Coinfection with Strongyloides and SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for COVID-19, including steroids, might exacerbate Strongyloides disease in patients with coinfection. We aimed to systematically review clinical and laboratory features of SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides coinfection, investigate possible interventions, assess outcomes, and identify research gaps requiring further attention. METHODS: We searched two electronic databases, LitCOVID and WHO, up to August 2022, including SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides coinfection studies. We adapted the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) system for standardized case causality assessment to evaluate if using corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs in COVID-19 patients determined acute manifestations of strongyloidiasis. RESULTS: We included 16 studies reporting 25 cases of Strongyloides and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection: 4 with hyperinfection syndrome; 2 with disseminated strongyloidiasis; 3 with cutaneous reactivation of strongyloidiasis; 3 with isolated digestive symptoms; and 2 with solely eosinophilia, without clinical manifestations. Eleven patients were asymptomatic regarding strongyloidiasis. Eosinopenia or normal eosinophil count was reported in 58.3% of patients with Strongyloides reactivation. Steroids were given to 18/21 (85.7%) cases. A total of 4 patients (19.1%) received tocilizumab and/or Anakirna in addition to steroids. Moreover, 2 patients (9.5%) did not receive any COVID-19 treatment. The causal relationship between Strongyloides reactivation and COVID-19 treatments was considered certain (4% of cases), probable (20% of patients), and possible (20% of patients). For 8% of cases, it was considered unlikely that COVID-19 treatment was associated with strongyloidiasis reactivations; the relationship between the Strongyloides infection and administration of COVID-19 treatment was unassessable/unclassifiable in 48% of cases. Of 13 assessable cases, 11 (84.6%) were considered to be causally associated with Strongyloides, ranging from certain to possible. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to assess the frequency and risk of Strongyloides reactivation in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our limited data using causality assessment supports recommendations that clinicians should screen and treat for Strongyloides infection in patients with coinfection who receive immunosuppressive COVID-19 therapies. In addition, the male gender and older age (over 50 years) may be predisposing factors for Strongyloides reactivation. Standardized guidelines should be developed for reporting future research.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Why COVID-19 modelling of progression and prevention fails to translate to the real-world.

Mathematical models were used widely to inform policy during the COVID pandemic. However, there is a poor understanding of their limitations and how they influence decision-making. We used systematic review search methods to find early modelling studies that determined the reproduction number and analysed its use and application to interventions and policy in the UK. Up to March 2020, we found 42 reproduction number estimates (39 based on Chinese data: R0 range 2.1-6.47). Several biases affect the quality of modelling studies that are infrequently discussed, and many factors contribute to significant differences in the results of individual studies that go beyond chance. The sources of effect estimates incorporated into mathematical models are unclear. There is often a lack of a relationship between transmission estimates and the timing of imposed restrictions, which is further affected by the lag in reporting. Modelling studies lack basic evidence-based methods that aid their quality assessment, reporting and critical appraisal. If used judiciously, models may be helpful, especially if they openly present the uncertainties and use sensitivity analyses extensively, which need to consider and explicitly discuss the limitations of the evidence. However, until the methodological and ethical issues are resolved, predictive models should be used cautiously.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with Cruise Ship Travel: A Systematic Review.

Background: Maritime and river travel may be associated with respiratory viral spread via infected passengers and/or crew and potentially through other transmission routes. The transmission models of SARS-CoV-2 associated with cruise ship travel are based on transmission dynamics of other respiratory viruses. We aimed to provide a summary and evaluation of relevant data on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard cruise ships, report policy implications, and highlight research gaps. Methods: We searched four electronic databases (up to 26 May 2022) and included studies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard cruise ships. The quality of the studies was assessed based on five criteria, and relevant findings were reported. Results: We included 23 papers on onboard SARS-CoV-2 transmission (with 15 reports on different aspects of the outbreak on Diamond Princess and nine reports on other international cruises), 2 environmental studies, and 1 systematic review. Three articles presented data on both international cruises and the Diamond Princess. The quality of evidence from most studies was low to very low. Index case definitions were heterogeneous. The proportion of traced contacts ranged from 0.19 to 100%. Studies that followed up >80% of passengers and crew reported attack rates (AR) up to 59%. The presence of a distinct dose−response relationship was demonstrated by findings of increased ARs in multi-person cabins. Two studies performed viral cultures with eight positive results. Genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analyses were performed in individuals from three cruises. Two environmental studies reported PCR-positive samples (cycle threshold range 26.21−39.00). In one study, no infectious virus was isolated from any of the 76 environmental samples. Conclusion: Our review suggests that crowding and multiple persons per cabin were associated with an increased risk of transmission on cruise ships. Variations in design, methodology, and case ascertainment limit comparisons across studies and quantification of transmission risk. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting studies on cruise ships of acute respiratory infection transmission should be developed.

