| Literature DB >> 32483934 |
Kam Lun Hon1, Karen Ka Yan Leung1, Alexander K C Leung2, Siddharth Sridhar3, Suyun Qian4, So Lun Lee5, Andrew A Colin6.
Abstract
Many respiratory viral infections such as influenza and measles result in severe acute respiratory symptoms and epidemics. In the spring of 2003, an epidemic of coronavirus pneumonia spread from Guangzhou to Hong Kong and subsequently to the rest of the world. The WHO coined the acronym SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) and subsequently the causative virus as SARS-CoV. In the summer of 2012, epidemic of pneumonia occurred again in Saudi Arabia which was subsequently found to be caused by another novel coronavirus. WHO coined the term MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) to denote the Middle East origin of the novel virus (MERS-CoV). In the winter of 2019, another outbreak of pneumonia occurred in Wuhan, China which rapidly spread globally. Yet another novel coronavirus was identified as the culprit and has been named SARS-CoV-2 due to its similarities with SARS-CoV, and the disease as coronavirus disease-2019. This overview aims to compare and contrast the similarities and differences of these three major episodes of coronavirus outbreak, and conclude that they are essentially the same viral respiratory syndromes caused by similar strains of coronavirus with different names. Coronaviruses have caused major epidemics and outbreaks worldwide in the last two decades. From an epidemiological perspective, they are remarkably similar in the mode of spread by droplets. Special focus is placed on the pediatric aspects, which carry less morbidity and mortality in all three entities.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19, MERS-CoV; Middle East respiratory syndrome; SARS-CoV; SARS-CoV-2; acute respiratory distress syndrome; severe acute respiratory syndrome
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32483934 PMCID: PMC7301034 DOI: 10.1002/ppul.24810
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pediatr Pulmonol ISSN: 1099-0496
Comparing SARS, MERS, and COVID‐19 associated with coronavirus infection
| Nomenclature | SARS 2003 | MERS 2012 | COVID‐19 (previously as SARI then 2019 nCoV) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Virus | SARS‐CoV | MERS‐CoV | SARS‐CoV‐2 |
| Epidemic | |||
| Origin | Foshan city, China | Saudi Arabia | Wuhan, China |
| Source | Likely from bats, via palm civets | Likely from bat, via dromedary camels | Likely from bats, via pangolins |
| Spread | Animal to human, then human‐to‐human | Animal to human, limited human‐to‐human cases | Animal to human, then human‐to‐human |
| Duration of epidemic | Nov 2002 to July 2003, no further case since 2004 | Since 2012 until today | December 2019 until today |
| Global effect | 29 countries | 27 countries, 84% from Saudi Arabia | Pandemic now |
| Number of cases worldwide | 8096 | 2494 (still escalating) | Over 3.6 million (still escalating) |
| Pediatric cases | Yes, around 135 reported case | Yes | Yes, estimated around 176,190 (still escalating) |
| Healthcare workers infected | 21%, 1706 cases | 17.9% | 3.8% ‐ 20% |
| Age affected | Median 50 | Median 52 y | Majority 30‐79 y (86.6%) |
| Range 1‐91 y | IRQ 37‐65 y | ||
| Sex (M, F) | M: 43%, F:57% | M: 64.5%, F: 35.5% | M: 51.4%, F:48.6% |
| Clinical features | |||
| Principal symptoms | Fever, cough, shortness of breath, diarrhea | Fever, cough, diarrhea, and shortness of breath | Fever, cough, dyspnea |
| Incubation period | 2‐10 d | Median 5.2 d | Mean: 5 d |
| Range 2‐13 d | Range 2‐14 d | ||
| Travel history | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Basic reproduction number, R0 | Approximately 3 | <1 | Average 4.2 |
| 1‐5.7, during healthcare associated outbreak | Range: 1.5‐6.49 | ||
| Outcome | |||
| Major morbidity | Osteonecrosis | No data | No data |
| Mortality | 9.6%, 774 deaths | 34.4%, 858 deaths | 7%, over 257,207 deaths (still escalating) |
| Pediatricmortality | No death | 2 deaths | Less than 10 deaths, mainly teenagers |
| Treatment | |||
| Antivirals and treatment | Supportive, ribavirin +corticosteroid | Nil, supportive | Supportive |
| Maybe remdesivir, lopinavir/litonavir, hydroxychloroquine | |||
Abbreviations: COVID‐19, coronavirus disease‐19; MERS, Middle East respiratory syndrome; SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome.
SARS acronym: more cons than pros
|
|
|
The clinical definition can be applied to any similar epidemics for surveillance without knowing the culprit pathogen. |
|
Sensitive. |
|
The SARS concept of surveillance is easy to apply in epidemics. |
|
The acronym is used even in afebrile, asymptomatic carriers or patients with mild and extrapulmonary symptoms in some laboratory‐confirmed SARS patients. |
|
|
|
Stigmatizing many patients because the definition is too nonspecific or too sensitive. |
|
May not be used for a non‐coronavirus (eg, influenza or measles) or another novel coronavirus (eg, MERS) even if the symptoms are severe, acute and respiratory. |
|
May miss nonfebrile patients or patients with extrapulmonary symptoms. |
|
Contact or travel history is only good in early phase of an epidemic. |
|
New acronym has to be coined (eg, MERS for Middle East respiratory syndrome, WARS for Wuhan acute respiratory syndrome, CARS for Canton and MARS for Macau or Moscow acute respiratory syndrome, and COVID‐19 for coronavirus disease in 2019). |
Abbreviation: SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome.