Airborne Transmission of COVID-19

Aerobiology-A New Open Access Journal

It is simultaneously professionally humbling and an absolute pleasure to be associated with the launch of a new open access journal, with added emphasis in a scientific field as rich and diverse as aerobiology [...]

Nano-treatment of HEPA filters in COVID-19 isolation rooms in an academic medical center in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has spread globally. The major reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 transmission remains controversial, with the airborne route remaining a possible transmission vehicle for carrying the virus within indoor environments. This study aimed to detect contamination of SARS-CoV-2 in high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters within hospital isolation rooms of confirmed COVID-19 patients, exploring the role of nano-treatment of these filters with silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles (Ag/TiO₂ NPs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We investigated the effectiveness of Ag-NPs/TiO₂-treated HEPA filters in the air of rooms occupied by patients with confirmed COVID-19 in a university teaching hospital in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia during the first wave of the pandemic. Ag/TiO₂ NPs were designed and coated on HEPA filters to examine the filtration efficiency and antiviral ability in the presence of aerosolized virus particles. A total of 20 viral swab samples were collected from five patients' rooms before and after treatment with nanoparticle-prepared solutions into the sterile virus-transporting media. Samples were evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 with a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Two samples taken from the HEPA filter air exhaust outlets prior to nano-treatment tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the intensive care unit, which has stringent aerosolization control procedures, suggesting that small virus-laden droplets may be displaced by airflow. All air samples collected from the HEPA filters from the rooms of patients with confirmed COVID-19 following nano-treatment were negative.

CONCLUSION

We recommend further experimental exploration using a larger number of HEPA filters in areas with aerosol-generating procedures, along with viability studies on the HEPA filters to facilitate decision-making in high-risk facilities regarding the replacement, storage, and disposal of HEPA filters in wards occupied by cases diagnosed with a highly transmissible disease.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in COVID-19 isolation wards: On-site sampling and numerical analysis

Although airborne transmission has been considered as a possible route for the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the role that aerosols play in SARS-CoV-2 transmission is still controversial. This study evaluated the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 isolation wards at Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong by both on-site sampling and numerical analysis. A total of 838 air samples and 1176 surface samples were collected, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected using the RT-PCR method. Testing revealed that 2.3% of the air samples and 9.3% of the surface samples were positive, indicating that the isolation wards were contaminated with the virus. The dispersion and deposition of exhaled particles in the wards were calculated by computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. The calculated accumulated number of particles collected at the air sampling points was closely correlated with the SARS-CoV-2 positive rates from the field sampling, which confirmed the possibility of airborne transmission. Furthermore, three potential intervention strategies, i.e., the use of curtains, ceiling-mounted air cleaners, and periodic ventilation, were numerically investigated to explore effective control measures in isolation wards. According to the results, the use of ceiling-mounted air cleaners is effective in reducing the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in such wards.

An exploration of the political, social, economic and cultural factors affecting how different global regions initially reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic

Responses to the early (February–July 2020) COVID-19 pandemic varied widely, globally. Reasons for this are multiple but likely relate to the healthcare and financial resources then available, and the degree of trust in, and economic support provided by, national governments. Cultural factors also affected how different populations reacted to the various pandemic restrictions, like masking, social distancing and self-isolation or self-quarantine. The degree of compliance with these measures depended on how much individuals valued their needs and liberties over those of their society. Thus, several themes may be relevant when comparing pandemic responses across different regions. East and Southeast Asian populations tended to be more collectivist and self-sacrificing, responding quickly to early signs of the pandemic and readily complied with most restrictions to control its spread. Australasian, Eastern European, Scandinavian, some Middle Eastern, African and South American countries also responded promptly by imposing restrictions of varying severity, due to concerns for their wider society, including for some, the fragility of their healthcare systems. Western European and North American countries, with well-resourced healthcare systems, initially reacted more slowly, partly in an effort to maintain their economies but also to delay imposing pandemic restrictions that limited the personal freedoms of their citizens.

Airborne infection with Covid-19? A historical look at a current controversy

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, experts and the broader public have vigorously debated the means by which SARS CoV-2 is spread. And understandably so, for identifying the routes of transmission is crucial for selecting appropriate nonpharmaceutical interventions to control the pandemic. The most controversial question in the debate is the role played by airborne transmission. What is at stake is not just the clinical evidence, but the implications for public health policy, society, and psychology. Interestingly, however, the issue of airborne transmission is not a new controversy. It has reappeared throughout the history of western medicine. This essay traces the notion of airborne infection from its development in ancient medical theories to its manifestation in the modern era and its impact today.

