Background
Understanding the drivers of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is crucial for control policies but evidence of transmission rates in different settings remains limited.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review to estimate secondary attack rates (SAR) and observed reproduction numbers (Robs) in different settings exploring differences by age, symptom status, and duration of exposure. To account for additional study heterogeneity, we employed a Beta-Binomial model to pool SARs across studies and a Negative-binomial model to estimate Robs.
Results
Households showed the highest transmission rates, with a pooled SAR of 21.1% (95%CI:17.4%-24.8%). SARs were significantly higher where the duration of household exposure exceeded 5 days compared with exposure of ≤5 days. SARs related to contacts at social events with family and friends were higher than those for low-risk casual contacts (5.9% vs. 1.2%). Estimates of SAR and Robs for asymptomatic index cases were approximately a seventh, and for pre-symptomatic two thirds of those for symptomatic index cases. We found some evidence for reduced transmission potential both from and to individuals under 20 years of age in the household context, which is more limited when examining all settings.
Conclusions
Our results suggest that exposure in settings with familiar contacts increases SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential. Additionally, the differences observed in transmissibility by index case symptom status and duration of exposure have important implications for control strategies such as contact tracing, testing and rapid isolation of cases. There was limited data to explore transmission patterns in workplaces, schools, and care-homes, highlighting the need for further research in such settings.
Purpose
In the critically ill, hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HA-BSI) are associated with significant mortality. Granular data are required for optimizing management, and developing guidelines and clinical trials.
Methods
We carried out a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) with HA-BSI treated in intensive care units (ICUs) between June 2019 and February 2021.
Results
2600 patients from 333 ICUs in 52 countries were included. 78% HA-BSI were ICU-acquired. Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 8 [IQR 5; 11] at HA-BSI diagnosis. Most frequent sources of infection included pneumonia (26.7%) and intravascular catheters (26.4%). Most frequent pathogens were Gram-negative bacteria (59.0%), predominantly Klebsiella spp. (27.9%), Acinetobacter spp
.
(20.3%),
Escherichia coli
(15.8%), and Pseudomonas spp
.
(14.3%). Carbapenem resistance was present in 37.8%, 84.6%, 7.4%, and 33.2%, respectively. Difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) was present in 23.5% and pan-drug resistance in 1.5%. Antimicrobial therapy was deemed adequate within 24 h for 51.5%. Antimicrobial resistance was associated with longer delays to adequate antimicrobial therapy. Source control was needed in 52.5% but not achieved in 18.2%. Mortality was 37.1%, and only 16.1% had been discharged alive from hospital by day-28.
Conclusions
HA-BSI was frequently caused by Gram-negative, carbapenem-resistant and DTR pathogens. Antimicrobial resistance led to delays in adequate antimicrobial therapy. Mortality was high, and at day-28 only a minority of the patients were discharged alive from the hospital. Prevention of antimicrobial resistance and focusing on adequate antimicrobial therapy and source control are important to optimize patient management and outcomes.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06944-2.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.