-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence). One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients. Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.
Topics: Aged; Child, Preschool; Humans; COVID-19; Influenza, Human; Respiratory Tract Infections; SARS-CoV-2; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Communicable Disease Control; Global Health
PubMed: 36715243
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6 -
PLoS Medicine Nov 2022Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data underestimate infection and cannot infer on population immunity; there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in the World Health Organization's Unity protocol (WHO Unity) for general population seroepidemiological studies, to estimate the extent of population infection and seropositivity to the virus 2 years into the pandemic.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2022. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies-those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol-were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with risk of bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate underascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/subnational scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1% to 62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6 to 28.8] to 86.7% [84.6% to 88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3% to 11.0%] in June 2020 to 95.9% [92.6% to 97.8%] in December 2021, in European high-income countries [HICs]). After the emergence of Omicron in March 2022, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0% to 54.9%] in Europe HIC and 33.7% [31.6% to 36.0%] in Americas HIC. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0 to 9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20 to 29 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using prevaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p = 0.02). The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being overrepresented.
CONCLUSIONS
In this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation; however, over one-third of the global population are seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Seroepidemiologic Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Pandemics
PubMed: 36355774
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1004107 -
Microbial Pathogenesis Dec 2022The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and potential association between the infection with some members of the polyomaviridae family of viruses and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and potential association between the infection with some members of the polyomaviridae family of viruses and development of the brain tumors.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed by finding relevant cross-sectional and case-control studies from a large online database. Heterogeneity, OR, and corresponding 95% CI were applied to all studies by meta-analysis and forest plots. The analysis was performed using Stata Software v.14.
RESULTS
Twenty-three articles (33 datasets) were included in the meta-analysis, four (four datasets) of which were case/control studies and the rest were cross-sectional. The pooled prevalence of polyomaviruses among brain cancer patients was 13% (95% CI: 8-20%; I = 96.91%). In subgroup analysis, the pooled prevalence of JCV, SV40, BKV and Merkel cell polyomavirus was 20%, 8%, 6%, and 16%, respectively. An association was found between polyomavirus infection and brain cancer [summary OR 7.22 (95% CI (2.36-22.05); I = 0%)]. The subgroup analysis, based on the virus type, demonstrated a strong association between JCV infection and brain cancer development [summary OR 10.34 (95% CI 1.10-97.42; I = 0%)].
CONCLUSION
The present study showed a significant association between polyomavirus infection and brain tumors. Moreover, these results suggest that polyomavirus infection may be a potential risk factor for the development of brain cancer.
Topics: Humans; Polyomavirus Infections; Polyomavirus; Brain Neoplasms; Case-Control Studies; JC Virus
PubMed: 36183958
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2022.105797 -
Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) May 2022When new vaccine components or platforms are developed, they will typically need to demonstrate noninferiority or superiority over existing products, resulting in the...
BACKGROUND
When new vaccine components or platforms are developed, they will typically need to demonstrate noninferiority or superiority over existing products, resulting in the assessment of relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE). This review aims to identify how rVE evaluation is being performed in studies of influenza to inform a more standardized approach.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science for studies reporting rVE comparing vaccine components, dose, or vaccination schedules. We screened titles, abstracts, full texts, and references to identify relevant articles. We extracted information on the study design, relative comparison made, and the definition and statistical approach used to estimate rVE in each study.
RESULTS
We identified 63 articles assessing rVE in influenza virus. Studies compared multiple vaccine components (n = 38), two or more doses of the same vaccine (n = 17), or vaccination timing or history (n = 9). One study compared a range of vaccine components and doses. Nearly two-thirds of all studies controlled for age, and nearly half for comorbidities, region, and sex. Assessment of 12 studies presenting both absolute and relative effect estimates suggested proportionality in the effects, resulting in implications for the interpretation of rVE effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Approaches to rVE evaluation in practice is highly varied, with improvements in reporting required in many cases. Extensive consideration of methodologic issues relating to rVE is needed, including the stability of estimates and the impact of confounding structure on the validity of rVE estimates.
Topics: Humans; Influenza A Virus, H3N2 Subtype; Influenza Vaccines; Influenza, Human; Vaccination; Vaccine Efficacy
PubMed: 35213508
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001473 -
JBI Evidence Synthesis Jun 2022This review sought to identify the experiences of persons living with genital herpes and what interventions improve the health-related quality of life of young people... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This review sought to identify the experiences of persons living with genital herpes and what interventions improve the health-related quality of life of young people and adults with primary or recurrent genital herpes.
INTRODUCTION
Genital herpes is commonly associated with psychosocial challenges. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that its impact can be ameliorated through pharmacological and psychosocial interventions.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
This review considered English- and German-language studies of community-dwelling males and females, of any ethnicity and geographical location, aged 15 years and older, who had primary or recurrent genital herpes. The quantitative component of the review included studies that reported on the virus' impact on patients' health-related quality of life and/or the efficacy of interventions in improving their health-related quality of life. Studies compared antiviral suppression therapies and psychological interventions with usual care or placebo, or against one another. The qualitative component of the review included studies that investigated the perceptions and experiences of young people and adults with genital herpes.
