SARS transmission in Vietnam outside of the health-care setting

Assessment of transmissibility and measures effectiveness of SARS in 8 regions, China, 2002-2003

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a form of atypical pneumonia which took hundreds of lives when it swept the world two decades ago. The pathogen of SARS was identified as SARS-coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and it was mainly transmitted in China during the SARS epidemic in 2002-2003. SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 have emerged from the SARS metapopulation of viruses. However, they gave rise to two different disease dynamics, a limited epidemic, and an uncontrolled pandemic, respectively. The characteristics of its spread in China are particularly noteworthy. In this paper, the unique characteristics of time, space, population distribution and transmissibility of SARS for the epidemic were discussed in detail.

Methods

We adopted sliding average method to process the number of reported cases per day. An SEIAR transmission dynamics model, which was the first to take asymptomatic group into consideration and applied indicators of R 0, Reff, Rt to evaluate the transmissibility of SARS, and further illustrated the control effectiveness of interventions for SARS in 8 Chinese cities.

Results

The R 0 for SARS in descending order was: Tianjin city (R 0 = 8.249), Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Shanxi Province, Hebei Province, Beijing City, Guangdong Province, Taiwan Province, and Hong Kong. R 0 of the SARS epidemic was generally higher in Mainland China than in Hong Kong and Taiwan Province (Mainland China: R 0 = 6.058 ± 1.703, Hong Kong: R 0 = 2.159, Taiwan: R 0 = 3.223). All cities included in this study controlled the epidemic successfully (Reff<1) with differences in duration. Rt in all regions showed a downward trend, but there were significant fluctuations in Guangdong Province, Hong Kong and Taiwan Province compared to other areas.

Conclusion

The SARS epidemic in China showed a trend of spreading from south to north, i.e., Guangdong Province and Beijing City being the central regions, respectively, and from there to the surrounding areas. In contrast, the SARS epidemic in the central region did not stir a large-scale transmission. There were also significant differences in transmissibility among eight regions, with R0 significantly higher in the northern region than that in the southern region. Different regions were able to control the outbreak successfully in differences time.

Associations Between Wearing Masks and Respiratory Viral Infections: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background

Respiratory viral infections (RVIs) are a major health concern, and some previous studies have shown that wearing masks was effective in preventing RVIs, while others failed to show such effect. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of wearing masks.

Methods

PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database) were searched for studies evaluating the effectiveness of wearing masks. The risk ratio (RR) was used to measure the effectiveness of wearing masks in preventing RVIs for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, and the odds ratio (OR) was used for case-control studies. Forest plots were used to visually assess pooled estimates and corresponding 95% CIs. The I2 test was used to examine the heterogeneity, and subgroup analysis was used to explore the possible explanations for heterogeneity or compare the results between subgroups. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. Begg's test and Egger's test were used to assess the publications bias.

Results

Thirty-one studies (13,329 participants) were eligible for meta-analyses. Overall, the results showed that wearing masks was effective in preventing RVIs. The sensitivity analysis showed that the results of those meta-analyses were robust and reliable. There was no significant publication bias in meta-analysis of case-control studies and most subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

Wearing masks might be effective in preventing RVIs. To reduce their RVI risk, people should wear masks when they go out in public.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42021296092.

The Hybrid Incidence Susceptible-Transmissible-Removed Model for Pandemics : Scaling Time to Predict an Epidemic's Population Density Dependent Temporal Propagation

The susceptible-transmissible-removed (STR) model is a deterministic compartment model, based on the susceptible-infected-removed (SIR) prototype. The STR replaces 2 SIR assumptions. SIR assumes that the emigration rate (due to death or recovery) is directly proportional to the infected compartment’s size. The STR replaces this assumption with the biologically appropriate assumption that the emigration rate is the same as the immigration rate one infected period ago. This results in a unique delay differential equation epidemic model with the delay equal to the infected period. Hamer’s mass action law for epidemiology is modified to resemble its chemistry precursor—the law of mass action. Constructing the model for an isolated population that exists on a surface bounded by the extent of the population’s movements permits compartment density to replace compartment size. The STR reduces to a SIR model in a timescale that negates the delay—the transmissible timescale. This establishes that the SIR model applies to an isolated population in the disease’s transmissible timescale. Cyclical social interactions will define a rhythmic timescale. It is demonstrated that the geometric mean maps transmissible timescale properties to their rhythmic timescale equivalents. This mapping defines the hybrid incidence (HI). The model validation demonstrates that the HI-STR can be constructed directly from the disease’s transmission dynamics. The basic reproduction number (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal{R}}_0$$\end{document}R0) is an epidemic impact property. The HI-STR model predicts that \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal{R}}_0 \propto \root \mathfrak{B} \of {\rho_n}$$\end{document}R0∝ρnB where \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\rho_n$$\end{document}ρn is the population density, and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathfrak{B}}$$\end{document}B is the ratio of time increments in the transmissible- and rhythmic timescales. The model is validated by experimentally verifying the relationship. \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\mathcal{R}}_0$$\end{document}R0’s dependence on \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\rho_n$$\end{document}ρn is demonstrated for droplet-spread SARS in Asian cities, aerosol-spread measles in Europe and non-airborne Ebola in Africa.

