Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Children with COVID-19 clear the virus when antibody titers reach a critical level. Until then (several weeks from onset), they continue to have detectable viral particles in their noses. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Abstract

Objectives: To improve understanding of transition from viral infection to viral clearance, and antibody response in pediatric patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Study design: This retrospective analysis of children tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and IgG antibody at a quaternary-care, free-standing pediatric hospital between March 13, 2020 to June 21, 2020 included 6369 patients who underwent PCR testing and 215 patients who underwent antibody testing. During the initial study period, testing focused primarily on symptomatic children; the later study period included asymptomatic patients who underwent testing as preadmission or preprocedural screening. We report the proportion of positive and negative tests, time to viral clearance, and time to seropositivity.

Results: The rate of positivity varied over time due to viral circulation in the community and transition from targeted testing of symptomatic patients to more universal screening of hospitalized patients. Median duration of viral shedding (RT-PCR positivity) was 19.5 days and time from RT-PCR positivity to negativity was 25 days. Of note, patients aged 6 through 15 years demonstrated a longer time of RT-PCR positivity to negativity, compared with patients aged 16 through 22 years (median=32 versus 18 days, P = .015). Median time to seropositivity, by chemiluminescent testing, from RT-PCR positivity was 18 days while median time to reach adequate levels of neutralizing antibodies (defined as comparable to 160 titer by plaque reduction neutralization testing) was 36 days.

Conclusions: The majority of patients demonstrated a prolonged period of viral shedding after infection with SARS CoV-2. It is unknown whether this correlates with persistent infectivity. Only 17 of 33 patients demonstrated adequate neutralizing antibodies during the timeframe of specimen collection. It remains unknown if IgG antibody against spike structured proteins correlates with immunity, and how long antibodies and potential protection persist.

Author/s:

Bahar, Burak, Jacquot, Cyril, Mo, Yunchuan D., DeBiasi, Roberta L., Campos, Joseph, Delaney, Meghan

Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network — United States, March–June 2020

Brian Desmarais — Wed, 29 Jul 2020 15:21:15 +0000

Date Added:

July 29, 2020

Publisher:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Publication Date:

July 24, 2020

URL:

Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network — United States, March–June 2020

Type:

Clinical Research Results

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1

MeSH

COVID-19

public health

outpatients

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Public Health Practice

Telephone

Surveys and Questionnaires

Young Adult

Adults

It often takes a long time to recover from COVID-19. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Relatively little is known about the clinical course of COVID-19 and return to baseline health for persons with milder, outpatient illness.

What is added by this report?

In a multistate telephone survey of symptomatic adults who had a positive outpatient test result for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 35% had not returned to their usual state of health when interviewed 2–3 weeks after testing. Among persons aged 18–34 years with no chronic medical conditions, one in five had not returned to their usual state of health.

What are the implications for public health practice?

COVID-19 can result in prolonged illness, even among young adults without underlying chronic medical conditions. Effective public health messaging targeting these groups is warranted.

Author/s:

Tenforde, M.W., Kim, S.S., Lindsell, C.J., Rose, E.B.

Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-To-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Brian Desmarais — Fri, 12 Jun 2020 19:24:31 +0000

Date Added:

June 12, 2020

Journal/Publication:

Lancet

Publication Date:

June 1, 2020

URL:

Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-To-Person Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9

Keywords

face masks

social distancing

eye shields

MeSH

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

COVID-19

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Coronavirus Infections

Betacoronavirus

masks

Quantification of the impact of social distancing, face masks, and eye shields on spread of the novel coronavirus. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

Abstract

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.

Funding: World Health Organization.

Author/s:

Chu, D.K., Akl, E.A., Duda, S., Solo, K., Yaacoub, S., Schünemann, H.J., COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors

School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review

John Bayhi — Thu, 23 Apr 2020 16:24:59 +0000

Date Added:

April 23, 2020

Journal/Publication:

The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health

Publisher:

Elsevier Ltd

Publication Date:

April 6, 2020

Issue:

Volume:

Pages:

P397-404

URL:

School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X

Keywords

COVID-19

school

2019 novel coronavirus

2019-nCOV

school management

PMID (1):

32272089

MeSH

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

Coronavirus Infections

disease outbreaks

China

Administrative Personnel

A review of what is known about closing schools to control coronavirus epidemics. Apparently it isn’t very helpful. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, 107 countries had implemented national school closures by March 18, 2020. It is unknown whether school measures are effective in coronavirus outbreaks (eg, due to severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], Middle East respiratory syndrome, or COVID-19). We undertook a systematic review by searching three electronic databases to identify what is known about the effectiveness of school closures and other school social distancing practices during coronavirus outbreaks. We included 16 of 616 identified articles. School closures were deployed rapidly across mainland China and Hong Kong for COVID-19. However, there are no data on the relative contribution of school closures to transmission control. Data from the SARS outbreak in mainland China, Hong Kong, and Singapore suggest that school closures did not contribute to the control of the epidemic. Modelling studies of SARS produced conflicting results. Recent modelling studies of COVID-19 predict that school closures alone would prevent only 2-4% of deaths, much less than other social distancing interventions. Policy makers need to be aware of the equivocal evidence when considering school closures for COVID-19, and that combinations of social distancing measures should be considered. Other less disruptive social distancing interventions in schools require further consideration if restrictive social distancing policies are implemented for long periods.

Author/s:

Viner, RM, Russell, SJ, Croker, H, Packer, J, Ward, J, Stansfield, C, Mytton, O, Bonell, C, Booy, R