Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better?

This is an account that should be heard of an important struggle: the struggle of a large group of experts who came together at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to warn the world about the risk of airborne transmission and the consequences of ignoring it. We alerted the World Health Organization about the potential significance of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the urgent need to control it, but our concerns were dismissed. Here we describe how this happened and the consequences. We hope that by reporting this story we can raise awareness of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to be open to new evidence, and to prevent it from happening again. Acknowledgement of an issue, and the emergence of new evidence related to it, is the first necessary step towards finding effective mitigation solutions.

Airborne transmission of respiratory viruses including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has had a wide-ranging and profound impact on how we think about the transmission of respiratory viruses This review outlines the basis on which we should consider all respiratory viruses as aerosol-transmissible infections, in order to improve our control of these pathogens in both healthcare and community settings. RECENT FINDINGS: We present recent studies to support the aerosol transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and some older studies to demonstrate the aerosol transmissibility of other, more familiar seasonal respiratory viruses. SUMMARY: Current knowledge on how these respiratory viruses are transmitted, and the way we control their spread, is changing. We need to embrace these changes to improve the care of patients in hospitals and care homes including others who are vulnerable to severe disease in community settings.

Probabilistic microsimulation to examine the cost-effectiveness of hospital admission screening strategies for carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance has been recognised as a global threat with carbapenemase- producing-Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) as a prime example. CPE has similarities to COVID-19 where asymptomatic patients may be colonised representing a source for onward transmission. There are limited treatment options for CPE infection leading to poor outcomes and increased costs. Admission screening can prevent cross-transmission by pre-emptively isolating colonised patients. OBJECTIVE: We assess the relative cost-effectiveness of screening programmes compared with no- screening. METHODS: A microsimulation parameterised with NHS Scotland date was used to model scenarios of the prevalence of CPE colonised patients on admission. Screening strategies were (a) two-step screening involving a clinical risk assessment (CRA) checklist followed by microbiological testing of high-risk patients; and (b) universal screening. Strategies were considered with either culture or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. All costs were reported in 2019 UK pounds with a healthcare system perspective. RESULTS: In the low prevalence scenario, no screening had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness. Among screening strategies, the two CRA screening options were the most likely to be cost-effective. Screening was more likely to be cost-effective than no screening in the prevalence of 1 CPE colonised in 500 admitted patients or more. There was substantial uncertainty with the probabilities rarely exceeding 40% and similar results between strategies. Screening reduced non-isolated bed-days and CPE colonisation. The cost of screening was low in relation to total costs. CONCLUSION: The specificity of the CRA checklist was the parameter with the highest impact on the cost-effectiveness. Further primary data collection is needed to build models with less uncertainty in the parameters.

Measurement of SARS-CoV-2 in air and on surfaces in Scottish hospitals.

BACKGROUND: There are still uncertainties in our knowledge of the amount of SARS-CoV-2 virus present in the environment; where it can be found, and potential exposure determinants, limiting our ability to effectively model and compare interventions for risk management. AIM: This study measured SARS-CoV-2 in three hospitals in Scotland on surfaces and air, alongside ventilation and patient care activities. METHODS: Air sampling at 200 L/min for 20 minutes and surface sampling were performed in two wards designated to treat COVID-19 -positive patients and two non-COVID-19 wards across three hospitals in November and December 2020. FINDINGS: Detectable samples of SARS-CoV-2 were found in COVID-19 treatment wards but not in non-COVID-19 wards. Most samples were below assay detection limits, but maximum concentrations reached 1.7x103 genomic copies/m3 in air and 1.9x104 copies per surface swab (3.2x102 copies/cm2 for surface loading). The estimated geometric mean air concentration (geometric standard deviation) across all hospitals was 0.41 (71) genomic copies/m3 and the corresponding values for surface contamination were 2.9 (29) copies/swab. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in non-patient areas (patient/visitor waiting rooms and personal protective equipment (PPE) changing areas) associated with COVID-19 treatment wards. CONCLUSIONS: Non-patient areas of the hospital may pose risks for infection transmission and further attention should be paid to these areas. Standardization of sampling methods will improve understanding of levels of environmental contamination. The pandemic has demonstrated a need to review and act upon the challenges of older hospital buildings meeting current ventilation guidance.