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission characteristics, source control, wearer protection, sociological considerations, and implementation considerations. A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles, and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asymptomatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people ("source control") with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission characteristics, source control, wearer protection, sociological considerations, and implementation considerations. A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles, and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asymptomatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people ("source control") with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.

An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

The science around the use of masks by the public to impede COVID-19 transmission is advancing rapidly. In this narrative review, we develop an analytical framework to examine mask usage, synthesizing the relevant literature to inform multiple areas: population impact, transmission characteristics, source control, wearer protection, sociological considerations, and implementation considerations. A primary route of transmission of COVID-19 is via respiratory particles, and it is known to be transmissible from presymptomatic, paucisymptomatic, and asymptomatic individuals. Reducing disease spread requires two things: limiting contacts of infected individuals via physical distancing and other measures and reducing the transmission probability per contact. The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies. Because many respiratory particles become smaller due to evaporation, we recommend increasing focus on a previously overlooked aspect of mask usage: mask wearing by infectious people ("source control") with benefits at the population level, rather than only mask wearing by susceptible people, such as health care workers, with focus on individual outcomes. We recommend that public officials and governments strongly encourage the use of widespread face masks in public, including the use of appropriate regulation.

Community use of face masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: a rapid scoping review

BackgroundEvidence for face-mask wearing in the community to protect against respiratory disease is unclear.AimTo assess effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent respiratory disease, and recommend improvements to this evidence base.MethodsWe systematically searched Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE for studies evaluating respiratory disease incidence after face-mask wearing (or not). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention were performed, subgrouped by design, setting, face barrier type, and who wore the mask. Preferred outcome was influenza-like illness. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) quality assessment was undertaken and evidence base deficits described.Results33 studies (12 randomised control trials (RCTs)) were included. Mask wearing reduced primary infection by 6% (odds ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19 for RCTs) to 61% (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.32-2.27; OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84 and OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.85 for cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies respectively). RCTs suggested lowest secondary attack rates when both well and ill household members wore masks (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.37). While RCTs might underestimate effects due to poor compliance and controls wearing masks, observational studies likely overestimate effects, as mask wearing might be associated with other risk-averse behaviours. GRADE was low or very low quality.ConclusionWearing face masks may reduce primary respiratory infection risk, probably by 6-15%. It is important to balance evidence from RCTs and observational studies when their conclusions widely differ and both are at risk of significant bias. COVID-19-specific studies are required.

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.

Household Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Crowded indoor environments, such as households, are high-risk settings for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Objectives

To examine evidence for household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, disaggregated by several covariates, and to compare it with other coronaviruses.

Data Source

PubMed, searched through October 19, 2020. Search terms included SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 with secondary attack rate, household, close contacts, contact transmission, contact attack rate, or family transmission.

Study Selection

All articles with original data for estimating household secondary attack rate were included. Case reports focusing on individual households and studies of close contacts that did not report secondary attack rates for household members were excluded.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Meta-analyses were done using a restricted maximum-likelihood estimator model to yield a point estimate and 95% CI for secondary attack rate for each subgroup analyzed, with a random effect for each study. To make comparisons across exposure types, study was treated as a random effect, and exposure type was a fixed moderator. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Secondary attack rate for SARS-CoV-2, disaggregated by covariates (ie, household or family contact, index case symptom status, adult or child contacts, contact sex, relationship to index case, adult or child index cases, index case sex, number of contacts in household) and for other coronaviruses.