Oxidative Inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 on Photoactive AgNPs@TiO2 Ceramic Tiles

The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic causes serious public health, social, and economic issues all over the globe. Surface transmission has been claimed as a possible SARS-CoV-2 infection route, especially in heavy contaminated environmental surfaces, including hospitals and crowded public places. Herein, we studied the deactivation of SARS-CoV-2 on photoactive AgNPs@TiO₂ coated on industrial ceramic tiles under dark, UVA, and LED light irradiations. SARS-CoV-2 inactivation is effective under any light/dark conditions. The presence of AgNPs has an important key to limit the survival of SARS-CoV-2 in the dark; moreover, there is a synergistic action when TiO₂ is decorated with Ag to enhance the virus photocatalytic inactivation even under LED. The radical oxidation was confirmed as the the central mechanism behind SARS-CoV-2 damage/inactivation by ESR analysis under LED light. Therefore, photoactive AgNPs@TiO₂ ceramic tiles could be exploited to fight surface infections, especially during viral severe pandemics.

Variation of National and International Guidelines on Respiratory Protection for Health Care Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic

This systematic review assesses variation in international and national guidelines on respiratory protection for health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection

Scientists across disciplines, policymakers, and journalists have voiced frustration at the unprecedented polarization and misinformation around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several false dichotomies have been used to polarize debates while oversimplifying complex issues. In this comprehensive narrative review, we deconstruct six common COVID-19 false dichotomies, address the evidence on these topics, identify insights relevant to effective pandemic responses, and highlight knowledge gaps and uncertainties. The topics of this review are: 1) Health and lives vs. economy and livelihoods, 2) Indefinite lockdown vs. unlimited reopening, 3) Symptomatic vs. asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, 4) Droplet vs. aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, 5) Masks for all vs. no masking, and 6) SARS-CoV-2 reinfection vs. no reinfection. We discuss the importance of multidisciplinary integration (health, social, and physical sciences), multilayered approaches to reducing risk ("Emmentaler cheese model"), harm reduction, smart masking, relaxation of interventions, and context-sensitive policymaking for COVID-19 response plans. We also address the challenges in understanding the broad clinical presentation of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. These key issues of science and public health policy have been presented as false dichotomies during the pandemic. However, they are hardly binary, simple, or uniform, and therefore should not be framed as polar extremes. We urge a nuanced understanding of the science and caution against black-or-white messaging, all-or-nothing guidance, and one-size-fits-all approaches. There is a need for meaningful public health communication and science-informed policies that recognize shades of gray, uncertainties, local context, and social determinants of health.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthcare workers of a Swiss tertiary care centre at the end of the first wave: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the SARS-CoV-2 transmission in healthcare workers (HCWs) using seroprevalence as a surrogate marker of infection in our tertiary care centre according to exposure.

DESIGN

Seroprevalence cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Single centre at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Lausanne, Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

1874 of 4074 responders randomly selected (46% response rate), stratified by work category among the 13 474 (13.9%) HCWs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serostatus paired with a questionnaire of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition risk factors internal and external to the workplace.

RESULTS

The overall SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate among HCWs was 10.0% (95% CI 8.7% to 11.5%). HCWs with daily patient contact did not experience increased rates of seropositivity relative to those without (10.3% vs 9.6%, respectively, p=0.64). HCWs with direct contact with patients with COVID-19 or working in COVID-19 units did not experience increased seropositivity rates relative to their counterparts (10.4% vs 9.8%, p=0.69 and 10.6% vs 9.9%, p=0.69, respectively). However, specific locations of contact with patients irrespective of COVID-19 status-in patient rooms or reception areas-did correlate with increased rates of seropositivity (11.9% vs 7.5%, p=0.019 and 14.3% vs 9.2%, p=0.025, respectively). In contrast, HCWs with a suspected or proven SARS-CoV-2-infected household contact had significantly higher seropositivity rates than those without such contacts (19.0% vs 8.7%, p<0.001 and 42.1% vs 9.4%, p<0.001, respectively). Finally, consistent use of a mask on public transportation correlated with decreased seroprevalence (5.3% for mask users vs 11.2% for intermittent or no mask use, p=0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall seroprevalence was 10% without significant differences in seroprevalence between HCWs exposed to patients with COVID-19 and HCWs not exposed. This suggests that, once fully in place, protective measures limited SARS-CoV-2 occupational acquisition within the hospital environment. SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion among HCWs was associated primarily with community risk factors, particularly household transmission.

