Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Diagnostic Tests for Border Screening During the Very Early Phase of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during border screening among returning residents and prioritized travelers during the early phase of a pandemic can reduce the risk of importation and transmission in the community. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of various SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics and assess their potential utility as border screening for infection and immunity. Systematic literature searches were conducted in six electronic databases for studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics (up to April 30, 2020). Meta-analysis and methodological assessment were conducted for all included studies. The performance of the diagnostic tests was evaluated with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and their respective 95% confidence intervals. A total of 5,416 unique studies were identified and 95 studies (at least 29,785 patients/samples) were included. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) consistently outperformed all other diagnostic methods regardless of the selected viral genes with a pooled sensitivity of 98% and a pooled specificity of 99%. Point-of-care (POC) serology tests had moderately high pooled sensitivity (69%), albeit lower than laboratory-based serology tests (89%), but both had high pooled specificity (96-98%). Serology tests were more sensitive for sampling collected at ≥ 7 days than ≤ 7 days from the disease symptoms onset. POC NAAT and POC serology tests are suitable for detecting infection and immunity against the virus, respectively as border screening. Independent validation in each country is highly encouraged with the preferred choice of diagnostic tool/s.

SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in the Military during the Early Phase of the Pandemic-A Systematic Analysis.

Militaries worldwide have been affected by COVID-19 pandemic. However, the impact and epidemiological characteristics of transmission during the early phase of the pandemic is not well-studied. This study aims to systematically estimate the baseline incidence of COVID-19 in the military worldwide and identify the potential risk factors of transmission and clinical characteristics of the cases. English and Chinese literature reporting COVID-19 cases in military worldwide published on four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and CKNI) through 28 May 2021 were systematically screened and synthesized qualitatively. Forty-six studies involving at least 711,408 military personnel in 17 countries were synthesized. Low incidence of cases was observed in the military with pooled COVID-19 incidence of 0.19% (95%CI: 0.00-9.18%). We observed a higher incidence among those (1) with overseas exposure (39.85%; 95%CI: 0.00-95.87%) rather than local exposure (3.03%; 95%CI: 0.00-12.53%), (2) who were on either local/overseas military deployment (26.78%; 95%CI: 0.00-71.51%) as compared to those not deployed (4.37%; 95%CI: 0.00-17.93%), and (3) on overseas military deployment (39.84%; 95%CI: 0.00-95.87%) as compared to local military deployment (3.03%; 95%CI: 2.37-3.74%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic (77.90% (95%CI: 43.91-100.00%)); hospitalization and mortality rates were low at 4.43% (95%CI: 0.00-25.34%) and 0.25% (95%CI: 0.00-0.85%), respectively; and headache, anosmia, ageusia, myalgia, nasal congestion, and cough were the most commonly observed symptoms. Overseas and local deployment were observed to have higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Sustainable, active SARS-CoV-2 surveillance strategies are crucial to detect and contain transmission early during military deployments.

SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in the Military during the Early Phase of the Pandemic-A Systematic Analysis