Results

A total of 54 relevant studies with 77 758 participants reporting household secondary transmission were identified. Estimated household secondary attack rate was 16.6% (95% CI, 14.0%-19.3%), higher than secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV (7.5%; 95% CI, 4.8%-10.7%) and MERS-CoV (4.7%; 95% CI, 0.9%-10.7%). Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%), to adult contacts (28.3%; 95% CI, 20.2%-37.1%) than to child contacts (16.8%; 95% CI, 12.3%-21.7%), to spouses (37.8%; 95% CI, 25.8%-50.5%) than to other family contacts (17.8%; 95% CI, 11.7%-24.8%), and in households with 1 contact (41.5%; 95% CI, 31.7%-51.7%) than in households with 3 or more contacts (22.8%; 95% CI, 13.6%-33.5%).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that given that individuals with suspected or confirmed infections are being referred to isolate at home, households will continue to be a significant venue for transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Community use of face masks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: a rapid scoping review

BackgroundEvidence for face-mask wearing in the community to protect against respiratory disease is unclear.AimTo assess effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent respiratory disease, and recommend improvements to this evidence base.MethodsWe systematically searched Scopus, Embase and MEDLINE for studies evaluating respiratory disease incidence after face-mask wearing (or not). Narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis of attack rates for primary and secondary prevention were performed, subgrouped by design, setting, face barrier type, and who wore the mask. Preferred outcome was influenza-like illness. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) quality assessment was undertaken and evidence base deficits described.Results33 studies (12 randomised control trials (RCTs)) were included. Mask wearing reduced primary infection by 6% (odds ratio (OR): 0.94; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19 for RCTs) to 61% (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.32-2.27; OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.18-0.84 and OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.85 for cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies respectively). RCTs suggested lowest secondary attack rates when both well and ill household members wore masks (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.48-1.37). While RCTs might underestimate effects due to poor compliance and controls wearing masks, observational studies likely overestimate effects, as mask wearing might be associated with other risk-averse behaviours. GRADE was low or very low quality.ConclusionWearing face masks may reduce primary respiratory infection risk, probably by 6-15%. It is important to balance evidence from RCTs and observational studies when their conclusions widely differ and both are at risk of significant bias. COVID-19-specific studies are required.

Nosocomial Coronavirus Disease Outbreak Containment, Hanoi, Vietnam, March-April 2020

We report on the public health response generated by an outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) that occurred during March 2020 at Bach Mai Hospital (BMH) in Hanoi, northern Vietnam’s largest hospital complex. On March 18, a total of 3 distinct clusters of COVID-19 cases were identified at BMH. Diagnosis of the initial 3 COVID-19 cases led to contact tracing, symptom screening, and testing of 495 persons and limited quarantine of affected institutes or departments. When 27 staff members in the catering company tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the entire BMH staff (7,664 persons) was put under quarantine. Contact tracing in the community resulted in an additional 52,239 persons being quarantined. After 3 weeks, the hospital outbreak was contained; no further spread occurred in the hospital. Rapid screening of cases, extensive testing, prompt quarantine, contact tracing, and social distancing contributed to prevent community transmission in Hanoi and northern Vietnam.

Use of N95, Surgical, and Cloth Masks to Prevent COVID-19 in Health Care and Community Settings: Living Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1)

Controversy exists around the appropriate types of masks and the situations in which they should be used in community and health care settings for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this article, the American College of Physicians (ACP) provides recommendations based on the best available evidence through 14 April 2020 on the effectiveness of N95 respirators, surgical masks, and cloth masks in reducing transmission of infection. The ACP plans periodic updates of these recommendations on the basis of ongoing surveillance of the literature for 1 year from the initial search date.

Effectiveness of face masks worn in community settings at reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A rapid review

Background: The use of face masks is part of a suite of infection prevention and control measures intended to limit the transmission of respiratory viral diseases. The use of face masks by the general public has been subject to ongoing debate, with limited direct evidence on the effectiveness of face masks in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this review was to synthesise direct evidence on the effectiveness of wearing face masks at reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community settings. Methods: A rapid review was conducted. PubMed, Embase, NHS Evidence and Europe PMC were searched systematically from 1 January to 27 August 2020. Clinical trials, cohort, case control, and cross-sectional studies were included if they reported on the effectiveness of face masks in community settings at reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Studies were critically appraised and synthesised narratively. Results:  Seven observational studies were identified, including one study set in households and six in community settings, that reported on the effectiveness of wearing face masks compared with not wearing face masks at reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Results suggested that face masks reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, all studies were at high risk of bias and the quality of the evidence was low. Conclusions: This is to date the most comprehensive review of direct evidence on the effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is limited, low certainty direct evidence that wearing face masks reduces the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in community settings. Further high quality studies are required to confirm these findings.

Masks for Prevention of Respiratory Virus Infections, Including SARS-CoV-2, in Health Care and Community Settings : A Living Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Recommendations on masks for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vary.

PURPOSE

To examine the effectiveness of N95, surgical, and cloth masks in community and health care settings for preventing respiratory virus infections, and effects of reuse or extended use of N95 masks.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple electronic databases, including the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 14 April 2020; surveillance through 2 June 2020), and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of masks and risk for respiratory virus infection, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and observational studies of mask use and coronavirus infection risk were included. New evidence will be incorporated by using living review methods.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; a second reviewer provided verification.

