Project description:ImportanceCrowded indoor environments, such as households, are high-risk settings for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).ObjectivesTo examine evidence for household transmission of SARS-CoV-2, disaggregated by several covariates, and to compare it with other coronaviruses.Data sourcePubMed, 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 selectionAll 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 synthesisMeta-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 measuresSecondary 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceThe 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.

Project description:ImportanceA previous systematic review and meta-analysis of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 that summarized 54 published studies through October 19, 2020, found an overall secondary attack rate (SAR) of 16.6% (95% CI, 14.0%-19.3%). However, the understanding of household secondary attack rates for SARS-CoV-2 is still evolving, and updated analysis is needed.ObjectiveTo use newly published data to further the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the household.Data sourcesPubMed and reference lists of eligible articles were used to search for records published between October 20, 2020, and June 17, 2021. No restrictions on language, study design, time, or place of publication were applied. Studies published as preprints were included.Study selectionArticles with original data that reported at least 2 of the following factors were included: number of household contacts with infection, total number of household contacts, and secondary attack rates among household contacts. Studies that reported household infection prevalence (which includes index cases), that tested contacts using antibody tests only, and that included populations overlapping with another included study were excluded. Search terms were SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 with secondary attack rate, household, close contacts, contact transmission, contact attack rate, or family transmission.Data extraction and synthesisMeta-analyses were performed using generalized linear mixed models to obtain SAR estimates and 95% CIs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.Main outcomes and measuresOverall household SAR for SARS-CoV-2, SAR by covariates (contact age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidities, and relationship; index case age, sex, symptom status, presence of fever, and presence of cough; number of contacts; study location; and variant), and SAR by index case identification period.ResultsA total of 2722 records (2710 records from database searches and 12 records from the reference lists of eligible articles) published between October 20, 2020, and June 17, 2021, were identified. Of those, 93 full-text articles reporting household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 were assessed for eligibility, and 37 studies were included. These 37 new studies were combined with 50 of the 54 studies (published through October 19, 2020) from our previous review (4 studies from Wuhan, China, were excluded because their study populations overlapped with another recent study), resulting in a total of 87 studies representing 1 249 163 household contacts from 30 countries. The estimated household SAR for all 87 studies was 18.9% (95% CI, 16.2%-22.0%). Compared with studies from January to February 2020, the SAR for studies from July 2020 to March 2021 was higher (13.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-16.7%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 22.6%-41.1%], respectively). Results from subgroup analyses were similar to those reported in a previous systematic review and meta-analysis; however, the SAR was higher to contacts with comorbidities (3 studies; 50.0% [95% CI, 41.4%-58.6%]) compared with previous findings, and the estimated household SAR for the B.1.1.7 (α) variant was 24.5% (3 studies; 95% CI, 10.9%-46.2%).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this study suggest that the household remains an important site of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and recent studies have higher household SAR estimates compared with the earliest reports. More transmissible variants and vaccines may be associated with further changes.

