Dataset Information

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 associated with aircraft travel: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Rationale for the review: Air travel may be associated with viruses spread via infected passengers and potentially through in-flight transmission. Given the novelty of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, transmission associated with air travel is based on transmission dynamics of other respiratory viruses. Our objective was to provide a rapid summary and evaluation of relevant data on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard aircraft, report policy implications, and highlight research gaps requiring urgent attention.

Methods

We searched four electronic databases (1 February 2020 to 27 January 2021) and included studies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard aircraft. We assessed study quality based on five criteria and reported important findings.

Key findings

We included 18 studies on in-flight SARS-CoV-2 transmission (130 unique flights) and two studies on wastewater from aircraft. The quality of evidence from most published studies was low. Two wastewater studies reported PCR-positive samples with high Cycle threshold values (33-39). Index case definition was heterogeneous across studies. The proportion of contacts traced ranged from 0.68% to 100%. Authors traced 2800/19729 passengers, 140/180 crew members, and 8/8 medical staff. Altogether, 273 index cases were reported, with 64 secondary cases. Three studies, each investigating one flight, reported no secondary cases. Secondary attack rate among studies following up > 80% of passengers and crew (including data on ten flights) varied between 0-8.2%. The studies reported on the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, and symptomatic individuals. Two studies performed viral cultures with ten positive results. Genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analysis were performed in individuals from four flights.

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted during aircraft travel, but published data do not permit any conclusive assessment of likelihood and extent. The variation in design and methodology restricts the comparison of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting future studies of transmission on aircraft should be developed.

SUBMITTER: Rosca EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8499932 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has hugely impacted global public health and economy. The COVID-19 has also shown potential impacts on maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes. This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence from existing systematic reviews about the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infections on maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from 1 December 2019 to 7 July 2021, for published review studies that included case reports, primary studies, clinical practice guidelines, overviews, case-control studies, and observational studies. Systematic reviews that reported the plausibility of mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19 (also known as vertical transmission), maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes, and review studies that addressed the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy were also included. We identified 947 citations, of which 69 studies were included for further analysis. Most (>70%) of the mother-to-child infection was likely due to environmental exposure, although a significant proportion (about 20%) was attributable to potential vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Further results of the review indicated that the mode of delivery of pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 could not increase or decrease the risk of infection for the newborns (outcomes), thereby emphasizing the significance of breastfeeding. The issue of maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to worsen during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, increasing maternal and neonatal mortality, stillbirth, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and maternal depression. Based on this study, we observed increasing rates of cesarean delivery from mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also found that SARS-CoV-2 could be potentially transmitted vertically during the gestation period. However, more data are needed to further investigate and follow-up, especially with reports of newborns infected with SARS-CoV-2, in order to examine a possible long-term adverse effect.

Project description:Background and Purpose Many of the statutes comprising the shelter-in-place and phased-reopening orders are centered around minimizing asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission. Assumptions about the presence and relative importance of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission are based on case reports, the failing of quarantine measures aimed at sequestering ill patients, viral dynamic studies suggesting SARS-CoV-2 production peaks before symptoms appear, and modeling evidence that calculates serial interval between successive generations of infection. In aggregate, these data offer compelling evidence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, but individually these studies have notable shortcomings that undermine their conclusions. The purpose of this review is to discuss the literature of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission, highlight limitations of recent studies, and propose experiments that, if conducted, would provide a more definitive analysis of the relative role of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission in the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Methods We conducted a systematic review of literature on PubMed using search filters that relate to asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission as well as serial interval and viral dynamics. We focused on studies that provided primary clinical data. Results 34 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review: 11 case reports pertaining to asymptomatic transmission, 9 viral kinetic studies, 13 serial interval studies, and 1 study with viral kinetics and serial interval. Conclusion Different approaches to determining the presence and prevalence of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission have notable shortcomings, which were highlighted in this review and limit our ability to draw definitive conclusions. Conducting high quality studies with the aim of understanding the relative role of asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission is instrumental to developing the most informed policies on reopening our cities, states, and countries.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the potential for long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor community settings and to investigate factors that might influence transmission.DesignRapid systematic review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, medRxiv, Arxiv, and WHO COVID-19 Research Database for studies published from 27 July 2020 to 19 January 2022; existing relevant rapid systematic review for studies published from 1 January 2020 to 27 July 2020; and citation analysis in Web of Science and Cocites.Eligibility criteria for study selectionObservational studies reporting on transmission events in indoor community (non-healthcare) settings in which long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was the most likely route. Studies such as those of household transmission where the main transmission route was likely to be close contact or fomite transmission were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was done by one reviewer and independently checked by a second reviewer. Primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infections through long distance airborne transmission (>2 m) and any modifying factors. Methodological quality of included studies was rated using the quality criteria checklist, and certainty of primary outcomes was determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Narrative synthesis was themed by setting.Results22 reports relating to 18 studies were identified (methodological quality was high in three, medium in five, and low in 10); all the studies were outbreak investigations. Long distance airborne transmission was likely to have occurred for some or all transmission events in 16 studies and was unclear in two studies (GRADE: very low certainty). In the 16 studies, one or more factors plausibly increased the likelihood of long distance airborne transmission, particularly insufficient air replacement (very low certainty), directional air flow (very low certainty), and activities associated with increased emission of aerosols, such as singing or speaking loudly (very low certainty). In 13 studies, the primary cases were reported as being asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or around symptom onset at the time of transmission. Although some of the included studies were well conducted outbreak investigations, they remain at risk of bias owing to study design and do not always provide the level of detail needed to fully assess transmission routes.ConclusionThis rapid systematic review found evidence suggesting that long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 might occur in indoor settings such as restaurants, workplaces, and venues for choirs, and identified factors such as insufficient air replacement that probably contributed to transmission. These results strengthen the need for mitigation measures in indoor settings, particularly the use of adequate ventilation.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021236762.

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: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:BackgroundModes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are of key public health importance. SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the feces of some COVID-19 patients, suggesting the possibility that the virus could, in addition to droplet and fomite transmission, be transmitted via the orofecal route.MethodsThis review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO COVID-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on five criteria and report important findings. Where necessary, authors are contacted for further details on the content of their articles.ResultsWe include searches up until 20 December 2020. We included 110 relevant studies: 76 primary observational studies or reports, and 35 reviews (one cohort study also included a review) examining the potential role of orofecal transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Of the observational studies, 37 were done in China. A total of 48 studies (n=9,081 patients) reported single cases, case series or cohort data on individuals with COVID-19 diagnosis or their contacts and 46 (96%) detected binary RT-PCR with 535 out of 1358 samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 (average 39.4%). The results suggest a long duration of fecal shedding, often recorded after respiratory samples tested negative, and symptoms of gastrointestinal disease were reported in several studies. Twenty-nine studies reported finding SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater, river water or toilet areas. Six studies attempted viral culture from COVID-19 patients' fecal samples: culture was successful in 3 of 6 studies, and one study demonstrated invasion of the virus into intestinal epithelial cells.ConclusionsVaried observational and mechanistic evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 can infect and be shed from the gastrointestinal tract, including some data demonstrating viral culture in fecal samples. To fully assess these risks, quantitative data on infectious virus in these settings and infectious dose are needed.