Vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jeganathan K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9247633 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8471858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection during gestation remains unclear. Here, we analyse the viral genome on maternal and newborns nasopharyngeal swabs, vaginal swabs, maternal and umbilical cord plasma, placenta and umbilical cord biopsies, amniotic fluids and milk from 31 mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition, we also test specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and expression of genes involved in inflammatory responses in placentas, and in maternal and umbilical cord plasma. We detect SARS-CoV-2 genome in one umbilical cord blood and in two at-term placentas, in one vaginal mucosa and in one milk specimen. Furthermore, we report the presence of specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in one umbilical cord blood and in one milk specimen. Finally, in the three documented cases of vertical transmission, SARS-CoV-2 infection was accompanied by a strong inflammatory response. Together, these data support the hypothesis that in utero SARS-CoV-2 vertical transmission, while low, is possible. These results might help defining proper obstetric management of COVID-19 pregnant women, or putative indications for mode and timing of delivery.
| S-EPMC7552412 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7310638 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9240778 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7737089 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.MethodsWe 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 findingsWe 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.ConclusionCurrent 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.
| S-EPMC8499932 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8749895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effect of eye protection to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real-world remains uncertain. We aimed to synthesize all available research on the potential impact of eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2.MethodsWe searched PROSPERO, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library for clinical trials and comparative observational studies in CENTRAL, and Europe PMC for pre-prints. We included studies that reported sufficient data to estimate the effect of any form of eye protection including face shields and variants, goggles, and glasses, on subsequent confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2.ResultsWe screened 898 articles and included 6 reports of 5 observational studies from 4 countries (USA, India, Columbia, and United Kingdom) that tested face shields, goggles, and wraparound eyewear on 7567 healthcare workers. The three before-and-after and one retrospective cohort studies showed statistically significant and substantial reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections favouring eye protection with odds ratios ranging from 0.04 to 0.6, corresponding to relative risk reductions of 96% to 40%. These reductions were not explained by changes in the community rates. However, the one case-control study reported odds ratio favouring no eye protection (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.99, 3.0). The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. None of the studies adjusted for potential confounders such as other protective behaviours, thus increasing the risk of bias, and decreasing the certainty of evidence to very low.ConclusionsCurrent studies suggest that eye protection may play a role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers. However, robust comparative trials are needed to clearly determine effectiveness of eye protections and wearability issues in both healthcare and general populations.
| S-EPMC8567128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) rapidly spread across China and to more than 70 countries, an increasing number of pregnant women were affected. The vertical transmission potential of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is of great concern to the obstetrics, neonatologists, and public health agencies. Though some studies indicated the risk of vertical transmission is low, few cases have been reported with comprehensive serial tests from multiple specimens. In this case, a female preterm infant was born to a mother with confirmed COVID-19. She presented with mild respiratory distress and received general management and a short period of nasal continuous positive airway pressure support. During her stay at the hospital, a series of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic test from her throat and anal swab, serum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, and urine were negative. The nucleic acid test from the mother's amniotic fluid, vaginal secretions, cord blood, placenta, serum, anal swab, and breast milk were also negative. The most comprehensively tested case reported to date confirmed that the vertical transmission of COVID is unlikely, but still, more evidence is needed.
| S-EPMC7151521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by infection with a novel coronavirus strain, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). At present, there is limited information on potential transmission of the infection from mother to child, particularly through breast milk and breastfeeding. Here, we provide a living systematic review to capture information that might necessitate changes in the guidance on breast milk and breastfeeding given the uncertainty in this area. Our search retrieved 19,414 total records; 605 were considered for full-text eligibility and no ongoing trials were identified. Our review includes 340 records, 37 with breast milk samples and 303 without. The 37 articles with analyzed breast milk samples reported on 77 mothers who were breastfeeding their children; among them, 19 of 77 children were confirmed COVID-19 cases based on RT-PCR assays, including 14 neonates and five older infants. Nine of the 68 analyzed breast milk samples from mothers with COVID-19 were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA; of the exposed infants, four were positive and two were negative for COVID-19. Currently, there is no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through breast milk. Studies are needed with longer follow-up periods that collect data on infant feeding practices and on viral presence in breast milk.
| S-EPMC7970667 | biostudies-literature