Binary file ES_Abstracts_Final_ECDC.txt matches

IMPORTANCE Controversy remains regarding the transmission routes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).OBJECTIVE To review current evidence on air contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings and the factors associated with contamination, including viral load and particle size. EVIDENCE REVIEWThe MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically queried for original English-language articles detailing SARS-CoV-2 air contamination in hospital settings between January 1 and October 27, 2020. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and culture were described and compared according to the setting, clinical context, air ventilation system, and distance from patients. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies per meter cubed of air were pooled, and their distribution was described by hospital areas. Particle sizes and SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies or median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) per meter cubed were analyzed after categorization as less than 1 μm, from 1 to 4 μm, and greater than 4 μm. FINDINGS Among 2284 records identified, 24 cross-sectional observational studies were included in the review. Overall, 82 of 471 air samples (17.4%) from close patient environments were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, with a significantly higher positivity rate in intensive care unit settings (intensive care unit, 27 of 107 [25.2%] vs non-intensive care unit, 39 of 364 [10.7%]; P < .001). There was no difference according to the distance from patients (Յ1 m, 3 of 118 [2.5%] vs >1-5 m, 13 of 236 [5.5%]; P = .22). The positivity rate was 5 of 21 air samples (23.8%) in toilets, 20 of 242 (8.3%) in clinical areas, 15 of 122 (12.3%) in staff areas, and 14 of 42 (33.3%) in public areas. A total of 81 viral cultures were performed across 5 studies, and 7 (8.6%) from 2 studies were positive, all from close patient environments. The median (interquartile range) SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations varied from 1.0 × 10 3 copies/m 3 (0.4 × 10 3 to 3.1 × 10 3 copies/m 3 ) in clinical areas to 9.7 × 10 3 copies/m 3 (5.1 × 10 3 to 14.3 × 10 3 copies/m 3 ) in the air of toilets or bathrooms. Protective equipment removal and patient rooms had high concentrations per titer of SARS-CoV-2 (varying from 0.9 × 10 3 to 40 × 10 3 copies/m 3 and 3.8 × 10 3 to 7.2 × 10 3 TCID50/m 3 ), with aerosol size distributions that showed peaks in the region of particle size less than 1 μm; staff offices had peaks in the region of particle size greater than 4 μm. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this systematic review, the air close to and distant from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 was frequently contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA; however, few of these samples contained viable viruses. High viral loads found in toilets and bathrooms, staff areas, and public hallways suggest that these areas should be carefully considered.

A sustained reduction of MRSA burden can be obtained at the scale of a large hospital institution with high endemic MRSA rates, providing that an intensive program is maintained for a long period.

In 2009, following the occurrence of several outbreaks of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), a programme for controlling the spread of CPE was implemented in the 38 hospitals of the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, a 21,000-bed institution. This programme included recommendations to isolate, and screen for CPE, patients previously hospitalised abroad, and bundled measures to control cross transmission (barrier precautions, dedicated staff and screening of contact patients). From 2004 to 2012, 140 CPE index cases were identified, 17 leading to outbreaks. After application of the programme, in spite of an increase in the number of CPE index cases epidemiologically linked with a recent stay or hospitalisation abroad, the proportion of cases followed by outbreaks, which was 40% (4/10) before 2009, decreased to 10% (13/130) (p=0.02), and the proportion of secondary cases among all CPE cases decreased from 69% (22/32) to 23% (38/168), (p<0.001). The number of secondary cases varied significantly depending on the speed and strength of the measures implemented around the CPE index case: quick (within two days of patient admission at the hospital) setting of nursing staff dedicated to the patient, quick setting of simple barrier precautions, or delayed measures of control (p=0.001). A sustained and coordinated strategy can lead to control CPE at the level of a large regional multi-hospital institution in a country where CPE are at an emerging stage.

No abstract