Dataset Information

Superspreading and heterogeneity in transmission of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have caused substantial public health burdens and global health threats. Understanding the superspreading potentials of these viruses are important for characterizing transmission patterns and informing strategic decision-making in disease control. This systematic review aimed to summarize the existing evidence on superspreading features and to compare the heterogeneity in transmission within and among various betacoronavirus epidemics of SARS, MERS and COVID-19.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were extensively searched for original studies on the transmission heterogeneity of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19 published in English between January 1, 2003, and February 10, 2021. After screening the articles, we extracted data pertaining to the estimated dispersion parameter (k) which has been a commonly-used measurement for superspreading potential.

Findings

We included a total of 60 estimates of transmission heterogeneity from 26 studies on outbreaks in 22 regions. The majority (90%) of the k estimates were small, with values less than 1, indicating an over-dispersed transmission pattern. The point estimates of k for SARS and MERS ranged from 0.12 to 0.20 and from 0.06 to 2.94, respectively. Among 45 estimates of individual-level transmission heterogeneity for COVID-19 from 17 articles, 91% were derived from Asian regions. The point estimates of k for COVID-19 ranged between 0.1 and 5.0.

Conclusions

We detected a substantial over-dispersed transmission pattern in all three coronaviruses, while the k estimates varied by differences in study design and public health capacity. Our findings suggested that even with a reduced R value, the epidemic still has a high resurgence potential due to transmission heterogeneity.

SUBMITTER: Wang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8409018 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:(1) Background: The use of corticosteroids in critical coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), or Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been controversial. However, a meta-analysis on the efficacy of steroids in treating these coronavirus infections is lacking. (2) Purpose: We assessed a methodological criticism on the quality of previous published meta-analyses and the risk of misleading conclusions with important therapeutic consequences. We also examined the evidence of the efficacy of corticosteroids in reducing mortality in SARS, MERS and COVID-19. (3) Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were used to identify studies published until 25 April 2020, that reported associations between steroid use and mortality in treating SARS/MERS/COVID-19. Two investigators screened and extracted data independently. Searches were restricted to studies on humans, and articles that did not report the exact number of patients in each group or data on mortality were excluded. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios (HRs) under the fixed- and random-effect model. (4) Results: Eight articles (4051 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Among these selected studies, 3416 patients were diagnosed with SARS, 360 patients with MERS, and 275 with COVID-19; 60.3% patients were administered steroids. The meta-analyses including all studies showed no differences overall in terms of mortality (OR 1.152, 95% CI 0.631-2.101 in the random effects model, p = 0.645). However, this conclusion might be biased, because, in some studies, the patients in the steroid group had more severe symptoms than those in the control group. In contrast, when the meta-analysis was performed restricting only to studies that used appropriate adjustment (e.g., time, disease severity), there was a significant difference between the two groups (HR 0.378, 95% CI 0.221-0.646 in the random effects model, p < 0.0001). Although there was no difference in mortality when steroids were used in severe cases, there was a difference among the group with more underlying diseases (OR 3.133, 95% CI 1.670-5.877, p < 0.001). (5) Conclusions: To our knowledge, this study is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis providing the most accurate evidence on the effect of steroids in coronavirus infections. If not contraindicated, and in the absence of side effects, the use of steroids should be considered in coronavirus infection including COVID-19.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to report pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus spectrum infections, and particularly coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease because of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection during pregnancy.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Cinahl, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched electronically utilizing combinations of word variants for coronavirus or severe acute respiratory syndrome or SARS or Middle East respiratory syndrome or MERS or COVID-19 and pregnancy. The search and selection criteria were restricted to English language.Study eligibility criteriaInclusion criteria were hospitalized pregnant women with a confirmed coronavirus related-illness, defined as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or COVID-19.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsWe used meta-analyses of proportions to combine data and reported pooled proportions, so that a pooled proportion may not coincide with the actual raw proportion in the results. The pregnancy outcomes observed included miscarriage, preterm birth, preeclampsia, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, fetal growth restriction, and mode of delivery. The perinatal outcomes observed were fetal distress, Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, neonatal asphyxia, admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, perinatal death, and evidence of vertical transmission.ResultsNineteen studies including 79 hospitalized women were eligible for this systematic review: 41 pregnancies (51.9%) affected by COVID-19, 12 (15.2%) by MERS, and 26 (32.9%) by SARS. An overt diagnosis of pneumonia was made in 91.8%, and the most common symptoms were fever (82.6%), cough (57.1%), and dyspnea (27.0%). For all coronavirus infections, the pooled proportion of miscarriage was 64.7% (8/12; 95% confidence interval, 37.9-87.3), although reported only for women affected by SARS in two studies with no control group; the pooled proportion of preterm birth <37 weeks was 24.3% (14/56; 95% confidence interval, 12.5-38.6); premature prelabor rupture of membranes occurred in 20.7% (6/34; 95% confidence interval, 9.5-34.9), preeclampsia in 16.2% (2/19; 95% confidence interval, 4.2-34.1), and fetal growth restriction in 11.7% (2/29; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-24.4), although reported only for women affected by SARS; 84% (50/58) were delivered by cesarean; the pooled proportion of perinatal death was 11.1% (5/60; 95% confidence interval, 84.8-19.6), and 57.2% of newborns (3/12; 95% confidence interval, 3.6-99.8) were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit. When focusing on COVID-19, the most common adverse pregnancy outcome was preterm birth <37 weeks, occurring in 41.1% of cases (14/32; 95% confidence interval, 25.6-57.6), while the pooled proportion of perinatal death was 7.0% (2/41; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-16.3). None of the 41 newborns assessed showed clinical signs of vertical transmission.ConclusionIn hospitalized mothers infected with coronavirus infections, including COVID-19, >90% of whom also had pneumonia, preterm birth is the most common adverse pregnancy outcome. COVID-19 infection was associated with higher rate (and pooled proportions) of preterm birth, preeclampsia, cesarean, and perinatal death. There have been no published cases of clinical evidence of vertical transmission. Evidence is accumulating rapidly, so these data may need to be updated soon. The findings from this study can guide and enhance prenatal counseling of women with COVID-19 infection occurring during pregnancy, although they should be interpreted with caution in view of the very small number of included cases.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Several antiretroviral drugs are being considered for the treatment of COVID-19, the disease caused by a newly identified coronavirus, (SARS-CoV-2). We systematically reviewed the clinical outcomes of using antiretroviral drugs for the prevention and treatment of coronaviruses and planned clinical trials. METHODS:Three databases were screened from inception to 30 March 2020 for studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients with SARS, MERS or COVID-19 treated with antiretrovirals. RESULTS:From an initial screen of 433 titles, two randomized trials and 24 observational studies provided clinical outcome data on the use of antiretroviral drugs; most studies reported outcomes using LPV/r as treatment. Of the 21 observational studies reporting treatment outcomes, there were three studies among patients with SARS, six studies among patients with MERS and 12 studies among patients with COVID-19. In one randomized trial 99 patients with severe COVID-19 illness were randomized to receive LPV/r (400/100 mg twice a day) and 100 patients to standard of care for 14 days: LPV/r was not associated with a statistically significant difference in time to clinical improvement, although LPV/r given within 12 days of symptoms was associated with shorter time to clinical improvement; 28 day mortality was numerically lower in the LPV/r group (14/99) compared to the control group (25/100), but this difference was not statistically significant. The second trial found no benefit. The certainty of the evidence for the randomized trials was low. In the observational studies 3 out of 361 patients who received LPV/r died; the certainty of evidence was very low. Three studies reported a possible protective effect of LPV/r as post-exposure prophylaxis. Again, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to uncertainty due to limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of the available evidence it is uncertain whether LPV/r and other antiretrovirals improve clinical outcomes or prevent infection among patients at high risk of acquiring COVID-19.