What we know and dont know on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus discovered in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, has had an enormous impact on public health worldwide due to its rapid spread and pandemic behavior, challenges in its control and mitigation, and few therapeutic alternatives. In this review, we summarize the pathophysiological mechanisms, clinical presentation, and diagnostic techniques. In addition, the main lineages and the different strategies for disease prevention are reviewed, with emphasis on the development of vaccines and their different platforms. Finally, some of the currently available therapeutic strategies are summarized. Throughout the article, we point out the current knowns and unknowns at the time of writing this article.

Fundamental and Advanced Therapies, Vaccine Development against SARS-CoV-2

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been affecting the world since the end of 2019. The severity of the disease can range from an asymptomatic or mild course to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with respiratory failure, which may lead to death. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, scientists around the world have been studying the genome and molecular mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 infection to develop effective therapies and prevention. In this review, we summarize the progressive development of various treatments and vaccines as they have emerged, a year after the outbreak of the pandemic. Initially for COVID-19, patients were recommended drugs with presumed antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial effects that were previously used to treat other diseases. Thereafter, therapeutic interventions were supplemented with promising approaches based on antibodies, peptides, and stem cells. However, licensed COVID-19 vaccines remain the most effective weapon in combating the pandemic. While there is an enormous effort to enhance the vaccination rate to increase the entire population immunity, the production and delivery of vaccines is becoming limited in several countries. In this regard, there are new challenges needing to be addressed by combining non-pharmacological intervention with effective therapies until vaccination is accessible to all.

SARS-CoV-2, surgeons and surgical masks

The exact risk association of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) for surgeons is not quantified which may be affected by their risk of exposure and individual factors. The objective of this review is to quantify the risk of COVID-19 among surgeons, and explore whether facemask can minimise the risk of COVID-19 among surgeons. A systematised review was carried out by searching MEDLINE to locate items on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or COVID-19 in relation to health care workers (HCWs) especially those work in surgical specialities including surgical nurses and intensivists. Additionally, systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of facemask against viral respiratory infections, including COVID-19, among HCWs were identified. Data from identified articles were abstracted, synthesised and summarised. Fourteen primary studies that provided data on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection or experience among surgeons and 11 systematic reviews that provided evidence of the effectiveness of facemask (and other personal protective equipment) were summarised. Although the risk of COVID-19 could not be quantified precisely among surgeons, about 14% of HCWs including surgeons had COVID-19, there could be variations depending on settings. Facemask was found to be somewhat protective against COVID-19, but the HCWs’ compliance was highly variable ranging from zero to 100%. Echoing surgical societies’ guidelines we continue to recommend facemask use among surgeons to prevent COVID-19.

Transmissibility and transmission of respiratory viruses

Human respiratory virus infections lead to a spectrum of respiratory symptoms and disease severity, contributing to substantial morbidity, mortality and economic losses worldwide, as seen in the COVID-19 pandemic. Belonging to diverse families, respiratory viruses differ in how easy they spread (transmissibility) and the mechanism (modes) of transmission. Transmissibility as estimated by the basic reproduction number (R₀) or secondary attack rate is heterogeneous for the same virus. Respiratory viruses can be transmitted via four major modes of transmission: direct (physical) contact, indirect contact (fomite), (large) droplets and (fine) aerosols. We know little about the relative contribution of each mode to the transmission of a particular virus in different settings, and how its variation affects transmissibility and transmission dynamics. Discussion on the particle size threshold between droplets and aerosols and the importance of aerosol transmission for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza virus is ongoing. Mechanistic evidence supports the efficacies of non-pharmaceutical interventions with regard to virus reduction; however, more data are needed on their effectiveness in reducing transmission. Understanding the relative contribution of different modes to transmission is crucial to inform the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions in the population. Intervening against multiple modes of transmission should be more effective than acting on a single mode.

