Nussbaumer-Streit Barbara, Mayr Verena, Dobrescu Andreea Iulia, Chapman Andrea, Persad Emma, Klerings Irma, Wagner Gernot, Siebert Uwe, Ledinger Dominic, Zachariah Casey, Gartlehner Gerald
Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.
Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT - University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Sep 15;9(9):CD013574. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013574.pub2.
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly emerging disease classified as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). To support the WHO with their recommendations on quarantine, we conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of quarantine during severe coronavirus outbreaks.
To assess the effects of quarantine (alone or in combination with other measures) of individuals who had contact with confirmed or suspected cases of COVID-19, who travelled from countries with a declared outbreak, or who live in regions with high disease transmission.
An information specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and updated the search in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, WHO Global Index Medicus, Embase, and CINAHL on 23 June 2020.
Cohort studies, case-control studies, time series, interrupted time series, case series, and mathematical modelling studies that assessed the effect of any type of quarantine to control COVID-19. We also included studies on SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) as indirect evidence for the current coronavirus outbreak.
Two review authors independently screened abstracts and titles in duplicate. Two review authors then independently screened all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE and a second review author checked the assessment. We used three different tools to assess risk of bias, depending on the study design: ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies of interventions, a tool provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-randomised, non-controlled studies, and recommendations from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) for modelling studies. We rated the certainty of evidence for the four primary outcomes: incidence, onward transmission, mortality, and costs.
We included 51 studies; 4 observational studies and 28 modelling studies on COVID-19, one observational and one modelling study on MERS, three observational and 11 modelling studies on SARS, and three modelling studies on SARS and other infectious diseases. Because of the diverse methods of measurement and analysis across the outcomes of interest, we could not conduct a meta-analysis and undertook a narrative synthesis. We judged risk of bias to be moderate for 2/3 non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and serious for 1/3 NRSI. We rated risk of bias moderate for 4/5 non-controlled cohort studies, and serious for 1/5. We rated modelling studies as having no concerns for 13 studies, moderate concerns for 17 studies and major concerns for 13 studies. Quarantine for individuals who were in contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case in comparison to no quarantine Modelling studies consistently reported a benefit of the simulated quarantine measures, for example, quarantine of people exposed to confirmed or suspected cases may have averted 44% to 96% of incident cases and 31% to 76% of deaths compared to no measures based on different scenarios (incident cases: 6 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS; mortality: 2 modelling studies on COVID-19, 1 on SARS, low-certainty evidence). Studies also indicated that there may be a reduction in the basic reproduction number ranging from 37% to 88% due to the implementation of quarantine (5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the earlier quarantine measures are implemented, the greater the cost savings may be (2 modelling studies on SARS). Quarantine in combination with other measures to contain COVID-19 in comparison to other measures without quarantine or no measures When the models combined quarantine with other prevention and control measures, such as school closures, travel restrictions and social distancing, the models demonstrated that there may be a larger effect on the reduction of new cases, transmissions and deaths than measures without quarantine or no interventions (incident cases: 9 modelling studies on COVID-19; onward transmission: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19; mortality: 5 modelling studies on COVID-19, low-certainty evidence). Studies on SARS and MERS were consistent with findings from the studies on COVID-19. Quarantine for individuals travelling from a country with a declared COVID-19 outbreak compared to no quarantine Very low-certainty evidence indicated that the effect of quarantine of travellers from a country with a declared outbreak on reducing incidence and deaths may be small for SARS, but might be larger for COVID-19 (2 observational studies on COVID-19 and 2 observational studies on SARS).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence is limited because most studies on COVID-19 are mathematical modelling studies that make different assumptions on important model parameters. Findings consistently indicate that quarantine is important in reducing incidence and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic, although there is uncertainty over the magnitude of the effect. Early implementation of quarantine and combining quarantine with other public health measures is important to ensure effectiveness. In order to maintain the best possible balance of measures, decision makers must constantly monitor the outbreak and the impact of the measures implemented. This review was originally commissioned by the WHO and supported by Danube-University-Krems. The update was self-initiated by the review authors.
