Comparative genomic analysis demonstrates that true reinfection following SARS-CoV-2 infection is possible.

Background: In recent months, multiple cases of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 reinfection have been reported. However, accurate epidemiological and virological data, including genomic analysis where possible, are required to differentiate cases of prolonged viral RNA shedding (i.e. intermittent detection) from true reinfection. The objective of this review was to systematically identify and summarise all cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection confirmed by comparative genomic analysis. Methods: A protocol based on Cochrane rapid review methodology was employed. Databases and pre-print servers were searched until 9/11/2020. Results: Ten studies, representing 17 patients, were identified (mean age=40; 71% male). The time interval between primary infection and reinfection ranged from 13 to 142 days (median: 60).Comparative whole genome sequencing confirmed reinfection in 14 patients (the primary and secondary infections were caused by different viruses). A further three cases had strong, but not confirmed evidence of reinfection, as only partial genomes were retrieved on primary infection.Across 12 studies that reported the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) comparing the first and second genomes, between 8 and 24 SNPs were discovered. With an average SARS-CoV-2 mutation acquisition rate of 1-2 per month, in all cases it is likely that the secondary infection was caused by a different SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than prolonged shedding of viral RNA from the primary infection.In five reinfection cases, the primary and secondary infections were caused by different SARS-CoV-2 lineages/clades, strongly indicating that infections were caused by different viruses. Conclusion: Comparative genomic analyses from 14 patients confirm that SARS-CoV-2 reinfection can occur.

Effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for screening of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A rapid review.

Rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) offer advantages over gold-standard reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests in that they are cheaper and provide faster results, thus enabling prompt isolation of positive SARS-CoV-2 cases and quarantine of close contacts. The aim of this study was to collate and synthesise empirical evidence on the effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for the screening (including serial testing) and surveillance of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. A rapid review was undertaken in MEDLINE (EBSCO), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Library, Europe PMC and Google Scholar up until 19 July 2021, supplemented by a grey literature search. Of the identified 1222 records, 19 reports referring to 16 studies were included. Eight included studies examined the effectiveness of RADTs for population-level screening, four for pre-event screening and four for serial testing (schools, a prison, a university sports programme and in care homes). Overall, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of rapid antigen testing for the screening of asymptomatic individuals to limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This uncertainty is due to the inconsistent results, the relatively low number of studies identified, the predominantly observational and/or uncontrolled nature of the study designs used, and concerns regarding methodological quality. Given this uncertainty, more real-world research evidence in relevant settings, which is of good quality and timely, as well as economic evaluation, is required to inform public policy on the widespread use of RADTs in asymptomatic individuals.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children: a rapid review, 30 December 2019 to 10 August 2020.

BackgroundThe role of children in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the early pandemic was unclear.AimWe aimed to review studies on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children during the early pandemic.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Europe PubMed Central and the preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv from 30 December 2019 to 10 August 2020. We assessed the quality of included studies using a series of questions adapted from related tools. We provide a narrative synthesis of the results.ResultsWe identified 28 studies from 17 countries. Ten of 19 studies on household and close contact transmission reported low rates of child-to-adult or child-to-child transmission. Six studies investigated transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in educational settings, with three studies reporting 183 cases from 14,003 close contacts who may have contracted COVID-19 from children index cases at their schools. Three mathematical modelling studies estimated that children were less likely to infect others than adults. All studies were of low to moderate quality.ConclusionsDuring the early pandemic, it appeared that children were not substantially contributing to household transmission of SARS-CoV-2. School-based studies indicated that transmission rates in this setting were low. Large-scale studies of transmission chains using data collected from contact tracing and serological studies detecting past evidence of infection would be needed to verify our findings.

Pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid-19 disease: A rapid review.

