Review of the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission

Bioaerosols emission from source facilities in a wastewater treatment plant: Critical exposure time and sensitivity analysis

Overexposure of sewage workers to bioaerosol released from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) can cause serious infections, but practical method for controlling their health risk is lacking. In this study, reverse quantitative microbial risk assessment was used to estimate the daily critical exposure time (CET) of sewage workers exposing to Staphylococcus aureus bioaerosol emitted by three emission sources facilities in a WWTP based on either U.S. EPA or WHO benchmark, and sensitivity analysis was conducted to analyze the influence of various parameters on the outcomes of CET. The results showed that the CET of females was always 1.12-1.29 times that of males. In addition, the CET after wearing face masks was 28.28-52.37 times as long as before. The working time can be determined based on the CET results of male workers wearing face masks exposed to the inverted-umbrella aeration tank (14.73-550.98 min for U.S. EPA benchmark and 55.07-1972.24 min for WHO benchmark). In each scenario, the variable parameter exposure concentration (ec) always showed the most influence on the CET results. After wearing the face masks, the removal fraction by employing face masks also had a significant effect on the results, only second to ec. Therefore, the wearing of face mask is the most convenient and effective measure to prolong the CET. Furthermore, practical methods to reducing bioaerosol concentration in WWTPs exposure are also necessary to extend CET and safeguard worker health. This study enriches the application range of reverse quantitative microbial risk assessment framework and provides theoretical support for stakeholders to establish reasonable working time threshold guidelines, and practical method and novel perspective to protect the on-site health risks of sewage workers exposing to various facilities.

Risk factors for COVID-19 transmission in England: a multilevel modelling study using routine contact tracing data

Contact tracing for COVID-19 in England operated from May 2020 to February 2022. The clinical, demographic and exposure information collected on cases and their contacts offered a unique opportunity to study secondary transmission. We aimed to quantify the relative impact of host factors and exposure settings on secondary COVID-19 transmission risk using 550,000 sampled transmission links between cases and their contacts. Links, or 'contact episodes', were established where a contact subsequently became a case, using an algorithm accounting for incubation period, setting, and contact date. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to estimate adjusted odds of transmission. Of sampled episodes, 8.7% resulted in secondary cases. Living with a case (71% episodes) was the most significant risk factor (aOR = 2.6, CI = 1.9-3.6). Other risk factors included unvaccinated status (aOR = 1.2, CI = 1.2-1.3), symptoms, and older age (66-79 years; aOR = 1.4, CI = 1.4-1.5). Whilst global COVID-19 strategies emphasized protection outside the home, including education, travel, and gathering restrictions, this study evidences the relative importance of household transmission. There is a need to reconsider the contribution of household transmission to future control strategies and the requirement for effective infection control within households.

A Risk Factor Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Animals in COVID-19-Affected Households

A higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in animals that have close contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive humans ("COVID-19 households") has been demonstrated in several countries. This prospective study aimed to determine the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in animals from Swiss COVID-19 households and to assess the potential risk factors for infection. The study included 226 companion animals (172 cats, 76.1%; 49 dogs, 21.7%; and 5 other animals, 2.2%) from 122 COVID-19 households with 336 human household members (including 230 SARS-CoV-2-positive people). The animals were tested for viral RNA using an RT-qPCR and/or serologically for antibodies and neutralizing activity. Additionally, surface samples from animal fur and beds underwent an RT-qPCR. A questionnaire about hygiene, animal hygiene, and contact intensity was completed by the household members. A total of 49 of the 226 animals (21.7%) from 31 of the 122 households (25.4%) tested positive/questionably positive for SARS-CoV-2, including 37 of the 172 cats (21.5%) and 12 of the 49 dogs (24.5%). The surface samples tested positive significantly more often in households with SARS-CoV-2-positive animals than in households with SARS-CoV-2-negative animals (p = 0.011). Significantly more animals tested positive in the multivariable analysis for households with minors. For cats, a shorter length of outdoor access and a higher frequency of removing droppings from litterboxes were factors that were significantly associated with higher infection rates. The study emphasizes that the behavior of owners and the living conditions of animals can influence the likelihood of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in companion animals. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor the infection transmission and dynamics in animals, as well as to identify the possible risk factors for animals in infected households.