Project description:Concern regarding coronavirus (CoV) outbreaks has stayed relevant to global health in the last decades. Emerging COVID-19 infection, caused by the novel SARS-CoV2, is now a pandemic, bringing a substantial burden to human health. Interferon (IFN), combined with other antivirals and various treatments, has been used to treat and prevent MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV2 infections. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy of IFN-based treatments and combinational therapy with antivirals, corticosteroids, traditional medicine, and other treatments. Major healthcare databases and grey literature were investigated. A three-stage screening was utilized, and included studies were checked against the protocol eligibility criteria. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction were performed, followed by narrative data synthesis. Fifty-five distinct studies of SARS-CoV2, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV were spotted. Our narrative synthesis showed a possible benefit in the use of IFN. A good quality cohort showed lower CRP levels in Arbidol (ARB) + IFN group vs. IFN only group. Another study reported a significantly shorter chest X-ray (CXR) resolution in IFN-Alfacon-1 + corticosteroid group compared with the corticosteroid only group in SARS-CoV patients. In a COVID-19 trial, total adverse drug events (ADEs) were much lower in the Favipiravir (FPV) + IFN-α group compared with the LPV/RTV arm (P = 0.001). Also, nausea in patients receiving FPV + IFN-α regimen was significantly lower (P = 0.03). Quantitative analysis of mortality did not show a conclusive effect for IFN/RBV treatment in six moderately heterogeneous MERS-CoV studies (log OR = -0.05, 95% CI: (-0.71,0.62), I2 = 44.71%). A meta-analysis of three COVID-19 studies did not show a conclusive nor meaningful relation between receiving IFN and COVID-19 severity (log OR = -0.44, 95% CI: (-1.13,0.25), I2 = 31.42%). A lack of high-quality cohorts and controlled trials was observed. Evidence suggests the potential efficacy of several combination IFN therapies such as lower ADEs, quicker resolution of CXR, or a decrease in inflammatory cytokines; Still, these options must possibly be further explored before being recommended in public guidelines. For all major CoVs, our results may indicate a lack of a definitive effect of IFN treatment on mortality. We recommend such therapeutics be administered with extreme caution until further investigation uncovers high-quality evidence in favor of IFN or combination therapy with IFN.

Project description:IntroductionThe novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak currently puts health care workers at high risk of both physical and mental health problems. This study aimed to identify the risk and protective factors for mental health outcomes in health care workers during coronavirus epidemics.MethodsA rapid systematic review was performed in three databases (March 24, 2020) and a current COVID-19 resource (May 28, 2020). Following study selection, study characteristics and effect measures were tabulated, and data were synthesized by using vote counting. Meta-analysis was not possible because of high variation in risk factors, outcomes and effect measures. Risk of bias of each study was assessed and the certainty of evidence was appraised according to the GRADE methodology.ResultsOut of 2605 references, 33 observational studies were selected and the identified risk and protective factors were categorized in ten thematic categories. Most of these studies (n = 23) were performed during the SARS outbreak, seven during the current COVID-19 pandemic and three during the MERS outbreak. The level of disease exposure and health fear were significantly associated with worse mental health outcomes. There was evidence that clear communication and support from the organization, social support and personal sense of control are protective factors. The evidence was of very low certainty, because of risk of bias and imprecision.ConclusionSafeguarding mental health of health care workers during infectious disease outbreaks should not be treated as a separate mental health intervention strategy, but could benefit from a protective approach. This study suggests that embedding mental health support in a safe and efficient working environment which promotes collegial social support and personal sense of control could help to maximize resilience of health care workers. Low quality cross-sectional studies currently provide the best possible evidence, and further research is warranted to confirm causality.