The aim of this rapid review was to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions (excluding vaccines) to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) or reduce the severity of disease. A systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed pre-prints was undertaken from 1 January 2020 to 17 August 2021. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-RCT were included; three trials (two RCTs and one non-RCT) tested ivermectin with or without carrageenan. While all reported some potential protective effect of ivermectin, these trials had a high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was deemed to be 'very low'. One RCT tested bamlanivimab compared to placebo and reported a significantly reduced incidence of Covid-19 in the intervention group; this trial had a low risk of bias however the certainty of evidence was deemed 'very low'. The fifth RCT tested casirivimab plus imdevimab versus placebo and reported that the combination of monoclonal antibodies significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral load, duration of symptomatic disease and the duration of a high viral load; this trial was deemed to have a low risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was 'low'. The designations 'low' and 'very low' regarding the certainty of evidence indicate that the estimate of effect is uncertain and therefore is unsuitable for informing decision-making. At the time of writing, there is insufficient high quality evidence to support the use of pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid-19.

Quantifying the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection over time.

Despite over 140 million SARS-CoV-2 infections worldwide since the beginning of the pandemic, relatively few confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection have been reported. While immunity from SARS-CoV-2 infection is probable, at least in the short term, few studies have quantified the reinfection risk. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to synthesise the evidence on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection over time. A standardised protocol was employed, based on Cochrane methodology. Electronic databases and preprint servers were searched from 1 January 2020 to 19 February 2021. Eleven large cohort studies were identified that estimated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection over time, including three that enrolled healthcare workers and two that enrolled residents and staff of elderly care homes. Across studies, the total number of PCR-positive or antibody-positive participants at baseline was 615,777, and the maximum duration of follow-up was more than 10 months in three studies. Reinfection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0%-1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time. Only one study estimated the population-level risk of reinfection based on whole genome sequencing in a subset of patients; the estimated risk was low (0.1% [95% CI: 0.08-0.11%]) with no evidence of waning immunity for up to 7 months following primary infection. These data suggest that naturally acquired SARS-CoV-2 immunity does not wane for at least 10 months post-infection. However, the applicability of these studies to new variants or to vaccine-induced immunity remains uncertain.

Effectiveness of public health measures to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at mass gatherings: A rapid review.

Mass gatherings play an important role in society, but since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, they have generally been restricted in order to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of public health measures at preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at mass gatherings, and hence inform guidance on the organisation of these events. A rapid review was undertaken in Cochrane, Embase (OVID), Medline (OVID), Google, Web of Science and Europe PMC from 1 January 2020 to 3 June 2021. Of the identified 1,624 citations, 14 articles referring to 11 unique studies were included. This rapid review found evidence from 11 studies (involving approximately 30,482 participants) that implementing a range of measures may reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings; however, it is unlikely that this risk can be eliminated entirely. All studies adopted a layered mitigation approach involving multiple measures, which may be more effective than relying on any single measure. The number and intensity of measures implemented varied across studies, with most implementing resource intense measures. Importantly, all included studies were only of 'fair' to 'poor' quality. In conclusion, there is currently limited evidence on the effectiveness of measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings. As mass gatherings recommence, continued adoption of known mitigation measures is required to limit the risk of transmission, as well as ongoing research and surveillance to monitor the potential impact of these events on the wider population and healthcare system.

Interventions in an Ambulatory Setting to Prevent Progression to Severe Disease in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review on the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions, in the ambulatory setting, aimed at preventing severe disease in patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and EuropePMC) were searched on January 6, 2021. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: A systematic review was conducted, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The quality of individual trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool 2, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. DATA SYNTHESIS: The collective search retrieved 3818 citations. Eight trials relating to 9 pharmacological interventions were identified. No evidence for nonpharmacological interventions was identified. Low certainty evidence of effectiveness in preventing severe disease was found for fluvoxamine (absolute difference: -8.7%; 95% CI: -1.8% to -16.4%) and bamlanivimab plus etesevimab (absolute difference: -4.9%; 95% CI: -0.8% to -8.9%). Both trials were limited by small sample sizes and short durations of follow-up. In addition, very low certainty evidence of effect was found for ivermectin plus doxycycline and sulodexide. Based on published data, insufficient evidence of effect was found for bamlanivimab (monotherapy), casirivimab plus imdevimab, ivermectin (monotherapy), nitazoxanide, and peginterferon lambda. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review assessed all ambulatory treatments for COVID-19 that may improve patient outcomes and reduce hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Recent trials have shown promising results for a number of pharmacological agents to treat COVID-19 in the ambulatory setting. However, larger, more robust trials are needed to support the routine use of these agents outside of monitored clinical trials.

