BACKGROUND: While risk of outdoor transmission of respiratory viral infections is hypothesized to be low, there is limited data of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in outdoor compared to indoor settings.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed papers indexed in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science and pre-prints in Europe PMC through August 12 th, 2020 that described cases of human transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Reports of other respiratory virus transmission were included for reference.
RESULTS: Five identified studies found that a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% CI 6.0, 57.9). Five studies described influenza transmission outdoors and two described adenovirus transmission outdoors. There was high heterogeneity in study quality and individual definitions of outdoor settings which limited our ability to draw conclusions about outdoor transmission risks. In general, factors such as duration and frequency of personal contact, lack of personal protective equipment and occasional indoor gathering during a largely outdoor experience were associated with outdoor reports of infection.
CONCLUSION: Existing evidence supports the wide-held belief that the the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is lower outdoors but there are significant gaps in our understanding of specific pathways.
BackgroundEvidence is needed on the effectiveness of wearing face masks in the community to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and effectiveness of face mask use in a community setting and to predict the effectiveness of wearing a mask. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCISEARCH, The Cochrane Library and pre-prints from inception to 22 April 2020 without restriction by language. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane and GRADE approach.
FindingsOur search identified 35 studies, including 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (4017 patients), 10 comparative studies (18984 patients), 13 predictive models, 9 laboratory experimental studies. For reducing infection rates, the estimates of cluster-RCTs were in favour of wearing face masks versus no mask, but not at statistically significant levels (adjusted OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.78-1.05). Similar findings were reported in observational studies. Mathematical models indicated an important decrease in mortality when the population mask coverage is near-universal, regardless of mask efficacy. In the best-case scenario, when the mask efficacy is at 95%, the R0 can fall to 0.99 from an initial value of 16.90. Levels of mask filtration efficiency were heterogeneous, depending on the materials used (surgical mask: 45-97%). One laboratory study suggested a viral load reduction of 0.25 (95%CI 0.09-0.67) in favour of mask versus no mask.
InterpretationThe findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support the use of face masks in a community setting. Robust randomised trials on face mask effectiveness are needed to inform evidence-based policies.
Fundingnone.
PROSPERO registrationCRD42020184963.
Contribution to the fieldGuidelines by various organizations provide conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of face mask use in the community. We performed a systematic review of the available evidence, including 35 studies, across 41 countries and six continents. Previous systematic reviews on the effectiveness of face mask use mainly focused on healthcare and household setting including only randomized controlled trials and observational studies with most of them of low quality. In our review, we included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, laboratory experimental studies as well as mathematical modelling studies in order to answer different questions and provide quantitative estimates for planning pandemic response efforts.
Our review supports the use of surgical masks in the community for providing protection during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the infection rate, mortality, spread of transmission (R0), filtering capacity of masks and viral load reduction are highly dependent on the type of face mask worn and on the adherence of the population wearing masks. Policy makers should promote face mask use in the community.
Background: Acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs) are the most common respiratory infectious diseases among humans globally. Surgical mask (SM) wearing has been shown to be effective in reducing ARI among healthcare workers. However, the effectiveness of SM in reducing ARI in the non-healthcare settings remains unclear. This review aims to summarize and assess the association between SM wearing and ARI incidence, from existing interventional and observational studies conducted in non-healthcare settings. Methods: Systematic literature searches conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases identified 503 unique studies. After screening, 15 studies (5 randomized controlled trials and 10 observational studies) were assessed for reporting and methodological qualities. Proportions of ARI episodes in each group and adjusted summary statistics with their relevant 95% CIs were extracted. Data from 10 observational studies were pooled using the generic inverse variance method. Results: A total of 23,892 participants between 7 and 89 years old involved across 15 studies from 11 countries were involved. Key settings identified were Hajj, schools, and in-flight settings. A modest but non-significant protective effect of SM on ARI incidence was observed (pooled OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.8-1.15). Subgroup analysis according to age group, outcome ascertainment and different non-healthcare settings also revealed no significant associations between SM use and ARI incidence. Conclusion: Surgical mask wearing among individuals in non-healthcare settings is not significantly associated with reduction in ARI incidence in this meta-review.
BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. FINDINGS: Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.