What were the historical reasons for the resistance to recognizing airborne transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The question of whether SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by droplets or aerosols has been highly controversial. We sought to explain this controversy through a historical analysis of transmission research in other diseases. For most of human history, the dominant paradigm was that many diseases were carried by the air, often over long distances and in a phantasmagorical way. This miasmatic paradigm was challenged in the mid to late 19th century with the rise of germ theory, and as diseases such as cholera, puerperal fever, and malaria were found to actually transmit in other ways. Motivated by his views on the importance of contact/droplet infection, and the resistance he encountered from the remaining influence of miasma theory, prominent public health official Charles Chapin in 1910 helped initiate a successful paradigm shift, deeming airborne transmission most unlikely. This new paradigm became dominant. However, the lack of understanding of aerosols led to systematic errors in the interpretation of research evidence on transmission pathways. For the next five decades, airborne transmission was considered of negligible or minor importance for all major respiratory diseases, until a demonstration of airborne transmission of tuberculosis (which had been mistakenly thought to be transmitted by droplets) in 1962. The contact/droplet paradigm remained dominant, and only a few diseases were widely accepted as airborne before COVID-19: those that were clearly transmitted to people not in the same room. The acceleration of interdisciplinary research inspired by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that airborne transmission is a major mode of transmission for this disease, and is likely to be significant for many respiratory infectious diseases.

A Better Disinfectant for Low-Resourced Hospitals? A Multi-Period Cluster Randomised Trial Comparing Hypochlorous Acid with Sodium Hypochlorite in Nigerian Hospitals: The EWASH Trial.

Environmental hygiene in hospitals is a major challenge worldwide. Low-resourced hospitals in African countries continue to rely on sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) as major disinfectant. However, NaOCl has several limitations such as the need for daily dilution, irritation, and corrosion. Hypochlorous acid (HOCl) is an innovative surface disinfectant produced by saline electrolysis with a much higher safety profile. We assessed non-inferiority of HOCl against standard NaOCl for surface disinfection in two hospitals in Abuja, Nigeria using a double-blind multi-period randomised cross-over study. Microbiological cleanliness [Aerobic Colony Counts (ACC)] was measured using dipslides. We aggregated data at the cluster-period level and fitted a linear regression. Microbiological cleanliness was high for both disinfectant (84.8% HOCl; 87.3% NaOCl). No evidence of a significant difference between the two products was found (RD = 2%, 90%CI: -5.1%-+0.4%; p-value = 0.163). We cannot rule out the possibility of HOCl being inferior by up to 5.1 percentage points and hence we did not strictly meet the non-inferiority margin we set ourselves. However, even a maximum difference of 5.1% in favour of sodium hypochlorite would not suggest there is a clinically relevant difference between the two products. We demonstrated that HOCl and NaOCl have a similar efficacy in achieving microbiological cleanliness, with HOCl acting at a lower concentration. With a better safety profile, and potential applicability across many healthcare uses, HOCl provides an attractive and potentially cost-efficient alternative to sodium hypochlorite in low resource settings.

Modeling fomite-mediated SARS-CoV-2 exposure through personal protective equipment doffing in a hospital environment.

Self-contamination during doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) is a concern for healthcare workers (HCW) following SARS-CoV-2-positive patient care. Staff may subconsciously become contaminated through improper glove removal; so, quantifying this exposure is critical for safe working procedures. HCW surface contact sequences on a respiratory ward were modeled using a discrete-time Markov chain for: IV-drip care, blood pressure monitoring, and doctors' rounds. Accretion of viral RNA on gloves during care was modeled using a stochastic recurrence relation. In the simulation, the HCW then doffed PPE and contaminated themselves in a fraction of cases based on increasing caseload. A parametric study was conducted to analyze the effect of: (1a) increasing patient numbers on the ward, (1b) the proportion of COVID-19 cases, (2) the length of a shift, and (3) the probability of touching contaminated PPE. The driving factors for the exposure were surface contamination and the number of surface contacts. The results simulate generally low viral exposures in most of the scenarios considered including on 100% COVID-19 positive wards, although this is where the highest self-inoculated dose is likely to occur with median 0.0305 viruses (95% CI =0-0.6 viruses). Dose correlates highly with surface contamination showing that this can be a determining factor for the exposure. The infection risk resulting from the exposure is challenging to estimate, as it will be influenced by the factors such as virus variant and vaccination rates.

Reducing the risk of COVID-19 transmission in hospitals: focus on additional infection control strategies.