A rapid review of measures to support people in isolation or quarantine during the Covid-19 pandemic and the effectiveness of such measures.

This rapid review aimed to identify measures available to support those in isolation or quarantine during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, and determine their effectiveness in improving adherence to these recommendations and or reducing transmission. The rapid review consisted of two elements, the first was a review of guidance published by national and international agencies relating to measures to support those in isolation (due to case status) or quarantine (due to close contact status) during the Covid-19 pandemic. Five categories of support measures were identified in the international guidance, they were: Psychological, addiction and safety supports, Essential supplies, Financial aid, Information provision and Enforcement. The second element was a rapid literature review of the effectiveness of measures used to support individuals in isolation or quarantine during any pandemic or epidemic setting, due to respiratory pathogens. A systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and nonpeer-reviewed pre-prints was undertaken from 1 January 2000 to 26 January 2021. Two Australian publications met the inclusion criteria, both based on data from a survey undertaken during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The first reported that 55% of households were fully compliant with quarantine recommendations, and that there was increased compliance reported in households that understood what they were meant to do compared with those who reported that they did not (odds ratio [OR]: 2.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-3.80). The second reported that access to paid sick and or carer's leave did not predict compliance with quarantine recommendations (OR: 2.07, 95% CI: 0.82-5.23). Neither reported on reduction in transmission.

The effectiveness of non-contact thermal screening as a means of identifying cases of Covid-19: a rapid review of the evidence.

The aim of this rapid review is to summarise the evidence on non-contact thermal screening as a method through which to identify cases and reduce the spread of coronavirus disease (Covid-19). The rapid review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane guidelines, with a systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed pre-prints undertaken from 1 January 2000 up to 7 October 2020. Eleven studies were included. One observational study and two mathematical modelling studies were conducted in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic; the remaining studies were conducted during the influenza A pandemic (H1N1) 2009 (n = 7) or middle east respiratory syndrome (n = 1) pandemics. One systematic review and three rapid reviews were identified and screened for relevant studies. Evidence on the effectiveness of thermal screening contained within this review was limited to points of entry (i.e., airports); thus the applicability to other community settings is uncertain. Thermal screening, implemented as part of a composite of screening measures (self-report of relevant symptoms, contact/travel history), was ineffective in identifying infectious individuals and limiting the spread of disease. Based on limited, low certainty evidence, non-contact thermal screening is ineffective in limiting the spread of Covid-19.

Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols.

A key consideration in the Covid-19 pandemic is the dominant modes of transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. The objective of this review was to synthesise the evidence for the potential airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via aerosols. Systematic literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Europe PMC and National Health Service UK evidence up to 27 July 2020. A protocol was published and Cochrane guidance for rapid review methodology was adhered to throughout. Twenty-eight studies were identified. Seven out of eight epidemiological studies suggest aerosol transmission may occur, with enclosed environments and poor ventilation noted as possible contextual factors. Ten of the 16 air sampling studies detected SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid; however, only three of these studies attempted to culture the virus with one being successful in a limited number of samples. Two of four virological studies using artificially generated aerosols indicated that SARS-CoV-2 is viable in aerosols. The results of this review indicate there is inconclusive evidence regarding the viability and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols. Epidemiological studies suggest possible transmission, with contextual factors noted. Viral particles have been detected in air sampling studies with some evidence of clinical infectivity, and virological studies indicate these particles may represent live virus, adding further plausibility. However, there is uncertainty as to the nature and impact of aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and its relative contribution to the Covid-19 pandemic compared with other modes of transmission.

Alternative clinical specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: A rapid review.