A Hierarchical Framework for Assessing Transmission Causality of Respiratory Viruses.

Systematic reviews of 591 primary studies of the modes of transmission for SARS-CoV-2 show significant methodological shortcomings and heterogeneity in the design, conduct, testing, and reporting of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. While this is partly understandable at the outset of a pandemic, evidence rules of proof for assessing the transmission of this virus are needed for present and future pandemics of viral respiratory pathogens. We review the history of causality assessment related to microbial etiologies with a focus on respiratory viruses and suggest a hierarchy of evidence to integrate clinical, epidemiologic, molecular, and laboratory perspectives on transmission. The hierarchy, if applied to future studies, should narrow the uncertainty over the twin concepts of causality and transmission of human respiratory viruses. We attempt to address the translational gap between the current research evidence and the assessment of causality in the transmission of respiratory viruses with a focus on SARS-CoV-2. Experimentation, consistency, and independent replication of research alongside our proposed framework provide a chain of evidence that can reduce the uncertainty over the transmission of respiratory viruses and increase the level of confidence in specific modes of transmission, informing the measures that should be undertaken to prevent transmission.

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) from pre and asymptomatic infected individuals: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The role of SARS-Cov-2-infected persons who develop symptoms after testing (presymptomatics) or not at all (asymptomatics) in the pandemic spread is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine infectiousness and probable contribution of asymptomatic persons (at the time of testing) to pandemic SARS-CoV-2 spread. DATA SOURCES: LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and WHO Covid-19 databases (to 31 March 2021) and references in included studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies with a proven or hypothesized transmission chain based either on serial PCR cycle threshold readings and/or viral culture and/or gene sequencing, with adequate follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: People exposed to SARS-CoV-2 within 2-14 days to index asymptomatic (at time of observation) infected individuals. INTERVENTIONS: Reliability of symptom and signs was assessed within contemporary knowledge; transmission likelihood was assessed using adapted causality criteria. METHODS: Systematic review. We contacted all included studies' corresponding authors requesting further details. RESULTS: We included 18 studies from a diverse setting with substantial methodological variation (this field lacks standardized methodology). At initial testing, prevalence of asymptomatic cases was 12.5-100%. Of these, 6-100% were later determined to be presymptomatic, this proportion varying according to setting, methods of case ascertainment and population. Nursing/care home facilities reported high rates of presymptomatic: 50-100% (n = 3 studies). Fourteen studies were classified as high risk of, and four studies as at moderate risk of symptom ascertainment bias. High-risk studies may be less likely to distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Six asymptomatic studies and four presymptomatic studies reported culturing infectious virus; data were too sparse to determine infectiousness duration. Three studies provided evidence of possible and three of probable/likely asymptomatic transmission; five studies provided possible and two probable/likely presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission. CONCLUSION: High-quality studies provide probable evidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, with highly variable estimated transmission rates.

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

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 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (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 to highlight research gaps requiring urgent attention. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (1 February 2020-27 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 2 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 2800/19 729 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 10 flights) varied between 0 and 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 10 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.

