Cargando…

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review

Background: SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in fomites which suggests the virus could be transmitted via inanimate objects. However, there is uncertainty about the mechanistic pathway for such transmissions. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from primary studies and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Onakpoya, Igho J., Heneghan, Carl J., Spencer, Elizabeth A., Brassey, Jon, Plüddemann, Annette, Evans, David H., Conly, John M., Jefferson, Tom
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34136133
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.51590.3
_version_ 1783703225750257664
author Onakpoya, Igho J.
Heneghan, Carl J.
Spencer, Elizabeth A.
Brassey, Jon
Plüddemann, Annette
Evans, David H.
Conly, John M.
Jefferson, Tom
author_facet Onakpoya, Igho J.
Heneghan, Carl J.
Spencer, Elizabeth A.
Brassey, Jon
Plüddemann, Annette
Evans, David H.
Conly, John M.
Jefferson, Tom
author_sort Onakpoya, Igho J.
collection PubMed
description Background: SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in fomites which suggests the virus could be transmitted via inanimate objects. However, there is uncertainty about the mechanistic pathway for such transmissions. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews assessing the role of fomites in transmission.  Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on five criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We found 64 studies: 63 primary studies and one systematic review (n=35). The settings for primary studies were predominantly in hospitals (69.8%) including general wards, ICU and SARS-CoV-2 isolation wards. There were variations in the study designs including timing of sample collection, hygiene procedures, ventilation settings and cycle threshold. The overall quality of reporting was low to moderate. The frequency of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests across 51 studies (using RT-PCR) ranged from 0.5% to 75%. Cycle threshold values ranged from 20.8 to 44.1. Viral concentrations were reported in 17 studies; however, discrepancies in the methods for estimation prevented comparison. Eleven studies (17.5%) attempted viral culture, but none found a cytopathic effect. Results of the systematic review showed that healthcare settings were most frequently tested (25/35, 71.4%), but laboratories reported the highest frequency of contaminated surfaces (20.5%, 17/83).  Conclusions: The majority of studies report identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on inanimate surfaces; however, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating the recovery of viable virus. Lack of positive viral cultures suggests that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through fomites is low. Heterogeneity in study designs and methodology prevents comparisons of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on fomite transmission is warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8176266
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81762662021-06-15 SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review Onakpoya, Igho J. Heneghan, Carl J. Spencer, Elizabeth A. Brassey, Jon Plüddemann, Annette Evans, David H. Conly, John M. Jefferson, Tom F1000Res Systematic Review Background: SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in fomites which suggests the virus could be transmitted via inanimate objects. However, there is uncertainty about the mechanistic pathway for such transmissions. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from primary studies and systematic reviews assessing the role of fomites in transmission.  Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on five criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We found 64 studies: 63 primary studies and one systematic review (n=35). The settings for primary studies were predominantly in hospitals (69.8%) including general wards, ICU and SARS-CoV-2 isolation wards. There were variations in the study designs including timing of sample collection, hygiene procedures, ventilation settings and cycle threshold. The overall quality of reporting was low to moderate. The frequency of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests across 51 studies (using RT-PCR) ranged from 0.5% to 75%. Cycle threshold values ranged from 20.8 to 44.1. Viral concentrations were reported in 17 studies; however, discrepancies in the methods for estimation prevented comparison. Eleven studies (17.5%) attempted viral culture, but none found a cytopathic effect. Results of the systematic review showed that healthcare settings were most frequently tested (25/35, 71.4%), but laboratories reported the highest frequency of contaminated surfaces (20.5%, 17/83).  Conclusions: The majority of studies report identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on inanimate surfaces; however, there is a lack of evidence demonstrating the recovery of viable virus. Lack of positive viral cultures suggests that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through fomites is low. Heterogeneity in study designs and methodology prevents comparisons of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on fomite transmission is warranted. F1000 Research Limited 2021-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8176266/ /pubmed/34136133 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.51590.3 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Onakpoya IJ et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Onakpoya, Igho J.
Heneghan, Carl J.
Spencer, Elizabeth A.
Brassey, Jon
Plüddemann, Annette
Evans, David H.
Conly, John M.
Jefferson, Tom
SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review
title SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review
title_full SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review
title_fullStr SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review
title_short SARS-CoV-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review
title_sort sars-cov-2 and the role of fomite transmission: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8176266/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34136133
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.51590.3
work_keys_str_mv AT onakpoyaighoj sarscov2andtheroleoffomitetransmissionasystematicreview
AT heneghancarlj sarscov2andtheroleoffomitetransmissionasystematicreview
AT spencerelizabetha sarscov2andtheroleoffomitetransmissionasystematicreview
AT brasseyjon sarscov2andtheroleoffomitetransmissionasystematicreview
AT pluddemannannette sarscov2andtheroleoffomitetransmissionasystematicreview
AT evansdavidh sarscov2andtheroleoffomitetransmissionasystematicreview
AT conlyjohnm sarscov2andtheroleoffomitetransmissionasystematicreview
AT jeffersontom sarscov2andtheroleoffomitetransmissionasystematicreview