The collection of nasopharyngeal swabs to test for the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an invasive technique with implications for patients and clinicians. Alternative clinical specimens from the upper respiratory tract may offer benefits in terms of collection, comfort and infection risk. The objective of this review was to synthesise the evidence for detection of SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA) using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tested saliva or nasal specimens compared with RT-PCR tested nasopharyngeal specimens. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Europe PMC and NHS evidence from December 2019 to 20 July 2020. Eighteen studies were identified; 12 for saliva, four for nasal and two included both specimen types. For saliva-based studies, the proportion of saliva samples testing positive relative to all positive samples in each study ranged from 82.9% to 100%; detection in nasopharyngeal specimens ranged from 76.7% to 100%; positive agreement between specimens for overall detection ranged from 65.4% to 100%. For nasal-based studies, the proportion of nasal swabs testing positive relative to all positive samples in each study ranged from 81.9% to 100%; detection in nasopharyngeal specimens ranged from 70% to 100%; positive agreement between specimens for overall detection ranged from 62.3% to 100%. The results indicate an inconsistency in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the specimen types included, often with neither the index nor the reference of interest detecting all known cases. Depending on the test environment, these clinical specimens may offer a viable alternative to standard. However, at present the evidence is limited, of variable quality, and relatively inconsistent.

The duration of infectiousness of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence on the duration of infectiousness of individuals in whom SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid is detected. METHODS: A rapid review was undertaken in PubMed, Europe PubMed Central and EMBASE from 1 January 2020 to 26 August 2020. RESULTS: We identified 15 relevant studies, including 13 virus culture and 2 contact tracing studies. For 5 virus culture studies, the last day on which SARS-CoV-2 was isolated occurred within 10 days of symptom onset. For another 5 studies, SARS-CoV-2 was isolated beyond day 10 for approximately 3% of included patients. The remaining 3 virus culture studies included patients with severe or critical disease; SARS-CoV-2 was isolated up to day 32 in one study. Two studies identified immunocompromised patients from whom SARS-CoV-2 was isolated for up to 20 days. Both contact tracing studies, when close contacts were first exposed greater than 5 days after symptom onset in the index case, found no evidence of laboratory-confirmed onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients with mild-to-moderate illness are highly unlikely to be infectious beyond 10 days of symptoms. However, evidence from a limited number of studies indicates that patients with severe-to-critical illness or who are immunocompromised, may shed infectious virus for longer.

Immune response following infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses: A rapid review.

In this review, we systematically searched and summarized the evidence on the immune response and reinfection rate following SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also retrieved studies on SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV to assess the long-term duration of antibody responses. A protocol based on Cochrane rapid review methodology was adhered to and databases were searched from 1/1/2000 until 26/5/2020. Of 4744 citations retrieved, 102 studies met our inclusion criteria. Seventy-four studies were retrieved on SARS-CoV-2. While the rate and timing of IgM and IgG seroconversion were inconsistent across studies, most seroconverted for IgG within 2 weeks and 100% (N = 62) within 4 weeks. IgG was still detected at the end of follow-up (49-65 days) in all patients (N = 24). Neutralizing antibodies were detected in 92%-100% of patients (up to 53 days). It is not clear if reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 is possible, with studies more suggestive of intermittent detection of residual RNA. Twenty-five studies were retrieved on SARS-CoV. In general, SARS-CoV-specific IgG was maintained for 1-2 years post-infection and declined thereafter, although one study detected IgG up to 12 years post-infection. Neutralizing antibodies were detected up to 17 years in another study. Three studies on MERS-CoV reported that IgG may be detected up to 2 years. In conclusion, limited early data suggest that most patients seroconvert for SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG within 2 weeks. While the long-term duration of antibody responses is unknown, evidence from SARS-CoV studies suggest SARS-CoV-specific IgG is sustained for 1-2 years and declines thereafter.

SARS-CoV-2 detection, viral load and infectivity over the course of an infection.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence on the detection pattern and viral load of SARS-CoV-2 over the course of an infection (including any asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic phase), and the duration of infectivity. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken in PubMed, Europe PubMed Central and EMBASE from 30 December 2019 to 12 May 2020. RESULTS: We identified 113 studies conducted in 17 countries. The evidence from upper respiratory tract samples suggests that the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 peaks around symptom onset or a few days thereafter, and becomes undetectable about two weeks after symptom onset; however, viral loads from sputum samples may be higher, peak later and persist for longer. There is evidence of prolonged virus detection in stool samples, with unclear clinical significance. No study was found that definitively measured the duration of infectivity; however, patients may not be infectious for the entire duration of virus detection, as the presence of viral ribonucleic acid may not represent transmissible live virus. CONCLUSION: There is a relatively consistent trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 viral load over the course of COVID-19 from respiratory tract samples, however the duration of infectivity remains uncertain.