METHODS
Eleven databases were searched from January 1980 to March 2020. The JBI approach to mixed methods systematic reviews was followed at each stage of the review, and a convergent segregated approach to synthesis and integration was adopted.
RESULTS
A total of 31 publications covering 30 studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. Studies encompassed quantitative (n = 27, across 28 publications), qualitative (n = 1), and mixed methods (n = 2) designs. Critical appraisal scores were variable, particularly among the randomized controlled trials and the analytical cross-sectional studies. All studies were included regardless of methodological quality. The quantitative components identified that depression, illness concern, stress, anxiety, isolation, stigma, and a lowering of self-esteem, self-concept, self-confidence, and health-related quality of life may be experienced by both those newly diagnosed with genital herpes and those with recurrences. It was also identified that genital herpes can have an adverse effect on work or school, sexual relationships, and relationships with friends and family. Depression was found to significantly decrease after self-hypnosis and certain psychosocial interventions. Anxiety significantly decreased following pharmacological treatment, psychosocial interventions, and hypnosis. Psychosocial interventions significantly improved mood, and a self-help module with counseling significantly improved participants' satisfaction with intimate relationships and their self-esteem. Pharmacological treatment significantly improved health-related quality of life; however, there were no significant differences between different active treatment regimens. The qualitative component of the review led to the identification of two synthesized findings: "Disclosure of a diagnosis of genital herpes poses a dilemma for people who have the virus" and "A diagnosis of genital herpes has a significant emotional impact for the individual."Integration of quantitative and qualitative evidence revealed a consensus that a diagnosis of genital herpes has a significant emotional impact for individuals and that disclosure is stressful, affects relationships, and affects health-related quality of life; however, there is a lack of consensus regarding efficacy of different interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
Genital herpes can lead to extreme emotional, social, relational, and sexual distress, but there is insufficient knowledge concerning which interventions best improve health-related quality of life. More high-quality research is required.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anxiety; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Herpes Genitalis; Humans; Male; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35199654
DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00057 -
Seminars in Liver Disease May 2022Microelimination targets specific subpopulations and/or geographic settings for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination. This review reports on global HCV microelimination... (Review)
Review
Microelimination targets specific subpopulations and/or geographic settings for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination. This review reports on global HCV microelimination literature published from 2013 to 2020. Data were extracted from publications to report a score based on the four key components defining microelimination. Sustained virologic response (SVR) and treatment initiation proportions were calculated for each manuscript and grouped means of these estimates were compared depending on microelimination score and care setting. A total of 83% of the studies were from high-income settings and mainly included people who use drugs or those incarcerated. Among manuscripts, 18 had "low" microelimination scores, 11 had "high" scores, and the differences in mean proportion who initiated treatment and achieved SVR between low and high score groups were statistically significant. Microelimination can be a useful complementary strategy for driving engagement in HCV treatment and cure. Our analysis suggests that adhering to more of the core microelimination components can improve outcomes. This study is registered with Prospero, registration identification: CRD42020175211.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Sustained Virologic Response
PubMed: 35189667
DOI: 10.1055/a-1777-6112 -
F1000Research 2021Modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are of key public health importance. SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the feces of some COVID-19 patients, suggesting the possibility...
BACKGROUND
Modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are of key public health importance. SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the feces of some COVID-19 patients, suggesting the possibility that the virus could, in addition to droplet and fomite transmission, be transmitted via the orofecal route.
METHODS
This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19. 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. Where necessary, authors are contacted for further details on the content of their articles.
RESULTS
We include searches up until 20 December 2020. We included 110 relevant studies: 76 primary observational studies or reports, and 35 reviews (one cohort study also included a review) examining the potential role of orofecal transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Of the observational studies, 37 were done in China. A total of 48 studies (n=9,081 patients) reported single cases, case series or cohort data on individuals with COVID-19 diagnosis or their contacts and 46 (96%) detected binary RT-PCR with 535 out of 1358 samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 (average 39.4%). The results suggest a long duration of fecal shedding, often recorded after respiratory samples tested negative, and symptoms of gastrointestinal disease were reported in several studies. Twenty-nine studies reported finding SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater, river water or toilet areas. Six studies attempted viral culture from COVID-19 patients' fecal samples: culture was successful in 3 of 6 studies, and one study demonstrated invasion of the virus into intestinal epithelial cells.
