronavirus infections in HCWs and studies on the association between risk factors (demographic characteristics, role, exposures, environmental and administrative factors, and personal protective equipment [PPE] use) and HCW infections. New evidence will be incorporated on an ongoing basis by using living review methods.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; verification was done by a second reviewer.

DATA SYNTHESIS

64 studies met inclusion criteria; 43 studies addressed burden of HCW infections (15 on SARS-CoV-2), and 34 studies addressed risk factors (3 on SARS-CoV-2). Health care workers accounted for a significant proportion of coronavirus infections and may experience particularly high infection incidence after unprotected exposures. Illness severity was lower than in non-HCWs. Depression, anxiety, and psychological distress were common in HCWs during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. The strongest evidence on risk factors was on PPE use and decreased infection risk. The association was most consistent for masks but was also observed for gloves, gowns, eye protection, and handwashing; evidence suggested a dose-response relationship. No study evaluated PPE reuse. Certain exposures (such as involvement in intubations, direct patient contact, or contact with bodily secretions) were associated with increased infection risk. Infection control training was associated with decreased risk.

LIMITATION

There were few studies on risk factors for SARS-CoV-2, the studies had methodological limitations, and streamlined rapid review methods were used.

CONCLUSION

Health care workers experience significant burdens from coronavirus infections, including SARS-CoV-2. Use of PPE and infection control training are associated with decreased infection risk, and certain exposures are associated with increased risk.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

World Health Organization.

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

INTERPRETATION

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.

FUNDING

World Health Organization.

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p_interaction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; p_interaction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.

INTERPRETATION

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.

FUNDING

World Health Organization.

A database of geopositioned Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus occurrences

As a World Health Organization Research and Development Blueprint priority pathogen, there is a need to better understand the geographic distribution of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and its potential to infect mammals and humans. This database documents cases of MERS-CoV globally, with specific attention paid to zoonotic transmission. An initial literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus; after screening articles according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 208 sources were selected for extraction and geo-positioning. Each MERS-CoV occurrence was assigned one of the following classifications based upon published contextual information: index, unspecified, secondary, mammal, environmental, or imported. In total, this database is comprised of 861 unique geo-positioned MERS-CoV occurrences. The purpose of this article is to share a collated MERS-CoV database and extraction protocol that can be utilized in future mapping efforts for both MERS-CoV and other infectious diseases. More broadly, it may also provide useful data for the development of targeted MERS-CoV surveillance, which would prove invaluable in preventing future zoonotic spillover.

Measurement(s)	Middle East Respiratory Syndrome • geographic location
Technology Type(s)	digital curation
Factor Type(s)	geographic distribution of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) • year
Sample Characteristic - Organism	Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus
Sample Characteristic - Location	Earth (planet)

Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data: 10.6084/m9.figshare.11108801

Middle East respiratory syndrome: what we learned from the 2015 outbreak in the Republic of Korea

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first isolated from a patient with severe pneumonia in 2012. The 2015 Korea outbreak of MERSCoV involved 186 cases, including 38 fatalities. A total of 83% of transmission events were due to five superspreaders, and 44% of the 186 MERS cases were the patients who had been exposed in nosocomial transmission at 16 hospitals. The epidemic lasted for 2 months and the government quarantined 16,993 individuals for 14 days to control the outbreak. This outbreak provides a unique opportunity to fill the gap in our knowledge of MERS-CoV infection. Therefore, in this paper, we review the literature on epidemiology, virology, clinical features, and prevention of MERS-CoV, which were acquired from the 2015 Korea outbreak of MERSCoV.

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus transmission among health care workers: Implication for infection control

Background

Many outbreaks of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have occurred in health care settings and involved health care workers (HCWs). We describe the occurrence of an outbreak among HCWs and attempt to characterize at-risk exposures to improve future infection control interventions.

Methods

This study included an index case and all HCW contacts. All contacts were screened for MERS-CoV using polymerase chain reaction.

Results

During the study period in 2015, the index case was a 30-year-old Filipino nurse who had a history of unprotected exposure to a MERS-CoV–positive case on May 15, 2015, and had multiple negative tests for MERS-CoV. Weeks later, she was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis and MERS-CoV infection. A total of 73 staff were quarantined for 14 days, and nasopharyngeal swabs were taken on days 2, 5, and 12 postexposure. Of those contacts, 3 (4%) were confirmed positive for MERS-CoV. An additional 18 staff were quarantined and had MERS-CoV swabs. A fourth case was confirmed positive on day 12. Subsequent contact investigations revealed a fourth-generation transmission. Only 7 (4.5%) of the total 153 contacts were positive for MERS-CoV.

Conclusions

The role of HCWs in MERS-CoV transmission is complex. Although most MERS-CoV–infected HCWs are asymptomatic or have mild disease, fatal infections can occur and HCWs can play a major role in propagating health care facility outbreaks. This investigation highlights the need to continuously review infection control guidance relating to the role of HCWs in MERS-CoV transmission in health care outbreaks, especially as it relates to the complex questions on definition of risky exposures, who to test, and the frequency of MERS-CoV testing; criteria for who to quarantine and for how long; and clearance and return to active duty criteria.