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in fomites which suggests the virus could be transmitted via inanimate objects. However, there is uncertainty about the mechanistic pathway for such transmissions. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews assessing the role of fomites in transmission.  Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. 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 on an ongoing basis. Results: We found 64 studies: 63 primary studies and one systematic review (n=35). The settings for primary studies were predominantly in hospitals (69.8%) including general wards, ICU and SARS-CoV-2 isolation wards. There were variations in the study designs including timing of sample collection, hygiene procedures, ventilation settings and cycle threshold. The overall quality of reporting was low to moderate. The frequency of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests across 51 studies (using RT-PCR) ranged from 0.5% to 75%. Cycle threshold values ranged from 20.8 to 44.1. Viral concentrations were reported in 17 studies; however, discrepancies in the methods for estimation prevented comparison. Eleven studies (17.5%) attempted viral culture, but none found a cytopathic effect. Results of the systematic review showed that healthcare settings were most frequently tested (25/35, 71.4%), but laboratories reported the highest frequency of contaminated surfaces (20.5%, 17/83).  Conclusions: The majority of studies report identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on inanimate surfaces; however, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating the recovery of viable virus. Lack of positive viral cultures suggests that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through fomites is low. Heterogeneity in study designs and methodology prevents comparisons of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on fomite transmission is warranted.

Regulators, Pivotal Clinical Trials, and Drug Regulation in the Age of COVID-19.

Medicine regulators rely on pivotal clinical trials to make decisions about approving a new drug, but little is known about how they judge whether pivotal trials justify the approval of new drugs. We explore this issue by looking at the positions of 3 major regulators: the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Here we report their views and the implications of those views for the approval process. On various points, the 3 regulators are ambiguous, consistent, and demonstrate flexibility. The range of views may well reflect different regulatory cultures. Although clinical trial information from pivotal trials is becoming more available, regulators are still reluctant to provide detailed information about how that information is interpreted. As medicines and vaccines come up for approval for treatment of COVID-19, transparency in how pivotal trials are interpreted will be critical in determining how these treatments should be used.

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of orofecal transmission: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Modes 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: Varied 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.

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of close contact in transmission: a systematic review.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 transmission has been reported to be associated with close contact with infected individuals. However, the mechanistic pathway for transmission in close contact settings is unclear. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies assessing the role of close contact in SARS-CoV-2 transmission.  Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, PubMed and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on the QUADAS-2 criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We included 278 studies: 258 primary studies and 20 systematic reviews. The settings for primary studies were predominantly in home/quarantine facilities (39.5%) and acute care hospitals (12%). The overall reporting quality of the studies was low-to-moderate. There was significant heterogeneity in design and methodology. The frequency of attack rates (PCR testing) varied between 2.1-75%; attack rates were highest in prison and wedding venues, and in households. The frequency of secondary attack rates was 0.3-100% with rates highest in home/quarantine settings. Three studies showed no transmission if the index case was a recurrent infection. Viral culture was performed in four studies of which three found replication-competent virus; culture results were negative where index cases had recurrent infections. Eighteen studies performed genomic sequencing with phylogenetic analysis - the completeness of genomic similarity ranged from 77-100%. Findings from systematic reviews showed that children were significantly less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 and household contact was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection. Conclusions: The evidence from published studies demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted in close contact settings. The risk of transmission is greater in household contacts. There was a wide variation in methodology. Standardized guidelines for reporting transmission in close contact settings should be developed.

Viral Cultures for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infectivity Assessment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to review the evidence from studies relating severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) culture with the results of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and other variables that may influence the interpretation of the test, such as time from symptom onset. METHODS: We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and the World Health Organization coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) database for COVID-19 up to 10 September 2020. We included studies attempting to culture or observe SARS-CoV-2 in specimens with RT-PCR positivity. Studies were dual-extracted and the data summarized narratively by specimen type. Where necessary, we contacted corresponding authors of included papers for additional information. We assessed quality using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS 2) risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: We included 29 studies reporting attempts at culturing, or observing tissue infection by, SARS-CoV-2 in sputum, nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal, urine, stool, blood, and environmental specimens. The quality of the studies was moderate with lack of standardized reporting. The data suggest a relationship between the time from onset of symptom to the timing of the specimen test, cycle threshold (Ct), and symptom severity. Twelve studies reported that Ct values were significantly lower and log copies higher in specimens producing live virus culture. Two studies reported that the odds of live virus culture were reduced by approximately 33% for every 1-unit increase in Ct. Six of 8 studies reported detectable RNA for >14 days, but infectious potential declined after day 8 even among cases with ongoing high viral loads. Four studies reported viral culture from stool specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Complete live viruses are necessary for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR. Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens and their relationship to symptoms, signs, and patient co-factors should be used to define the reliability of PCR for assessing infectious potential. Those with high Ct are unlikely to have infectious potential.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.