CONCLUSIONS
Varied observational and mechanistic evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 can infect and be shed from the gastrointestinal tract, including some data demonstrating viral culture in fecal samples. To fully assess these risks, quantitative data on infectious virus in these settings and infectious dose are needed.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Testing; Cohort Studies; Humans; RNA, Viral; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 35035883
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.51592.2 -
Molecular Psychiatry Jan 2022Infectious diseases, including COVID-19, are crucial public health issues and may lead to considerable fear among the general public and stigmatization of, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Infectious diseases, including COVID-19, are crucial public health issues and may lead to considerable fear among the general public and stigmatization of, and discrimination against, specific populations. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of stigma in infectious disease epidemics. We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases since inception to June 08, 2021, and reported the prevalence of stigma towards people with infectious diseases including SARS, H1N1, MERS, Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19. A total of 50 eligible articles were included that contributed 51 estimates of prevalence in 92722 participants. The overall pooled prevalence of stigma across all populations was 34% [95% CI: 28-40%], including enacted stigma (36% [95% CI: 28-44%]) and perceived stigma (31% [95% CI: 22-40%]). The prevalence of stigma in patients, community population, and health care workers, was 38% [95% CI: 12- 65%], 36% [95% CI: 28-45%], and 30% [95% CI: 20-40%], respectively. The prevalence of stigma in participants from low- and middle-income countries was 37% [95% CI: 29-45%], which is higher than that from high-income countries (27% [95% CI: 18-36%]) though this difference was not statistically significant. A similar trend of prevalence of stigma was also observed in individuals with lower education (47% [95% CI: 23-71%]) compared to higher education level (33% [95% CI: 23-4%]). These findings indicate that stigma is a significant public health concern, and effective and comprehensive interventions are needed to counteract the damaging effects of the infodemics during infectious disease epidemics, including COVID-19, and reduce infectious disease-related stigma.
Topics: COVID-19; Communicable Diseases; Humans; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Prevalence; Zika Virus; Zika Virus Infection
PubMed: 34580416
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-021-01295-8 -
Journal of Neuroimmunology Nov 2021Background High efficacy disease modifying therapies (DMT) in the management of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) have a favorable effect on relapse rate and disability... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background High efficacy disease modifying therapies (DMT) in the management of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) have a favorable effect on relapse rate and disability progression; however, they can expose patients to significant risks, such as progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Objective The study aims to investigate prognostic factors that can determine outcome in MS-related PML patients. Methods We conducted a literature review and meta-analysis of 194 patients from 62 articles in PubMed, SCOPUS and EMBASE. Results Out of 194 patients (66.5% women, 33.5% men), 81% had progression in their EDSS score by at least 1 point from the time of PML diagnosis (EDSS-P group). The remaining patients had either stable or improved EDSS (EDSS-S group). In univariate analysis, older age at the time of PML diagnosis was associated with higher probability of disability accumulation and worsening of EDSS by at least 1 point (mean age = 44.8, p = 0.046). After adjusting for other variables, age at time of PML diagnosis remained a significant predictive variable in the multivariable logistic model (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88-0.99, p = 0.037). Natalizumab is the most commonly associated DMT linked to PML, followed by fingolimod and others including dimethyl fumarate, ocrelizumab, alemtuzumab. Among the different treatments used, no therapeutic agent was found to be superior in improving post-PML EDSS. Conclusions Younger age and lower JCV viral load at the time of PML diagnosis were associated with better outcome in MS-associate PML, while none of the PML therapies was superior over the others or associated with favorable outcome.
Topics: Age Factors; Antirheumatic Agents; Cerebrospinal Fluid; Disability Evaluation; Disease Progression; Endemic Diseases; Female; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; JC Virus; Leukoencephalopathy, Progressive Multifocal; Male; Multiple Sclerosis; Natalizumab; Prognosis; Severity of Illness Index; Viral Load
PubMed: 34547511
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2021.577721 -
Food and Environmental Virology Sep 2021Water and wastewater virological quality is a significant public health issue. Viral agents include emerging and re-emerging pathogens characterized by extremely small... (Review)
Review
Water and wastewater virological quality is a significant public health issue. Viral agents include emerging and re-emerging pathogens characterized by extremely small size, and high environmental stability. Since the mainly used conventional disinfection methods are usually not able to achieve complete disinfection of viral and other microbial targets, in real water and wastewater matrices, effective strategies for the treatment, use and reuse of water and the development of next-generation water supply systems are required. The scope of the present systematic review was to summarize research data on the application of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for viral disinfection of water and wastewater. A literature survey was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. This comprehensive research yielded 23 records which met the criteria and were included and discussed in this review. Most of the studies (14/23) used only MS2 bacteriophage as an index virus, while the remaining studies (9/23) used two or more viral targets, including phages (MS2, T4, T7, phiX174, PRD-1, S2, ϕB124-14, ϕcrAssphage) and/or Adenovirus, Aichivirus, Norovirus (I, II, IV), Polyomavirus (JC and BK), Sapovirus, Enterovirus, Coxsackievirus B3, Echovirus, and Pepper mild mottle virus. The vast majority of the studies applied a combination of two or more treatments and the most frequently used process was ultraviolet light-hydrogen peroxide (UV/HO) advanced oxidation. The review is expected to highlight the potential of the AOPs for public health protection from the waterborne viral exposure.
Topics: Disinfection; Hydrogen Peroxide; Ultraviolet Rays; Wastewater; Water; Water Purification
PubMed: 34125359
DOI: 10.1007/s12560-021-09481-1