Understanding the drivers of transmission of SARS-CoV-2

The Lancet Infectious Diseases

COMMENT|ONLINE FIRST

Understanding the drivers of transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Published:February 02, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00005-0PlumX MetricsDespite the recent development of effective vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), non-pharmaceutical interventions will remain the cornerstone in the battle against COVID-19 for some time. Such interventions are effective but have major societal and economic impacts and should therefore be used as selectively as possible. Quarantine after exposure to a patient with COVID-19 is such a measure. Reported secondary-attack rates among so-called high-risk contacts have varied widely from lower than 1% to 54·9%.1 In the Lancet Infectious Diseases, to better understand these differences, Michael Marks and colleagues explored factors related to onwards transmission of SARS-CoV-2.2 The authors used data from a randomised controlled trial in Barcelona that assessed the use of hydroxychloroquine as post-exposure prophylaxis.3 In addition to demographic and epidemiological variables (age, sex, symptoms, type of exposure, and so on) the dataset contained information on viral load as assessed by quantitative PCR for both the index case and the contacts with a positive test. With these data from 282 index cases and 753 contacts, the authors assessed the relationship of viral load and characteristics of cases (age, sex, number of days from reported symptom onset, and presence or absence of fever, cough, dyspnoea, rhinitis, and anosmia) and associations between risk of transmission and characteristics of the index case and contacts.Marks and colleagues found that the viral load of the index case was strongly associated with the risk of onward transmission (adjusted odds ratio per log10 increase in viral load 1·3, 95% CI 1·1–1·6) and that this risk was higher for household contacts (2·7, 1·4–5·06) than for other types of contact (health-care worker, nursing home worker, or nursing home resident). Additionally, they found a small, but significant, effect for age of the contact person, with older individuals being more at risk of becoming infected. Because the included population of both index cases and contacts consisted mainly of adults aged 27–57 years, more important age effects, such as those for children, might have been difficult to identify. Although the effectiveness of masks is well established,45 in the analysis of Marks and colleagues, self-reported mask use surprisingly did not affect the risk of transmission. Similarly, Ng and colleagues did not find an effect of self-reported mask use on risk of COVID-19 transmission in their analysis of contact tracing data from Singapore.6 Rather than questioning the usefulness of mask-wearing policies, these results underscore the necessity of a multi-layered comprehensive approach to infection prevention and control.7 Factors such as consistent and correct use and quality of the mask could not be accounted for in the analysis. Marks and colleagues’ finding that the viral load of the index case was a major determinant for onwards transmission does not come as a surprise, since viral load has been previously shown to influence transmission for other respiratory infections such as influenza. The viral load of SARS-CoV-2 is not a fixed characteristic of an individual, but rather shows an evolution over time, peaking around symptom onset. Analyses of transmission pairs for SARS-CoV-2 have previously shown that, similar to viral load, infectiousness peaks around symptom onset.8 Finally, both viral load and time after symptom onset have been shown to be independently related to infectiousness in viral culture studies.9

Figure thumbnail fx1
View Large ImageCopyright © 2021 Flickr – Jorge Franganillo

LC works for Sciensano, where she is involved in the response against and evaluation of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Belgium. EA works for the National Reference Centre for respiratory diseases, partly funded by the Belgian Government, to assist in laboratory surveillance of SARS-CoV-2.

References

  1. 1.
    • Koh WC 
    • Naing L 
    • Chaw L 
    • et al.
    What do we know about SARS-CoV-2 transmission? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the secondary attack rate and associated risk factors.PLoS One. 2020; 15e0240205View in Article 
  2. 2.
    • Marks M 
    • Millat-Martinez P 
    • Ouchi D 
    • et al.
    Transmission of COVID-19 in 282 clusters in Catalonia, Spain: a cohort study.Lancet Infect Dis. 2021; (published online Feb 2.)https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30985-3View in Article 
  3. 3.
    • Mitjà O 
    • Corbacho-Monné M 
    • Ubals M 
    • et al.
    A cluster-randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine for prevention of COVID-19.N Engl J Med. 2020; (published online Nov 24.)https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2021801View in Article 
  4. 4.
    • Chu DK 
    • Akl EA 
    • Duda S 
    • et al.
    Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lancet. 2020; 395: 1973-1987View in Article 
  5. 5.
    • Ueki H 
    • Furusawa Y 
    • Iwatsuki-Horimoto K 
    • et al.
    Effectiveness of face masks in preventing airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2.mSphere. 2020; 5: e00637-e00640View in Article 
  6. 6.
    • Ng OT 
    • Marimuthu K 
    • Koh V 
    • et al.
    SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and transmission risk factors among high-risk close contacts: a retrospective cohort study.Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; (published online Nov 2.)https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30833-1View in Article 
  7. 7.
    • WHO
    Mask use in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance, 1 December 2020.World Health Organization, Geneva2020View in Article 
  8. 8.
    • He X 
    • Lau EHY 
    • Wu P 
    • et al.
    Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of COVID-19.Nat Med. 2020; 26: 672-675View in Article 
  9. 9.
    • Singanayagam A 
    • Patel M 
    • Charlett A 
    • et al.
    Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19, England, January to May 2020.Eurosurveillance. 2020; 252001483View in Article 

Article Info

Publication History

Published: February 02, 2021

Identification

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00005-0

Copyright

© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

ScienceDirect

Access this article on ScienceDirect

Figures

  • Figure thumbnail fx1Copyright © 2021 Flickr – Jorge Franganillo

Linked Articles

Related Hub

COVID-19 Resource Centre
Access the latest 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) content from across The Lancet journals as it is published.

logo

THE LANCET JOURNALS

CLINICAL

GLOBAL HEALTH

THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH

CONNECT

ACCESS

INFORMATION

We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you agree to the use of cookies.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties.

Privacy Policy   Terms and Conditions

Published by technofiend1

Kazan- Kazan National Research Technical University Казанский национальный исследовательский технический университет имени А. Н. Туполева he graduated in Economics in 1982

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: