Cargando…
Investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, March to April 2020: a retrospective cohort study
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 emergence was a threat for armed forces. A COVID-19 outbreak occurred on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle from mid-March to mid-April 2020. AIM: To understand how the virus was introduced, circulated then stopped circulation, risk factors for infection and severit...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9137271/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35620999 http://dx.doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.21.2100612 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 emergence was a threat for armed forces. A COVID-19 outbreak occurred on the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle from mid-March to mid-April 2020. AIM: To understand how the virus was introduced, circulated then stopped circulation, risk factors for infection and severity, and effectiveness of preventive measures. METHODS: We considered the entire crew as a cohort and collected personal, clinical, biological, and epidemiological data. We performed viral genome sequencing and searched for SARS-CoV-2 in the environment. RESULTS: The attack rate was 65% (1,148/1,767); 1,568 (89%) were included. The male:female ratio was 6.9, and median age was 29 years (IQR: 24–36). We examined four clinical profiles: asymptomatic (13.0%), non-specific symptomatic (8.1%), specific symptomatic (76.3%), and severe (i.e. requiring oxygen therapy, 2.6%). Active smoking was not associated with severe COVID-19; age and obesity were risk factors. The instantaneous reproduction rate (R(t)) and viral sequencing suggested several introductions of the virus with 4 of 5 introduced strains from within France, with an acceleration of R(t) when lifting preventive measures. Physical distancing prevented infection (adjusted OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.40–0.76). Transmission may have stopped when the proportion of infected personnel was large enough to prevent circulation (65%; 95% CI: 62–68). CONCLUSION: Non-specific clinical pictures of COVID-19 delayed detection of the outbreak. The lack of an isolation ward made it difficult to manage transmission; the outbreak spread until a protective threshold was reached. Physical distancing was effective when applied. Early surveillance with adapted prevention measures should prevent such an outbreak. |
---|