Assessment of Air Contamination by SARS-CoV-2 in Hospital Settings

IMPORTANCE

Controversy remains regarding the transmission routes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

OBJECTIVE

To review current evidence on air contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings and the factors associated with contamination, including viral load and particle size.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically queried for original English-language articles detailing SARS-CoV-2 air contamination in hospital settings between January 1 and October 27, 2020. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and culture were described and compared according to the setting, clinical context, air ventilation system, and distance from patients. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies per meter cubed of air were pooled, and their distribution was described by hospital areas. Particle sizes and SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies or median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) per meter cubed were analyzed after categorization as less than 1 μm, from 1 to 4 μm, and greater than 4 μm.

FINDINGS

Among 2284 records identified, 24 cross-sectional observational studies were included in the review. Overall, 82 of 471 air samples (17.4%) from close patient environments were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, with a significantly higher positivity rate in intensive care unit settings (intensive care unit, 27 of 107 [25.2%] vs non-intensive care unit, 39 of 364 [10.7%]; P < .001). There was no difference according to the distance from patients (≤1 m, 3 of 118 [2.5%] vs >1-5 m, 13 of 236 [5.5%]; P = .22). The positivity rate was 5 of 21 air samples (23.8%) in toilets, 20 of 242 (8.3%) in clinical areas, 15 of 122 (12.3%) in staff areas, and 14 of 42 (33.3%) in public areas. A total of 81 viral cultures were performed across 5 studies, and 7 (8.6%) from 2 studies were positive, all from close patient environments. The median (interquartile range) SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations varied from 1.0 × 103 copies/m3 (0.4 × 103 to 3.1 × 103 copies/m3) in clinical areas to 9.7 × 103 copies/m3 (5.1 × 103 to 14.3 × 103 copies/m3) in the air of toilets or bathrooms. Protective equipment removal and patient rooms had high concentrations per titer of SARS-CoV-2 (varying from 0.9 × 103 to 40 × 103 copies/m3 and 3.8 × 103 to 7.2 × 103 TCID50/m3), with aerosol size distributions that showed peaks in the region of particle size less than 1 μm; staff offices had peaks in the region of particle size greater than 4 μm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, the air close to and distant from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 was frequently contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA; however, few of these samples contained viable viruses. High viral loads found in toilets and bathrooms, staff areas, and public hallways suggest that these areas should be carefully considered.

Assessment of Air Contamination by SARS-CoV-2 in Hospital Settings

IMPORTANCE

Controversy remains regarding the transmission routes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

OBJECTIVE

To review current evidence on air contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings and the factors associated with contamination, including viral load and particle size.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically queried for original English-language articles detailing SARS-CoV-2 air contamination in hospital settings between January 1 and October 27, 2020. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and culture were described and compared according to the setting, clinical context, air ventilation system, and distance from patients. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies per meter cubed of air were pooled, and their distribution was described by hospital areas. Particle sizes and SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies or median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) per meter cubed were analyzed after categorization as less than 1 μm, from 1 to 4 μm, and greater than 4 μm.

FINDINGS

Among 2284 records identified, 24 cross-sectional observational studies were included in the review. Overall, 82 of 471 air samples (17.4%) from close patient environments were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, with a significantly higher positivity rate in intensive care unit settings (intensive care unit, 27 of 107 [25.2%] vs non-intensive care unit, 39 of 364 [10.7%]; P < .001). There was no difference according to the distance from patients (≤1 m, 3 of 118 [2.5%] vs >1-5 m, 13 of 236 [5.5%]; P = .22). The positivity rate was 5 of 21 air samples (23.8%) in toilets, 20 of 242 (8.3%) in clinical areas, 15 of 122 (12.3%) in staff areas, and 14 of 42 (33.3%) in public areas. A total of 81 viral cultures were performed across 5 studies, and 7 (8.6%) from 2 studies were positive, all from close patient environments. The median (interquartile range) SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations varied from 1.0 × 103 copies/m3 (0.4 × 103 to 3.1 × 103 copies/m3) in clinical areas to 9.7 × 103 copies/m3 (5.1 × 103 to 14.3 × 103 copies/m3) in the air of toilets or bathrooms. Protective equipment removal and patient rooms had high concentrations per titer of SARS-CoV-2 (varying from 0.9 × 103 to 40 × 103 copies/m3 and 3.8 × 103 to 7.2 × 103 TCID50/m3), with aerosol size distributions that showed peaks in the region of particle size less than 1 μm; staff offices had peaks in the region of particle size greater than 4 μm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, the air close to and distant from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 was frequently contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA; however, few of these samples contained viable viruses. High viral loads found in toilets and bathrooms, staff areas, and public hallways suggest that these areas should be carefully considered.