Hospitals under pressure from the COVID-19 pandemic have experienced an additional challenge due to clusters of hospital-acquired COVID-19 infection occurring on non-COVID-19 wards. These clusters have involved both staff and patients and compromise staffing, bed management and routine care, especially delivery of elective surgical procedures. They have also contributed towards the overall morbidity and mortality of the pandemic. COVID-19 infection rates are rising again, so it is important to consider implementing additional activities designed to impede transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in acute hospitals. These aim to protect staff, patients and visitors, and conserve safe and continued access for patients needing routine and emergency surgical interventions. Current infection prevention strategies include hand hygiene; patient and staff screening; surveillance; personal protective equipment; cohorting and isolation; and enhanced cleaning. Additional activities include restriction of staff and patient movement; COVID-19 pathways for wards, operating theatres and outpatient services; bathroom management; and ensuring fresh air in the absence of effective mechanical ventilation systems. Seasonal pressures and spread of more contagious and/or vaccine-tolerant variants will continue to disrupt routine and emergency care of non-COVID-19 patients, as well as increase the risk of COVID-19 infection for staff and patients. Supplementary practical and cost-effective actions to limit spread in hospitals are explored in this article.

What is the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 from the use of public toilets?

Public toilets and bathrooms may act as a contact hub point where community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs between users. The mechanism of spread would arise through three mechanisms: inhalation of faecal and/or urinary aerosol from an individual shedding SARS-CoV-2; airborne transmission of respiratory aerosols between users face-to-face or during short periods after use; or from fomite transmission via frequent touch sites such as door handles, sink taps, lota or toilet roll dispenser. In this respect toilets could present a risk comparable with other high throughput enclosed spaces such as public transport and food retail outlets. They are often compact, inadequately ventilated, heavily used and subject to maintenance and cleaning issues. Factors such as these would compound the risks generated by toilet users incubating or symptomatic with SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, toilets are important public infrastructure since they are vital for the maintenance of accessible, sustainable and comfortable urban spaces. Given the lack of studies on transmission through use of public toilets, comprehensive risk assessment relies upon the compilation of evidence gathered from parallel studies, including work performed in hospitals and prior work on related viruses. This narrative review examines the evidence suggestive of transmission risk through use of public toilets and concludes that such a risk cannot be lightly disregarded. A range of mitigating actions are suggested for both users of public toilets and those that are responsible for their design, maintenance and management.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by inhalation of respiratory aerosol in the Skagit Valley Chorale superspreading event.

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, an outbreak occurred following attendance of a symptomatic index case at a weekly rehearsal on 10 March of the Skagit Valley Chorale (SVC). After that rehearsal, 53 members of the SVC among 61 in attendance were confirmed or strongly suspected to have contracted COVID-19 and two died. Transmission by the aerosol route is likely; it appears unlikely that either fomite or ballistic droplet transmission could explain a substantial fraction of the cases. It is vital to identify features of cases such as this to better understand the factors that promote superspreading events. Based on a conditional assumption that transmission during this outbreak was dominated by inhalation of respiratory aerosol generated by one index case, we use the available evidence to infer the emission rate of aerosol infectious quanta. We explore how the risk of infection would vary with several influential factors: ventilation rate, duration of event, and deposition onto surfaces. The results indicate a best-estimate emission rate of 970 ± 390 quanta/h. Infection risk would be reduced by a factor of two by increasing the aerosol loss rate to 5 h-1 and shortening the event duration from 2.5 to 1 h.

Evaluation of World Health Organization-Recommended Hand Hygiene Formulations.

As a result of the coronavirus disease pandemic, commercial hand hygiene products have become scarce and World Health Organization (WHO) alcohol-based hand rub formulations containing ethanol or isopropanol are being produced for hospitals worldwide. Neither WHO formulation meets European Norm 12791, the basis for approval as a surgical hand preparation, nor satisfies European Norm 1500, the basis for approval as a hygienic hand rub. We evaluated the efficacy of modified formulations with alcohol concentrations in mass instead of volume percentage and glycerol concentrations of 0.5% instead of 1.45%. Both modified formulations met standard requirements for a 3-minute surgical hand preparation, the usual duration of surgical hand treatment in most hospitals in Europe. Contrary to the originally proposed WHO hand rub formulations, both modified formulations are appropriate for surgical hand preparation after 3 minutes when alcohol concentrations of 80% wt/wt ethanol or 75% wt/wt isopropanol along with reduced glycerol concentration (0.5%) are used.