Brainard Julii, Pond Katherine, Hooper Lee, Edmunds Kelly, Hunter Paul
University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Feb 29;10(2):e0004475. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0004475. eCollection 2016 Feb.
The 2013-15 Ebola outbreak was unprecedented due to sustained transmission within urban environments and thousands of survivors. In 2014 the World Health Organization stated that there was insufficient evidence to give definitive guidance about which body fluids are infectious and when they pose a risk to humans. We report a rapid systematic review of published evidence on the presence of filoviruses in body fluids of infected people and survivors.
Scientific articles were screened for information about filovirus in human body fluids. The aim was to find primary data that suggested high likelihood of actively infectious filovirus in human body fluids (viral RNA). Eligible infections were from Marburg virus (MARV or RAVV) and Zaire, Sudan, Taï Forest and Bundibugyo species of Ebola. Cause of infection had to be laboratory confirmed (in practice either tissue culture or RT-PCR tests), or evidenced by compatible clinical history with subsequent positivity for filovirus antibodies or inflammatory factors. Data were extracted and summarized narratively.
6831 unique articles were found, and after screening, 33 studies were eligible. For most body fluid types there were insufficient patients to draw strong conclusions, and prevalence of positivity was highly variable. Body fluids taken >16 days after onset were usually negative. In the six studies that used both assay methods RT-PCR tests for filovirus RNA gave positive results about 4 times more often than tissue culture.
Filovirus was reported in most types of body fluid, but not in every sample from every otherwise confirmed patient. Apart from semen, most non-blood, RT-PCR positive samples are likely to be culture negative and so possibly of low infectious risk. Nevertheless, it is not apparent how relatively infectious many body fluids are during or after illness, even when culture-positive, not least because most test results come from more severe cases. Contact with blood and blood-stained body fluids remains the major risk for disease transmission because of the known high viral loads in blood.
2013 - 2015年的埃博拉疫情是前所未有的,因为其在城市环境中持续传播且产生了数千名幸存者。2014年,世界卫生组织表示,没有足够的证据来给出关于哪些体液具有传染性以及它们何时对人类构成风险的明确指导。我们报告了一项关于已发表的有关感染人群和幸存者体液中丝状病毒存在情况的证据的快速系统评价。
筛选科学文章以获取有关人体体液中丝状病毒的信息。目的是找到表明人体体液中存在高活性传染性丝状病毒(病毒RNA)的可能性很大的原始数据。符合条件的感染来自马尔堡病毒(MARV或RAVV)以及埃博拉病毒的扎伊尔、苏丹、塔伊森林和本迪布焦毒株。感染原因必须经实验室确认(实际上是组织培养或逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)检测),或者有相符的临床病史以及随后丝状病毒抗体或炎症因子呈阳性作为证据。提取数据并进行叙述性总结。
共找到6831篇独特的文章,筛选后有33项研究符合条件。对于大多数体液类型,患者数量不足,无法得出有力结论,阳性率差异很大。发病16天以后采集的体液通常为阴性。在同时使用两种检测方法的6项研究中,丝状病毒RNA的RT-PCR检测呈阳性的结果比组织培养多约4倍。
大多数体液类型中都报告有丝状病毒,但并非每个经其他方式确诊的患者的每个样本中都有。除精液外,大多数非血液的RT-PCR阳性样本可能培养呈阴性,因此传染性风险可能较低。然而,即使培养呈阳性,也不清楚许多体液在患病期间或之后的相对传染性如何,尤其是因为大多数检测结果来自病情较重的病例。由于已知血液中的病毒载量很高,接触血液和沾有血液的体液仍然是疾病传播的主要风险。