Detection of imported COVID-19 cases worldwide: early assessment of airport entry screening, 24 January until 17 February 2020

Mouchtouri, Varvara A.; Bogogiannidou, Zacharoula; Dirksen-Fischer, Martin; Tsiodras, Sotirios; Hadjichristodoulou, Christos

doi:10.1186/s41182-020-00260-5

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…found extremely low or no utility in differentiating infected from uninfected [119]. For COVID-19, similar findings have been reported, with only a very small proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection cases detected during such screening practices [120]. Again, such measures divert resources and attention away from much more effective strategies to control infection.…”

Section: De-emphasize Excessive Surface Disinfection and Other Unnecessary Measuressupporting

confidence: 55%

Revisiting COVID-19 policies: 10 evidence-based recommendations for where to go from here. PUBLISHED VERSION: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z

Halperin¹,

Hearst²,

Hodgins³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We offer recommendations, based on the latest evidence, for refining ten key COVID-19 policy and strategy areas. While remarkably effective vaccines usher in great hope, we call for revisiting some widely held assumptions regarding current approaches to inform more context-sensitive, evidence-based policies. We address: the expansion of equitable vaccine distribution; the far-reaching consequences of blunt lockdowns and school closures; the need to encourage outdoor activities and to gradually ease restrictions as vaccination rollout is expanded; the advantages of emphasizing education and harm reduction approaches over coercive and punitive measures; the excessive focus on surface disinfection and other ineffective or misplaced measures; the need to reassess testing practices; and the importance of increased access to effective outpatient therapies. Although COVID-19 will require ongoing mitigation for the foreseeable future, especially as potentially challenging genetic variants continue to emerge, maintaining a constant state of emergency until the pandemic is eradicated is not a viable strategy. A more realistic public health goal during mass vaccination is to adjust current mitigation goals to minimize unintended harms associated with unfocused or largely irrelevant control efforts. We present these suggestions in the expectation of vaccines allowing greater control of COVID-19 within the relatively near future, especially if there is widespread, global access to this life-saving intervention.

show abstract

Section: De-emphasize Excessive Surface Disinfection and Other Unnecessary Measuressupporting

confidence: 55%

Revisiting COVID-19 policies: 10 evidence-based recommendations for where to go from here. PUBLISHED VERSION: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z

Halperin¹,

Hearst²,

Hodgins³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21 , 57 – 59 For literature evaluating the efficiency of IRT screening for the detection of febrile international travelers, seventeen studies were identified: one aimed at detecting SARS in Canada; 60 four studies for Dengue detection in Taiwan; 12 , 13 , 61 , 62 five for Influenza in New Zealand, 63 , 64 Japan, 65 , 66 and Australia; 67 and three for Ebola virus disease (EVD) in the USA, Australia, and the UK, 68 and Sierra Leone; 69 , 70 one for MERS in Indonesia; 71 and three for COVID-19 in multiple countries. 72 – 74 For literature evaluating the detection of infectious diseases with measurements of vital signs, three studies were identified containing the required information for inclusion: two utilizing CMOS camera that was equipped with IRT; 75 , 76 two utilizing Doppler blood-flow meter, 10-GHz microwave radar, and thermography; 77 , 78 and one utilizing radar, finger-tip photoreflector, and thermography. 79 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of the efficacy of infrared thermography for screening infectious diseases with applications to COVID-19

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Purpose: The recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which spread across the globe in a very short period of time, revealed that the transmission control of disease is a crucial step to prevent an outbreak and effective screening for viral infectious diseases is necessary. Since the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003, infrared thermography (IRT) has been considered a gold standard method for screening febrile individuals at the time of pandemics. The objective of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of IRT for screening infectious diseases with specific applications to COVID-19. Approach: A literature review was performed in Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect to search for studies evaluating IRT screening from 2002 to present using relevant keywords. Additional literature searches were done to evaluate IRT in comparison to traditional core body temperature measurements and assess the benefits of measuring additional vital signs for infectious disease screening. Results: Studies have reported on the unreliability of IRT due to poor sensitivity and specificity in detecting true core body temperature and its inability to identify asymptomatic carriers. Airport mass screening using IRT was conducted during occurrences of SARS, Dengue, Swine Flu, and Ebola with reported sensitivities as low as zero. Other studies reported that screening other vital signs such as heart and respiratory rates can lead to more robust methods for early infection detection. Conclusions: Studies evaluating IRT showed varied results in its efficacy for screening infectious diseases. This suggests the need to assess additional physiological parameters to increase the sensitivity and specificity of non-invasive biosensors.

show abstract

“…Governments, airlines, airports, and other businesses serving travelers have implemented or recommended measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 associated with air travel [15,16]. These measures have included enhanced disinfection procedures, employee health assessments, passenger health attestations, screening for fever, illness response protocols, increased spacing between passengers on flights, and other steps to reduce risk of transmission in airports and on conveyances [10,17]. Symptom-based screening at airports has proven ineffective because those measures miss mild, afebrile, asymptomatic, and pre-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections [18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing travel-related SARS-CoV-2 transmission with layered mitigation measures: symptom monitoring, quarantine, and testing

Johansson

Wolford

Paul

et al. 2021

BMC Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Balancing the control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission with the resumption of travel is a global priority. Current recommendations include mitigation measures before, during, and after travel. Pre- and post-travel strategies including symptom monitoring, antigen or nucleic acid amplification testing, and quarantine can be combined in multiple ways considering different trade-offs in feasibility, adherence, effectiveness, cost, and adverse consequences. Methods We used a mathematical model to analyze the expected effectiveness of symptom monitoring, testing, and quarantine under different estimates of the infectious period, test-positivity relative to time of infection, and test sensitivity to reduce the risk of transmission from infected travelers during and after travel. Results If infection occurs 0–7 days prior to travel, immediate isolation following symptom onset prior to or during travel reduces risk of transmission while traveling by 30–35%. Pre-departure testing can further reduce risk, with testing closer to the time of travel being optimal even if test sensitivity is lower than an earlier test. For example, testing on the day of departure can reduce risk while traveling by 44–72%. For transmission risk after travel with infection time up to 7 days prior to arrival at the destination, isolation based on symptom monitoring reduced introduction risk at the destination by 42–56%. A 14-day quarantine after arrival, without symptom monitoring or testing, can reduce post-travel risk by 96–100% on its own. However, a shorter quarantine of 7 days combined with symptom monitoring and a test on day 5–6 after arrival is also effective (97--100%) at reducing introduction risk and is less burdensome, which may improve adherence. Conclusions Quarantine is an effective measure to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk from travelers and can be enhanced by the addition of symptom monitoring and testing. Optimal test timing depends on the effectiveness of quarantine: with low adherence or no quarantine, optimal test timing is close to the time of arrival; with effective quarantine, testing a few days later optimizes sensitivity to detect those infected immediately before or while traveling. These measures can complement recommendations such as social distancing, using masks, and hand hygiene, to further reduce risk during and after travel.

show abstract

Detection of imported COVID-19 cases worldwide: early assessment of airport entry screening, 24 January until 17 February 2020

Cited by 18 publications

References 8 publications

Revisiting COVID-19 policies: 10 evidence-based recommendations for where to go from here. PUBLISHED VERSION: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z

Revisiting COVID-19 policies: 10 evidence-based recommendations for where to go from here. PUBLISHED VERSION: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z

Review of the efficacy of infrared thermography for screening infectious diseases with applications to COVID-19

Reducing travel-related SARS-CoV-2 transmission with layered mitigation measures: symptom monitoring, quarantine, and testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About