ABSTRACT
ObjectivesHigh-quality meta-analyses on COVID-19 are in urgent demand for evidence-based decision making. However, conventional approaches exclude double-zero-event studies (DZS) from meta-analyses. We assessed whether including such studies impacts the conclusions in a recent systematic urgent review on prevention measures for preventing person-to-person transmission of COVID-19. Study designs and settingsWe extracted data for meta-analyses containing DZS from a recent review that assessed the effects of physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for preventing person-to-person transmission. A bivariate generalized linear mixed model was used to re-do the meta-analyses with DZS included. We compared the synthesized relative risks (RRs) of the three prevention measures, their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and significance tests (at the level of 0.05) including and excluding DZS. ResultsThe re-analyzed COVID-19 data containing DZS involved a total of 1,784 participants who were not considered in the original review. Including DZS noticeably changed the synthesized RRs and 95% CIs of several interventions. For the meta-analysis of the effect of physical distancing, the RR of COVID-19 decreased from 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.73) to 0.07 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.98). For several meta-analyses, the statistical significance of the synthesized RR was changed. The RR of eye protection with a physical distance of 2 m and the RR of physical distancing when using N95 respirators were no longer statistically significant after including DZS. ConclusionsDZS may contain useful information. Sensitivity analyses that include DZS in meta-analysis are recommended.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: On December 31, 2019, an outbreak of COVID-19 in humans was reported in Wuhan, and then spread fast to other provinces, China. We analyzed data from field investigations and genetic sequencing to describe the evidence and characteristics of human-to-human transmission in Guangdong Province. Methods: A confirmed COVID-19 case was defined if a suspected case was verified with positive of SARS-CoV-2 in throat swabs, nasal swabs, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), or endotracheal aspirates by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assay (RT-PCR) or genetic sequencing. Field investigations were conducted for each confirmed case. Clinical and demographic data of confirmed cases were collected from medical records. Exposure and travel history were obtained by interview. Results: A total of 1,151 confirmed cases were identified as of February 10, 2020 in Guangdong Province, China. Of them, 697 (60.1%) cases were from 234 cluster infections. Two hundred and fourteen (18.6%) were secondary cases, in which 144 cases were from family cluster infections. With the epidemic continuing, although familial cluster events were dominated, community cluster events increased with a nosocomial event. The whole genomes within the same family cluster infections were identical, and presented a few unique single nucleotide variants (SNVs) compared with SARS-CoV-2 identified on December 2019 in Wuhan. Conclusions: We observed evident human-to-human transmissions of SARS-CoV-2 in Guangdong, China. Although most of them were from family cluster infections, community and nosocomial infections were increasing. Our findings indicate that human-to-human transmission risks are transferring from family to community in Guangdong Province.
Subject(s)
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , Cross Infection , COVID-19 , Cluster Headache , Cerebrospinal Fluid LeakABSTRACT
RationaleSeveral studies have estimated basic production number of novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP). However, the time-varying transmission dynamics of NCP during the outbreak remain unclear. ObjectivesWe aimed to estimate the basic and time-varying transmission dynamics of NCP across China, and compared them with SARS. MethodsData on NCP cases by February 7, 2020 were collected from epidemiological investigations or official websites. Data on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) cases in Guangdong Province, Beijing and Hong Kong during 2002-2003 were also obtained. We estimated the doubling time, basic reproduction number (R0) and time-varying reproduction number (Rt) of NCP and SARS. Measurements and main resultsAs of February 7, 2020, 34,598 NCP cases were identified in China, and daily confirmed cases decreased after February 4. The doubling time of NCP nationwide was 2.4 days which was shorter than that of SARS in Guangdong (14.3 days), Hong Kong (5.7 days) and Beijing (12.4 days). The R0 of NCP cases nationwide and in Wuhan were 4.5 and 4.4 respectively, which were higher than R0 of SARS in Guangdong (R0=2.3), Hongkong (R0=2.3), and Beijing (R0=2.6). The Rt for NCP continuously decreased especially after January 16 nationwide and in Wuhan. The R0 for secondary NCP cases in Guangdong was 0.6, and the Rt values were less than 1 during the epidemic. ConclusionsNCP may have a higher transmissibility than SARS, and the efforts of containing the outbreak are effective. However, the efforts are needed to persist in for reducing time-varying reproduction number below one. At a Glance CommentaryO_ST_ABSScientific Knowledge on the SubjectC_ST_ABSSince December 29, 2019, pneumonia infection with 2019-nCoV, now named as Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (NCP), occurred in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. The disease has rapidly spread from Wuhan to other areas. As a novel virus, the time-varying transmission dynamics of NCP remain unclear, and it is also important to compare it with SARS. What This Study Adds to the FieldWe compared the transmission dynamics of NCP with SARS, and found that NCP has a higher transmissibility than SARS. Time-varying production number indicates that rigorous control measures taken by governments are effective across China, and persistent efforts are needed to be taken for reducing instantaneous reproduction number below one.