Militaries worldwide have been affected by COVID-19 pandemic. However, the impact and epidemiological characteristics of transmission during the early phase of the pandemic is not well-studied. This study aims to systematically estimate the baseline incidence of COVID-19 in the military worldwide and identify the potential risk factors of transmission and clinical characteristics of the cases. English and Chinese literature reporting COVID-19 cases in military worldwide published on four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and CKNI) through 28 May 2021 were systematically screened and synthesized qualitatively. Forty-six studies involving at least 711,408 military personnel in 17 countries were synthesized. Low incidence of cases was observed in the military with pooled COVID-19 incidence of 0.19% (95%CI: 0.00–9.18%). We observed a higher incidence among those (1) with overseas exposure (39.85%;95%CI: 0.00–95.87%) rather than local exposure (3.03%;95%CI: 0.00–12.53%), (2) who were on either local/overseas military deployment (26.78%;95%CI: 0.00–71.51%) as compared to those not deployed (4.37%;95%CI: 0.00–17.93%), and (3) on overseas military deployment (39.84%;95%CI: 0.00–95.87%) as compared to local military deployment (3.03%;95%CI: 2.37–3.74%). The majority of the cases were symptomatic (77.90% (95%CI: 43.91–100.00%));hospitalization and mortality rates were low at 4.43% (95%CI: 0.00–25.34%) and 0.25% (95%CI: 0.00–0.85%), respectively;and headache, anosmia, ageusia, myalgia, nasal congestion, and cough were the most commonly observed symptoms. Overseas and local deployment were observed to have higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Sustainable, active SARS-CoV-2 surveillance strategies are crucial to detect and contain transmission early during military deployments.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination intent in Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality globally. As vaccines have been developed under expedited conditions, their safety and efficacy are being questioned by some populations leading to vaccine hesitancy, resulting in delayed vaccine uptake and herd immunity. This study aims to adopt a combination of Health Belief Model and other independent risk factors associated with high vaccine acceptance. METHODS: An anonymized cross-sectional survey was distributed between 15 January and 3 February 2021 across Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia among adult respondents through a certified online panel. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were carried out to assess perception constructs followed by multivariate regression modelling to assess factors associated with high vaccine acceptance against SARS_CoV-2. RESULTS: A total of 3,133 anonymised participants from Singapore (n = 1,009), Australia (n = 1,118) and Hong Kong (n = 1,006) completed the survey. While age and gender were not significantly associated, Asian ethnicity, current smokers and self-efficacy were significant associated factors of increased vaccine acceptance. While specific practices like taking micronutrients more frequently, cleaning and disinfecting their house more often were positively associated with increased vaccine acceptance, seeking medical help for COVID-19 symptoms like loss of smell/taste and overall COVID-19 knowledge score were negatively associated. Increased likelihood of vaccine acceptance was seen among those that obtained COVID-19 information less frequently and used digital media or non-health-related sources like influencers as a source of information. Among the eight perception constructs, perceived susceptibility and perceived response efficacy were positively associated, while perceived barriers were negatively associated with high vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSION: While demographic parameters have weak association with vaccine acceptance, perceptions and practices parameters can help to better understand and influence vaccine acceptance. Study findings should provide guidance on the risk communication strategy to enhance vaccine acceptance for vaccination and boosters against new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Diagnostic Tests for Border Screening During the Very Early Phase of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during border screening among returning residents and prioritized travelers during the early phase of a pandemic can reduce the risk of importation and transmission in the community. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of various SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics and assess their potential utility as border screening for infection and immunity. Systematic literature searches were conducted in six electronic databases for studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics (up to April 30, 2020). Meta-analysis and methodological assessment were conducted for all included studies. The performance of the diagnostic tests was evaluated with pooled sensitivity, specificity, and their respective 95% confidence intervals. A total of 5,416 unique studies were identified and 95 studies (at least 29,785 patients/samples) were included. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) consistently outperformed all other diagnostic methods regardless of the selected viral genes with a pooled sensitivity of 98% and a pooled specificity of 99%. Point-of-care (POC) serology tests had moderately high pooled sensitivity (69%), albeit lower than laboratory-based serology tests (89%), but both had high pooled specificity (96–98%). Serology tests were more sensitive for sampling collected at ≥ 7 days than ≤ 7 days from the disease symptoms onset. POC NAAT and POC serology tests are suitable for detecting infection and immunity against the virus, respectively as border screening. Independent validation in each country is highly encouraged with the preferred choice of diagnostic tool/s.

Impact of travel ban implementation on COVID-19 spread in Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea during the early phase of the pandemic: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has elicited imposition of some form of travel restrictions by almost all countries in the world. Most restrictions currently persist, although some have been gradually eased. It remains unclear if the trade-off from the unprecedented disruption to air travel was well worth for pandemic containment. METHOD: A comparative analysis was conducted on Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea's COVID-19 response. Data on COVID-19 cases, travel-related and community interventions, socio-economic profile were consolidated. Trends on imported and local cases were analyzed using computations of moving averages, rate of change, particularly in response to distinct waves of travel-related interventions due to the outbreak in China, South Korea, Iran & Italy, and Europe. RESULTS: South Korea's travel restrictions were observed to be consistently more lagged in terms of timeliness and magnitude, with their first wave of travel restrictions on flights departing from China implemented 34 days after the outbreak in Wuhan, compared to 22-26 days taken by Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong. South Korea's restrictions against all countries came after 91 days, compared to 78-80 days for the other three countries. The rate of change of imported cases fell by 1.08-1.43 across all four countries following the first wave of travel restrictions on departures from China, and by 0.22-0.52 in all countries except South Korea in the fifth wave against all international travellers. Delayed rate of change of local cases resulting from travel restrictions imposed by the four countries with intrinsic importation risk, were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Travel restriction was effective in preventing COVID-19 case importation in early outbreak phase, but may still be limited in preventing general local transmission. The impact of travel restrictions, regardless of promptness, in containing epidemics likely also depends on the effectiveness of local surveillance and non-pharmaceutical interventions concurrently implemented.