The epidemiology of Middle East Respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) since 2012 has been largely characterised by recurrent zoonotic spill-over from dromedary camels followed by limited human-to-human transmission, predominantly in health care settings. The full extent of infection of MERS-CoV is not clear, nor is the extent and/or role of asymptomatic infections in transmission. We conducted a review of molecular and serological investigations through PubMed and EMBASE from September 2012 to 15 November 2018 attempting to measure sub-clinical or asymptomatic MERS-CoV infection within and outside of health care settings. We performed retrospective analysis of laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV infections reported to the World Health Organization to 27 November 2018 to summarize what is known about asymptomatic infections identified through national surveillance systems. We identified 23 studies reporting evidence of MERS-CoV infection outside health care settings, mainly of camel workers, showing ranges of seroprevalence of 0-67% depending on the study location. We identified 20 studies in health care settings, of health care worker (HCW) and family contacts, of which 11 documented molecular evidence of MERS-CoV infection among asymptomatic contacts. Since 2012, 298 laboratory confirmed cases were reported as asymptomatic to the World Health Organization, 164 of whom were HCW. Viral shedding studies of asymptomatic MERS infections have demonstrated the potential to transmit MERS-CoV to others. Our results highlight the possibility for onward transmission of MERS-CoV from asymptomatic individuals. Screening of HCW contacts of confirmed MERS-CoV patients is currently recommended, but systematic screening of non-HCW contacts outside of health care facilities should be encouraged.
Knowledge of the incubation period is essential in the investigation and control of infectious disease, but statements of incubation period are often poorly referenced, inconsistent, or based on limited data. In a systematic review of the literature on nine respiratory viral infections of public-health importance, we identified 436 articles with statements of incubation period and 38 with data for pooled analysis. We fitted a log-normal distribution to pooled data and found the median incubation period to be 5.6 days (95% CI 4.8-6.3) for adenovirus, 3.2 days (95% CI 2.8-3.7) for human coronavirus, 4.0 days (95% CI 3.6-4.4) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus, 1.4 days (95% CI 1.3-1.5) for influenza A, 0.6 days (95% CI 0.5-0.6) for influenza B, 12.5 days (95% CI 11.8-13.3) for measles, 2.6 days (95% CI 2.1-3.1) for parainfluenza, 4.4 days (95% CI 3.9-4.9) for respiratory syncytial virus, and 1.9 days (95% CI 1.4-2.4) for rhinovirus. When using the incubation period, it is important to consider its full distribution: the right tail for quarantine policy, the central regions for likely times and sources of infection, and the full distribution for models used in pandemic planning. Our estimates combine published data to give the detail necessary for these and other applications.
There have been few recent studies demonstrating a definitive association between the transmission of airborne infections and the ventilation of buildings. The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in 2003 and current concerns about the risk of an avian influenza (H5N1) pandemic, have made a review of this area timely. We searched the major literature databases between 1960 and 2005, and then screened titles and abstracts, and finally selected 40 original studies based on a set of criteria. We established a review panel comprising medical and engineering experts in the fields of microbiology, medicine, epidemiology, indoor air quality, building ventilation, etc. Most panel members had experience with research into the 2003 SARS epidemic. The panel systematically assessed 40 original studies through both individual assessment and a 2-day face-to-face consensus meeting. Ten of 40 studies reviewed were considered to be conclusive with regard to the association between building ventilation and the transmission of airborne infection. There is strong and sufficient evidence to demonstrate the association between ventilation, air movements in buildings and the transmission/spread of infectious diseases such as measles, tuberculosis, chickenpox, influenza, smallpox and SARS. There is insufficient data to specify and quantify the minimum ventilation requirements in hospitals, schools, offices, homes and isolation rooms in relation to spread of infectious diseases via the airborne route. PRACTICAL IMPLICATION: The strong and sufficient evidence of the association between ventilation, the control of airflow direction in buildings, and the transmission and spread of infectious diseases supports the use of negatively pressurized isolation rooms for patients with these diseases in hospitals, in addition to the use of other engineering control methods. However, the lack of sufficient data on the specification and quantification of the minimum ventilation requirements in hospitals, schools and offices in relation to the spread of airborne infectious diseases, suggest the existence of a knowledge gap. Our study reveals a strong need for a multidisciplinary study in investigating disease outbreaks, and the impact of indoor air environments on the spread of airborne infectious diseases.
While risk of outdoor transmission of respiratory viral infections is hypothesized to be low, there is limited data of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in outdoor compared to indoor settings.
METHODS:
We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed papers indexed in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science and pre-prints in Europe PMC through August 12 th, 2020 that described cases of human transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Reports of other respiratory virus transmission were included for reference.
RESULTS:
Five identified studies found that a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections have occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% CI 6.0, 57.9). Five studies described influenza transmission outdoors and two described adenovirus transmission outdoors. There was high heterogeneity in study quality and individual definitions of outdoor settings which limited our ability to draw conclusions about outdoor transmission risks. In general, factors such as duration and frequency of personal contact, lack of personal protective equipment and occasional indoor gathering during a largely outdoor experience were associated with outdoor reports of infection.
CONCLUSION:
Existing evidence supports the wide-held belief that the the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is lower outdoors but there are significant gaps in our understanding of specific pathways.