4.5 Review

Review of infective dose, routes of transmission and outcome of COVID-19 caused by the SARS-COV-2: comparison with other respiratory viruses

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY AND INFECTION
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268821000790

关键词

COVID-19; infective dose; respiratory viruses; SARS-CoV-2; viral dynamics; viral load

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A rapid review of the literature on SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics revealed limited understanding of infective dose, transmission, and routes of exposure in human studies. Increased viral load did not necessarily correlate with disease severity. Aerosol transmission may raise the risk of more severe respiratory complications.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is pandemic. Prevention and control strategies require an improved understanding of SARS-CoV-2 dynamics. We did a rapid review of the literature on SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics with a focus on infective dose. We sought comparisons of SARS-CoV-2 with other respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. We examined laboratory animal and human studies. The literature on infective dose, transmission and routes of exposure was limited specially in humans, and varying endpoints were used for measurement of infection. Despite variability in animal studies, there was some evidence that increased dose at exposure correlated with higher viral load clinically, and severe symptoms. Higher viral load measures did not reflect coronavirus disease 2019 severity. Aerosol transmission seemed to raise the risk of more severe respiratory complications in animals. An accurate quantitative estimate of the infective dose of SARS-CoV-2 in humans is not currently feasible and needs further research. Our review suggests that it is small, perhaps about 100 particles. Further work is also required on the relationship between routes of transmission, infective dose, co-infection and outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据