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of non-severe and severe pediatric and adult COVID-19 patients across different geographical regions in the early phase of pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

This systematic and meta-review aimed to compare clinical presentation, outcomes, and care management among patients with COVID-19 during the early phase of the pandemic. A total of 77 peer-reviewed publications were identified between January 1, 2020 and April 9, 2020 from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Chinese Medical Journal databases. Subsequently, meta-analysis of 40 non-overlapping studies, comprising of 4844 patients from seven countries, was conducted to see differences in clinical characteristics and laboratory outcomes across patients from different geographical regions (Wuhan, other parts of China and outside China), severity (non-severe, severe and fatal) and age groups (adults and children). Patients from Wuhan had a higher mean age (54.3 years) and rates of dyspnea (39.5%) compared with patients from other parts of China and outside China. Myalgia, fatigue, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and fatalities were also significantly more prevalent among Wuhan patients. A significant dose-response increase in prevalence of diabetes, D-dimer, white blood cells, neutrophil levels and ARDS was seen from non-severe to severe and fatal outcomes. A significant increase in mean duration of symptom onset to admission was seen between non-severe cases (4.2 days) and severe and fatal cases (6.3 days and 8.8 days, respectively). Proportion of asymptomatic cases was higher in children (20%) compared with adults (2.4%). In conclusion, patients with COVID-19 from Wuhan displayed more severe clinical disease during the early phase of the pandemic, while disease severity was significantly lesser among pediatric cases. This review suggests that biomarkers at admission may be useful for prognosis among patients with COVID-19.

Epidemiological and Clinical Characteristics of Cases During the Early Phase of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: On 29th December 2019, a cluster of cases displaying the symptoms of a "pneumonia of unknown cause" was identified in Wuhan, Hubei province of China. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 cases in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The search strategy involved peer-reviewed studies published between 1st January and 11th February 2020 in Pubmed, Google scholar and China Knowledge Resource Integrated database. Publications identified were screened for their title and abstracts according to the eligibility criteria, and further shortlisted by full-text screening. Three independent reviewers extracted data from these studies, and studies were assessed for potential risk of bias. Studies comprising non-overlapping patient populations, were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. Pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for patient characteristics. Results: A total of 29 publications were selected after full-text review. This comprised of 18 case reports, three case series and eight cross-sectional studies on patients admitted from mid-December of 2019 to early February of 2020. A total of 533 adult patients with pooled median age of 56 (95% CI: 49-57) and a pooled prevalence of male of 60% (95% CI: 52-68%) were admitted to hospital at a pooled median of 7 days (95% CI: 7-7) post-onset of symptoms. The most common symptoms at admission were fever, cough and fatigue, with a pooled prevalence of 90% (95% CI: 81-97%), 58% (95% CI: 47-68%), and 50% (95% CI: 29-71%), respectively. Myalgia, shortness of breath, headache, diarrhea and sore throat were less common with pooled prevalence of 27% (95% CI: 20-36%), 25% (95% CI: 15-35%), 10% (95% CI: 7-13%), 8% (95% CI: 5-13%), and 7% (95% CI: 1-15%), respectively. ICU patients had a higher proportion of shortness of breath at presentation, as well as pre-existing hypertension, cardiovascular disease and COPD, compared to non-ICU patients in 2 studies (n = 179). Conclusion: This study highlights the key epidemiological and clinical features of COVID-19 cases during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Potential Rapid Diagnostics, Vaccine and Therapeutics for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): A Systematic Review.

Rapid diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics are important interventions for the management of the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. It is timely to systematically review the potential of these interventions, including those for Middle East respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV, to guide policymakers globally on their prioritization of resources for research and development. A systematic search was carried out in three major electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify published studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Supplementary strategies through Google Search and personal communications were used. A total of 27 studies fulfilled the criteria for review. Several laboratory protocols for confirmation of suspected 2019-nCoV cases using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) have been published. A commercial RT-PCR kit developed by the Beijing Genomic Institute is currently widely used in China and likely in Asia. However, serological assays as well as point-of-care testing kits have not been developed but are likely in the near future. Several vaccine candidates are in the pipeline. The likely earliest Phase 1 vaccine trial is a synthetic DNA-based candidate. A number of novel compounds as well as therapeutics licensed for other conditions appear to have in vitro efficacy against the 2019-nCoV. Some are being tested in clinical trials against MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, while others have been listed for clinical trials against 2019-nCoV. However, there are currently no effective specific antivirals or drug combinations supported by high-level evidence.