Pre-vaccination RT-PCR negative contacts in workplace settings show high, SARS COV-2 neutralizing antibody levels

Background

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection occurring in RT-PCR negative individuals represent a poorly characterized cohort with important infection control connotations. While household and community-based studies have evaluated seroprevalence of antibody and transmission dynamics in this group, workplace-based data is currently unavailable.

Methods

A cohort study was carried out in July 2021, during and immediately following the peak of the 3^rd wave of COVID-19 in Sri Lanka, prior to mass vaccination. A total of 92 unvaccinated individuals between the ages of 17–65 years were purposively sampled from an office and two factory settings. The selected cohort that had been exposed to RT-PCR positive cases in the workplace was tested RT-PCR negative. Serological samples collected six weeks post exposure were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody.

Results

The seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies in the overall cohort was 63.04% (58/92). Seroprevalences in the office setting, factory setting 1 and factory setting 2 were 69.2% (9/13), 55.7% (34/61) and 83.33% (15/18), respectively. Primary risk factor associated with seropositivity was face to face contact with no mask for > 15 min (p < 0.024, Odds Ratio (OR); 5.58, 95%CI;1.292– 25.65). Individuals with workspace exposure had significantly higher levels of neutralizing antibodies than those who did not (percentage neutralization in assay 63.3% (SD:21)vs 45.7% (SD:20), p = 0.0042), as did individuals who engaged socially without protective measures (62.4 (SD:21.6)% vs 49.7 (SD:21)%, p = 0.026).

Conclusion

There was a high seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralizing antibodies among RT-PCR negative contacts in workplace settings in Sri Lanka. Higher levels of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection than estimated based on RT-PCR positive contact data indicate need for targeted infection control measures in these settings during future outbreaks.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14381-5.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk factors in a cohort of close contacts

PURPOSE

Many factors might affect SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but their relevance is not well established. The objectives were to assess the secondary attack rate (SAR) and the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission from confirmed index cases to their close contacts in household and non-household settings.

METHODS

This cohort study included the close contacts of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases confirmed between May and December 2020 in Navarre, Spain. Epidemiological and clinical variables of the index case and close contacts were collected. The SAR was calculated, and the independent effect of each variable on the transmission risk was evaluated by logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 59,900 close contacts of 20,048 index cases were studied, and 53.6% were household contacts. SAR was 34.9% overall, 46.8% in household contacts and 21.1% in non-household contacts. The risk of transmission was higher in household setting (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.96, 95% CI 2.84-3.07), from symptomatic index cases (aOR 1.50, 95% CI 1.43-1.58), immigrants (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.36-1.52), and increased with age. A higher susceptibility of close contacts was associated with 5-14 years of age, immigrants (aOR 1.54), very low or low-income level (aOR 1.27, and aOR, 1.17, respectively), healthcare work (aOR 1.21), and diagnosis of diabetes (aOR 1.14, 95%CI 1.03-1.25), chronic kidney disease (aOR 1.18, 95%CI 1.04-1.35), hypertension (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19), and severe obesity (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00-1.38). Transmission increased progressively from May to September 2020 as the B.1.177 variant became dominant.

CONCLUSION

The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was considerable among close contacts of infected persons. The higher risk associated with household contacts, immigrants, older index cases, close contacts with lower income level and comorbidities should be considered to address preventive interventions.

Course of illness and outcomes in older COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC: a retrospective analysis

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly spread worldwide and causes high mortality of elderly patients. High-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) is an oxygen delivery method for severely ill patients. We retrospectively analyzed the course of illness and outcomes in 110 elderly COVID-19 patients (≥65 years) treated with HFNC from 6 hospitals. 38 patients received HFNC (200 mmHg < PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 300 mmHg, early HFNC group), and 72 patients received HFNC (100 mmHg < PaO₂/FiO₂ ≤ 200 mmHg, late HFNC group). There were no significant differences of sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores and APECH II scores between early and late HFNC group on admission. Compared with the late HFNC group, patients in the early HFNC group had a lower likelihood of developing severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), longer time from illness onset to severe ARDS and shorter duration of viral shedding after illness onset, as well as shorter lengths of ICU and hospital stay. 24 patients died during hospitalization, of whom 22 deaths (30.6%) were in the late HFNC group and 2 (5.3%) in the early HFNC group. The present study suggested that the outcomes were better in severely ill elderly patients with COVID-19 receiving early compared to late HFNC.