DATA SYNTHESIS

39 studies (18 randomized controlled trials and 21 observational studies; 33 867 participants) were included. No study evaluated reuse or extended use of N95 masks. Evidence on SARS-CoV-2 was limited to 2 observational studies with serious limitations. Community mask use was possibly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-1 infection in observational studies. In high- or moderate-risk health care settings, observational studies found that risk for infection with SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus probably decreased with mask use versus nonuse and possibly decreased with N95 versus surgical mask use. Randomized trials in community settings found possibly no difference between N95 versus surgical masks and probably no difference between surgical versus no mask in risk for influenza or influenza-like illness, but compliance was low. In health care settings, N95 and surgical masks were probably associated with similar risks for influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral infection; clinical respiratory illness had inconsistency. Bothersome symptoms were common.

LIMITATIONS

There were few SARS-CoV-2 studies, observational studies have methodological limitations, and the review was done by using streamlined methods.

CONCLUSION

Evidence on mask effectiveness for respiratory infection prevention is stronger in health care than community settings. N95 respirators might reduce SARS-CoV-1 risk versus surgical masks in health care settings, but applicability to SARS-CoV-2 is uncertain.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Forgotten Technology in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Filtration Properties of Cloth and Cloth Masks-A Narrative Review

Management of the global crisis of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic requires detailed appraisal of evidence to support clear, actionable, and consistent public health messaging. The use of cloth masks for general public use is being debated, and is in flux. We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and Google for articles reporting the filtration properties of flat cloth or cloth masks. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles to identify further articles and identified articles through social and conventional news media. We found 25 articles. Study of protection for the wearer used healthy volunteers, or used a manikin wearing a mask, with airflow to simulate different breathing rates. Studies of protection of the environment, also known as source control, used convenience samples of healthy volunteers. The design and execution of the studies was generally rigorously described. Many descriptions of cloth lacked the detail required for reproducibility; no study provided all the expected details of material, thread count, weave, and weight. Some of the homemade mask designs were reproducible. Successful masks were made of muslin at 100 threads per inch (TPI) in 3 to 4 layers (4-layer muslin or a muslin-flannel-muslin sandwich), tea towels (also known as dish towels), made using 1 layer (2 layers would be expected to be better), and good-quality cotton T-shirts in 2 layers (with a stitched edge to prevent stretching). In flat-cloth experiments, linen tea towels, 600-TPI cotton in 2 layers, and 600-TPI cotton with 90-TPI flannel performed well but 80-TPI cotton in 2 layers did not. We therefore recommend cotton or flannel at least 100 TPI, at least 2 layers. More layers, 3 or 4, will provide increased filtration but there is a trade-off in that more layers increases the resistance to breathing. Although this is not a systematic review, we included all the articles that we identified in an unbiased way. We did not include gray literature or preprints. A plain language summary of these data and recommendations, as well as information on making, wearing and cleaning cloth masks is available at www.clothmasks.ca.

Nano-based antiviral coatings to combat viral infections

In the recent past, epidemics and pandemics caused by viral infections have had extraordinary effects on human life, leading to severe social and financial challenges. One such event related to the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 virus has already taken more than 917,417 lives globally (as of September 13, 2020). The nosocomial route of viral transmission has also been playing a significant role in the community spreading of viruses. Unfortunately, none of the existing strategies are apt for preventing the spread of viral infections. In order to contain the viral transmission, the principal target would be to stop the virus from reaching the otherwise healthy individuals. Nanomaterials, due to its unique physical and chemical properties, have been used to develop novel antiviral agents. In this review, we have discussed several nanotechnological strategies that can be used as an antiviral coating to inhibit viral transmission by preventing viral entry into the host cells.

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.

Saliva is a non-negligible factor in the spread of COVID-19

SARS‐CoV‐2, a novel emerging coronavirus, has caused severe disease (COVID‐19), and rapidly spread worldwide since the beginning of 2020. SARS‐CoV‐2 mainly spreads by coughing, sneezing, droplet inhalation, and contact. SARS‐CoV‐2 has been detected in saliva samples, making saliva a potential transmission route for COVID‐19. The participants in dental practice confront a particular risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection due to close contact with the patients and potential exposure to saliva‐contaminated droplets and aerosols generated during dental procedures. In addition, saliva‐contaminated surfaces could lead to potential cross‐infection. Hence, the control of saliva‐related transmission in the dental clinic is critical, particularly in the epidemic period of COVID‐19. Based on our experience of the COVID‐19 epidemic, some protective measures that can help reduce the risk of saliva‐related transmission are suggested, in order to avoid the potential spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 among patients, visitors, and dental practitioners.