Semi-quantitative assessment of disease risks at the human, livestock, wildlife interface for the Republic of Korea using a nationwide survey of experts: A model for other countries

Wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens have increased in importance; however, management of a large number of diseases and diversity of hosts is prohibitively expensive. Thus, the determination of priority wildlife pathogens and risk factors for disease emergence is warranted. We used an online questionnaire survey to assess release and exposure risks, and consequences of wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens in the Republic of Korea (ROK). We also surveyed opinions on pathways for disease exposure, and risk factors for disease emergence and spread. For the assessment of risk, we employed a two-tiered, statistical K-means clustering algorithm to group diseases into three levels (high, medium and low) of perceived risk based on release and exposure risks, societal consequences and the level of uncertainty of the experts' opinions. To examine the experts' perceived risk of routes of introduction of pathogens and disease amplification and spread, we used a Bayesian, multivariate normal order-statistics model. Six diseases or pathogens, including four livestock and two wildlife diseases, were identified as having high risk with low uncertainty. Similarly, 13 diseases were characterized as having high risk with medium uncertainty with three of these attributed to livestock, six associated with human disease, and the remainder having the potential to affect human, livestock and wildlife (i.e., One Health). Lastly, four diseases were described as high risk with high certainty, and were associated solely with fish diseases. Experts identified migration of wildlife, international human movement and illegal importation of wildlife as the three routes posing the greatest risk of pathogen introduction into ROK. Proximity of humans, livestock and wildlife was the most significant risk factor for promoting the spread of wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens, followed by high density of livestock populations, habitat loss and environmental degradation, and climate change. This study provides useful information to decision makers responsible for allocating resources to address disease risks. This approach provided a rapid, cost-effective method of risk assessment of wildlife-associated diseases and pathogens for which the published literature is sparse.

Human Coronavirus in the 2014 Winter Season as a Cause of Lower Respiratory Tract Infection

PURPOSE

During the late autumn to winter season (October to December) in the Republic of Korea, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the most common pathogen causing lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). Interestingly, in 2014, human coronavirus (HCoV) caused not only upper respiratory infections but also LRTIs more commonly than in other years. Therefore, we sought to determine the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, outcomes, and severity of illnesses associated with HCoV infections at a single center in Korea.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with positive HCoV respiratory specimens between October 2014 and December 2014 who were admitted to Severance Children's Hospital at Yonsei University Medical Center for LRTI. Charts of the patients with HCoV infection were reviewed and compared with RSV infection.

RESULTS

During the study period, HCoV was the third most common respiratory virus and accounted for 13.7% of infections. Coinfection was detected in 43.8% of children with HCoV. Interestingly, one patient had both HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-NL63. Mild pneumonia was most common (60.4%) with HCoV, and when combined with RSV, resulted in bronchiolitis. Two patients required care in the intensive care unit. However, compared with that of RSV infection, the disease course HCoV was short.

CONCLUSION

Infections caused by HCoVs are common, and can cause LRTIs. During an epidemic season, clinicians should be given special consideration thereto. When combined with other medical conditions, such as neurologic or cardiologic diseases, intensive care unit (ICU) care may be necessary.

RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EPIDEMIOLOGIC LITERATURE, 1990-2015, ON WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED DISEASES FROM THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA

To assess the status of research on wildlife diseases in the Republic of Korea (ROK) and to identify trends, knowledge gaps, and directions for future research, we reviewed epidemiologic publications on wildlife-associated diseases in the ROK. We identified a relatively small but rapidly increasing body of literature. The majority of publications were focused on public or livestock health and relatively few addressed wildlife health. Most studies that focused on human and livestock health were cross-sectional whereas wildlife health studies were mostly case reports. Fifteen diseases notifiable to the World Organisation for Animal Health were identified and 21 diseases were identified as notifiable to either the Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare or the Korea Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Two diseases were reported as occurring as epidemics; highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and virulent Newcastle disease. Six diseases or disease agents were described in the literature as emerging including HPAI, rabies, Babesia microti , avian coronaviruses, scrub typhus, and severe fever thrombocytopenia syndrome virus. The diseases for which there were the largest number of publications were HPAI and rabies. The majority of wildlife-associated zoonotic disease publications focused on food-borne parasitic infections or rodent-associated diseases. Several publications focused on the potential of wildlife as reservoirs of livestock diseases; in particular, Korean water deer ( Hydropotes inermis argyropus ) and wild boar ( Sus scrofa ). In contrast, there were few publications on diseases of concern for wildlife populations or research to understand the impacts of these diseases for wildlife management. Increased focus on prospective studies would enhance understanding of disease dynamics in wildlife populations. For the high-consequence diseases that impact multiple sectors, a One Health approach, with coordination among the public health, agricultural, and environmental sectors, would be important. This type of review can provide useful information for countries or regions planning or implementing national wildlife health programs.

Treatment strategies for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), an emerging infectious disease of growing global importance, has caused severe acute respiratory disease in more than 1600 people, resulting in almost 600 deaths. The high case fatality rate, growing geographic distribution and vaguely defined epidemiology of this novel pathogen have created an urgent need for effective public health countermeasures, including safe and effective treatment strategies. Despite the relatively few numbers of cases to date, research and development of MERS-CoV therapeutic candidates is advancing quickly. This review surveys the landscape of these efforts and assesses their potential for use in affected populations.