2019年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)是一种迅速出现的疾病,世界卫生组织(WHO)将其列为大流行病。为了支持WHO制定隔离建议,我们对严重冠状病毒疫情期间隔离措施的有效性进行了快速综述。
评估对接触过COVID-19确诊或疑似病例、来自宣布有疫情国家的旅行者或生活在疾病传播率高的地区的个人实施隔离(单独或与其他措施联合)的效果。
一名信息专家检索了Cochrane COVID-19研究注册库,并于2020年6月23日更新了在PubMed、Ovid MEDLINE、WHO全球医学索引、Embase和CINAHL中的检索。
评估任何类型隔离措施对控制COVID-19效果的队列研究、病例对照研究、时间序列研究、中断时间序列研究、病例系列研究和数学建模研究。我们还纳入了关于严重急性呼吸综合征(SARS)和中东呼吸综合征(MERS)的研究,作为当前冠状病毒疫情的间接证据。
两名综述作者独立进行重复的摘要和标题筛选。然后,两名综述作者独立筛选所有可能相关的全文出版物。一名综述作者提取数据、评估偏倚风险并使用GRADE评估证据的确定性,另一名综述作者检查评估结果。根据研究设计,我们使用三种不同工具评估偏倚风险:针对干预性非随机研究的ROBINS-I、Cochrane儿童癌症组织提供的针对非随机、非对照研究的工具以及国际药物经济学和成果研究协会(ISPOR)针对建模研究的建议。我们对四个主要结局的证据确定性进行了评级:发病率、传播、死亡率和成本。
我们纳入了51项研究;4项关于COVID-19的观察性研究和28项建模研究、1项关于MERS的观察性研究和1项建模研究、3项关于SARS的观察性研究和11项建模研究以及3项关于SARS和其他传染病的建模研究。由于感兴趣结局的测量和分析方法多样,我们无法进行荟萃分析,因此进行了叙述性综合分析。我们判断2/3的干预性非随机研究(NRSIs)的偏倚风险为中等,1/3的NRSIs偏倚风险为严重。我们将4/5的非对照队列研究的偏倚风险评为中等,1/5评为严重。我们将建模研究评为13项无担忧、17项有中等担忧和13项有主要担忧。与不进行隔离相比,对接触COVID-19确诊/疑似病例的个体进行隔离建模研究一致报告了模拟隔离措施的益处,例如,与不采取措施相比,对接触确诊或疑似病例的人进行隔离可能避免了44%至96%的发病病例和31%至76%的死亡,具体取决于不同情景(发病病例:6项关于COVID-19的建模研究、1项关于SARS的建模研究;死亡率:2项关于COVID-19的建模研究、1项关于SARS的建模研究,证据确定性低)。研究还表明,由于实施隔离,基本再生数可能降低37%至88%(5项关于COVID-19的建模研究,证据确定性低)。证据确定性极低表明,隔离措施实施得越早可能节省的成本就越大(2项关于SARS的建模研究)。与不进行隔离或不采取措施的其他措施相比,将隔离与其他措施联合以控制COVID-19当模型将隔离与其他预防和控制措施(如学校关闭、旅行限制和社交距离)联合时,模型表明,与不进行隔离或不采取干预措施相比,对减少新病例、传播和死亡可能有更大的效果(发病病例:9项关于COVID-19的建模研究;传播:!项关于COVID-19的建模研究;死亡率:5项关于COVID-19的建模研究,证据确定性低)。关于SARS和MERS的研究与关于COVID-19的研究结果一致。与不进行隔离相比,对来自宣布有COVID-!9疫情国家的旅行者进行隔离证据确定性极低表明,对来自宣布有疫情国家的旅行者进行隔离对降低SARS发病率和死亡率的效果可能较小,但对COVID-19可能较大(2项关于COVID-19的观察性研究和2项关于SARS的观察性研究)。
目前的证据有限,因为大多数关于COVID-19的研究是数学建模研究,这些研究对重要模型参数做出了不同假设。研究结果一致表明,隔离在降低COVID-19大流行期间的发病率和死亡率方面很重要,尽管效果大小存在不确定性。尽早实施隔离并将隔离与其他公共卫生措施相结合对于确保有效性很重要。为了保持措施的最佳平衡,决策者必须持续监测疫情以及所实施措施的影响。本综述最初由WHO委托,多瑙河克雷姆斯大学提供支持。更新由综述作者自行发起。