Transmission characteristics of MERS and SARS in the healthcare setting: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

The Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus has caused recurrent outbreaks in the Arabian Peninsula since 2012. Although MERS has low overall human-to-human transmission potential, there is occasional amplification in the healthcare setting, a pattern reminiscent of the dynamics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreaks in 2003. Here we provide a head-to-head comparison of exposure patterns and transmission dynamics of large hospital clusters of MERS and SARS, including the most recent South Korean outbreak of MERS in 2015.

METHODS

To assess the unexpected nature of the recent South Korean nosocomial outbreak of MERS and estimate the probability of future large hospital clusters, we compared exposure and transmission patterns for previously reported hospital clusters of MERS and SARS, based on individual-level data and transmission tree information. We carried out simulations of nosocomial outbreaks of MERS and SARS using branching process models rooted in transmission tree data, and inferred the probability and characteristics of large outbreaks.

RESULTS

A significant fraction of MERS cases were linked to the healthcare setting, ranging from 43.5 % for the nosocomial outbreak in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in 2014 to 100 % for both the outbreak in Al-Hasa, Saudi Arabia, in 2013 and the outbreak in South Korea in 2015. Both MERS and SARS nosocomial outbreaks are characterized by early nosocomial super-spreading events, with the reproduction number dropping below 1 within three to five disease generations. There was a systematic difference in the exposure patterns of MERS and SARS: a majority of MERS cases occurred among patients who sought care in the same facilities as the index case, whereas there was a greater concentration of SARS cases among healthcare workers throughout the outbreak. Exposure patterns differed slightly by disease generation, however, especially for SARS. Moreover, the distributions of secondary cases per single primary case varied highly across individual hospital outbreaks (Kruskal-Wallis test; P < 0.0001), with significantly higher transmission heterogeneity in the distribution of secondary cases for MERS than SARS. Simulations indicate a 2-fold higher probability of occurrence of large outbreaks (>100 cases) for SARS than MERS (2 % versus 1 %); however, owing to higher transmission heterogeneity, the largest outbreaks of MERS are characterized by sharper incidence peaks. The probability of occurrence of MERS outbreaks larger than the South Korean cluster (n = 186) is of the order of 1 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the South Korean outbreak followed a similar progression to previously described hospital clusters involving coronaviruses, with early super-spreading events generating a disproportionately large number of secondary infections, and the transmission potential diminishing greatly in subsequent generations. Differences in relative exposure patterns and transmission heterogeneity of MERS and SARS could point to changes in hospital practices since 2003 or differences in transmission mechanisms of these coronaviruses.

Quantifying the impact of community quarantine on SARS transmission in Ontario: estimation of secondary case count difference and number needed to quarantine

Background

Community quarantine is controversial, and the decision to use and prepare for it should be informed by specific quantitative evidence of benefit. Case-study reports on 2002-2004 SARS outbreaks have discussed the role of quarantine in the community in transmission. However, this literature has not yielded quantitative estimates of the reduction in secondary cases attributable to quarantine as would be seen in other areas of health policy and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Methods

Using data from the 2003 Ontario, Canada, SARS outbreak, two novel expressions for the impact of quarantine are presented. Secondary Case Count Difference (SCCD) reflects reduction in the average number of transmissions arising from a SARS case in quarantine, relative to not in quarantine, at onset of symptoms. SCCD was estimated using Poisson and negative binomial regression models (with identity link function) comparing the number of secondary cases to each index case for quarantine relative to non-quarantined index cases. The inverse of this statistic is proposed as the number needed to quarantine (NNQ) to prevent one additional secondary transmission.

Results

Our estimated SCCD was 0.133 fewer secondary cases per quarantined versus non-quarantined index case; and a NNQ of 7.5 exposed individuals to be placed in community quarantine to prevent one additional case of transmission in the community. This analysis suggests quarantine can be an effective preventive measure, although these estimates lack statistical precision.

Conclusions

Relative to other health policy areas, literature on quarantine tends to lack in quantitative expressions of effectiveness, or agreement on how best to report differences in outcomes attributable to control measure. We hope to further this discussion through presentation of means to calculate and express the impact of population control measures. The study of quarantine effectiveness presents several methodological and statistical challenges. Further research and discussion are needed to understand the costs and benefits of enacting quarantine, and this includes a discussion of how quantitative benefit should be communicated to decision-makers and the public, and evaluated.