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, affecting millions of people. However, the relationship between COVID-19 and acute cerebrovascular diseases is unclear.AimsWe aimed to characterize the incidence, risk factors, clinical-radiological manifestations, and outcome of COVID-19-associated stroke.MethodsThree medical databases were systematically reviewed for published articles on acute cerebrovascular diseases in COVID-19 (December 2019-September 2020). The review protocol was previously registered (PROSPERO ID?=?CRD42020185476). Data were extracted from articles reporting ?5 stroke cases in COVID-19. We complied with the PRISMA guidelines and used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess data quality. Data were pooled using a random-effect model.Summary of reviewOf 2277 initially identified articles, 61 (2.7%) were entered in the meta-analysis. Out of 108,571 patients with COVID-19, acute CVD occurred in 1.4% (95%CI: 1.0-1.9). The most common manifestation was acute ischemic stroke (87.4%); intracerebral hemorrhage was less common (11.6%). Patients with COVID-19 developing acute cerebrovascular diseases, compared to those who did not, were older (pooled median difference?=?4.8 years; 95%CI: 1.7-22.4), more likely to have hypertension (OR?=?7.35; 95%CI: 1.94-27.87), diabetes mellitus (OR?=?5.56; 95%CI: 3.34-9.24), coronary artery disease (OR?=?3.12; 95%CI: 1.61-6.02), and severe infection (OR?=?5.10; 95%CI: 2.72-9.54). Compared to individuals who experienced a stroke without the infection, patients with COVID-19 and stroke were younger (pooled median difference?=?-6.0 years; 95%CI: -12.3 to -1.4), had higher NIHSS (pooled median difference?=?5; 95%CI: 3-9), higher frequency of large vessel occlusion (OR?=?2.73; 95%CI: 1.63-4.57), and higher in-hospital mortality rate (OR?=?5.21; 95%CI: 3.43-7.90).ConclusionsAcute cerebrovascular diseases are not uncommon in patients with COVID-19, especially in those whom are severely infected and have pre-existing vascular risk factors. The pattern of large vessel occlusion and multi-territory infarcts suggests that cerebral thrombosis and/or thromboembolism could be possible causative pathways for the disease.

Project description:Background: Due to lack of preparedness of health systems, fast spread of the new virus, high mortality rates, and lack of a definite treatment, the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to high levels of fear and anxiety in different populations. In addition, isolation, mental disorders, and limitations in social interactions as a result of lockdown and travel ban increased the fear of the new coronavirus. Methods: International databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar, were searched without any time limitation, and all observational studies published in English reporting the mean of fear of COVID-19 based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) were included in the analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Random effects model, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Heterogeneity across studies was examined using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistic. All the statistical analyses were conducted using R software v4.0.3. Results: A total of 44 articles with a sample size of 52,462 were reviewed. A pooled mean of 18.57 was found for fear of COVID-19. The mean of fear of COVID-19 was higher in women than in men (20.67 vs. 18.21). The highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 had been found in Asia (18.36) and Australia (17.43) based on continent, and in hospital staff (19.51) and college students (17.95) based on target population, respectively. In addition, the highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 were related to items #1 and #3 of the scale, respectively. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, there was no significant association between the mean of fear of COVID-19 and sample size and participants' age. In addition, publication error was not significant (P = 0.721). Conclusion: The mean of fear of COVID-19 was high around the world; therefore, it seems necessary to pay more attention to the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) protect the public from COVID-19. However, the impact of NPIs has been inconsistent and remains unclear. This study, therefore, aims to measure the impact of major NPIs (social distancing, social isolation and quarantine) on reducing COVID-19 transmission. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis research of both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. We will undertake a systematic search of: MEDLINE, Embase, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research, WHO database on COVID-19, ClinicalTrails.Gov for clinical trials on COVID-19, Cochrane Resources on Coronavirus (COVID-19), Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service and Google Scholar for published and unpublished literatures on COVID-19 including preprint engines such as medRxiv, bioRxiv, Litcovid and SSRN for unpublished studies on COVID-19 and will be reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Outcomes of interest for impact analysis will include the reduction of COVID-19 transmission, avoiding crowds and restricting movement, isolating ill and psychological impacts. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. For quality of included studies, we will use the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will grade the certainty of the evidence for all outcome measures across studies. Random-effects model for meta-analysis will measure the effect size of NPIs or the strengths of relationships. For quantitative data, risk ratio or OR, absolute risk difference (for dichotomous outcome data), or mean difference or standardised mean difference (for continuous data) and their 95% CIs will be calculated. Where statistical pooling is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted for the included studies. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects will be evaluated to provide the true effects in the analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Formal ethical approval from an institutional review board or research ethics committee is not required as primary data will not be collected. The final results of this study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences or workshops. We will also share important information with public health authorities as well as with the WHO. In addition, we may post the submitted manuscript under review to medRxiv, or other relevant preprint servers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020207338.

Dataset Information

Household transmission of COVID-19-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure