Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 associated with aircraft travel: a systematic review (Version 1)

Quality of included studies

None of the included studies reported a published protocol. The risk of bias assessment of the included studies is presented in Table 3a and Table 3b.

For the two studies on wastewater [Ahmed 2020; Albastaki 2021] the description of methods with sufficient detail to replicate the findings was considered adequate. The sample sources were clear, the analysis and reporting were considered appropriate, and there were no concerns about their applicability. However, we considered no studies adequately addressed the potential biases (Table 3b).

Regarding the in-flight transmission studies, 12/130 flights (9.2%) presented a clearly defined setting, and 1/130 flights (0.77%) adequately described demographic characteristics and sampling procedures. In 6/130 (4.6%) flights, the strategy and duration of follow-up were found sufficient for the outcome assessments. The transmission outcomes were considered to be adequately assessed for only 1/130 (0.77%) flights, and data validity concerns were taken into consideration for 2/130 (1.54%) flights (Table 3a). The overall quality of the latter category of studies was considered low (Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Risk of bias graph in studies on in-flight transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Wastewater studies

One study investigated the wastewater from three commercial passenger aircrafts [Ahmed 2020]. The results showed positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the samples processed though concentrations were close to the limit of detection (Cq values ranged from 36 to 39) (Table 2). The second study [Albastaki 2021] investigated the wastewater of 198 commercial aircrafts from 59 airport destinations from all 6 continents. The percentage of positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA was 13.6%, with Ct values ranging from 33 to 36 (Table 2).

Studies on the in-flight transmission of SARS-CoV-2

Case definitions: index cases, contacts, and secondary cases

The definition of index case varied across the studies (see Appendix 7) and included asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, and symptomatic individuals. A clear definition of the index cases was not provided for 103 flights, and the contact definitions differed between studies. Two studies, including 95 flights, did not provide any information on contacts. The case definitions for secondary infections were also variable, including asymptomatic and symptomatic passengers or crew.

Study types and contact tracing strategies

The majority of included studies presented retrospective follow-up of passengers and crew after identifying one or more index cases (Table 1, Appendix 7). Some authors also used travel and airline information data, medical records from hospitals, telephone interviews, or a notifiable disease database. A prospective study with the immediate quarantine of all the passengers was done for 2 flights [Bae 2020; Ng 2020]. Active daily contact monitoring was done in one study [Schwartz 2020], and active surveillance with quarantine of > 80% of the passengers and crew was reported for one flight [Zhang XA 2020]. The time span for initiating follow-up ranged between the day of arrival and several months. The follow-up strategies focused on passengers seated within two rows or two meters of the index case, passengers in the same section or class, or used a comprehensive approach. In addition, crew members of 25 flights were followed up for possible transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of contacts identified and traced ranged from 0.68% [Choi 2020] to 100% [Bae 2020; Chen 2020].

In total, the authors identified 19,729 passengers, 180 crew members, and 8 medical staff. Among them, they successfully traced 2.800 passengers, 140 crew members, and 8 medical staff. Three studies did not report the number of passengers or crew members on the aircraft board [Eldin 2020; Park 2020; X. A. Zhang 2020].

On-board transmission

Overall, 273 index cases were reported across 18 studies. However, three studies did not clearly report the number of index cases, and therefore, we considered the minimum number of index cases in each report [Eldin 2020; Murphy 2020; X. A. Zhang 2020].

In the index cases, laboratory diagnosis was based on RT-PCR in all 18 studies (Appendix 7). The RT-PCR timing varied from the day of arrival to day 11 after the flight, and passengers were pre-symptomatic, symptomatic, or asymptomatic. Fifteen studies report a binary result (positive/negative) for passengers or crew from 127 flights, including 239 cases [Bae 2020; Chen 2020; Choi 2020; Eldin 2020; Hoehl 2020; Khanh 2020; Kong 2020; Murphy 2020; Ng 2020; Pavli 2020; Schwartz 2020; Speake 2020; Yang 2020; J. Zhang 2020; X. A. Zhang 2020]. The RT-PCR Ct was reported for 34 index cases from three flights [Nir-Paz 2020; Park 2020; Swadi 2021].

Only three index cases reported in two studies had a positive RT-PCR test at a Ct value < 25 [Nir-Paz 2020; Swadi 2021]. One study reported that among the 30 index cases, 23 upper respiratory samples were positive at a median Ct of 27 (interquartile range 22.1-32.0), and 27 lower respiratory tract samples were positive at a median Ct of 26.4 (interquartile range 22.7 – 28.8) [Park 2020].

In total, 64 secondary cases were reported (59 passengers and 5 crew members). The number of secondary cases was not clear in 3 reports [Kong 2020; Murphy 2020; X. A. Zhang 2020]. Three studies, each investigating one flight, reported no secondary cases [Nir-Paz 2020; Schwartz 2020; Yang 2020]. The secondary attack rate (number of secondary cases / all successfully traced persons) among the studies that followed-up > 80% of the passengers and crew [Bae 2020; Chen 2020; Khanh 2020; Kong 2020; Ng 2020; Nir-Paz 2020; Pavli 2020; Swadi 2021; X.A. Zhang 2020], varied between 0% [Nir-Paz 2020] and 8.2% [Khanh 2020]. However, GS was performed only in one study that reported a secondary attack rate of 4.76% [Swadi 2020].

The secondary cases were asymptomatic or symptomatic individuals. The symptoms onset day ranged from the first day after arrival to the 24^th day after arrival. They presented an RT-PCR test positive for SARS-CoV-2. The sample collection timing ranged from the second to the 16^th day after arrival. In one study [Hoehl 2020], the diagnosis of secondary infection was based on SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, performed on week 7 or week 9 after the flight.

The seating position of secondary cases in relation to the index cases was specified for 24 flights across eight studies [Bae 2020; Chen 2020; Hoehl 2020; Khanh 2020; Kong 2020; Pavli 2020; Speake 2020; Swadi 2021], with 27 passengers seated within 2 rows or 2 meters [Chen 2020; Hoehl 2020; Khanh 2020; Pavli 2020; Speake 2020; Swadi 2021] and one crew member who served the index cases [Pavly 2020], and four studies reported eight passengers seated outside of 2 rows (or presumed 2 meters) from the index cases, and one crew [Bae 2020; Khanh 2020; Kong 2020; Speake 2020). The seating position of the secondary cases was not specified in eight studies for 102 flights [Choi 2020; Eldin 2020; Murphy 2020; Ng 2020; Park 2020; Yang 2020; J. Zhang 2020; X. A. Zhang 2020].

Regarding the use of masks, one study reported the use of N95 masks [Bae 2020], one study reported the use of FFP2 masks [Nir-Paz 2020], while seven studies did not report on masking of passengers or crew [Choi 2020; Eldin 2020; Khanh 2020; Kong 2020; Park 2020; Pavli 2020; X. A. Zhang 2020].

Alternative exposures were not fully assessed in 13 studies including for 32 flights [Chen, 2020; Choi 2020; Eldin 2020; Kong 2020; Murphy 2020; Ng 2020; Park 2020; Pavli 2020; Schwartz 2020; Speake 2020; Swadi 2021; Yang 2020; X. A. Zhang 2020]. Furthermore, in three studies including 21 flights, some secondary cases were family members [Ng 2020; Pavli 2020; X. A. Zhang 2020].

In eleven studies, asymptomatic passengers or crew members from 106 flights were not tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection [Choi 2020; Eldin 2020; Hoehl 2020; Kong 2020; Ng 2020; Park 2020; Schwartz 2020; Speake 2020; Yang 2020; J. Zhang 2020; X. A. Zhang 2020).

Genome sequencing (GS) and phylogenetic analysis

Genome sequencing and phylogenic analysis were performed in individuals from four flights [Choi 2020; Murphy 2020; Speake 2020; Swadi 2021]. The methods used for performing these investigations were essentially similar across the studies (see Table 4). The completeness of coverage of the positive samples ranged from 81-100% across the studies. The phylogenetic analysis showed more than 99% similarity across the entire viral genomes.

One study investigating the near full-length genomes from two index cases and two secondary cases found that they were 100% identical and phylogenetically grouped to the same clade; all deduced sequences had a minimum coverage of 100 [Choi 2020].

In another study, the authors performed GS in 5 of the 13 flight-associated cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection. They found 99% homology across the entire virus genome in all 5 cases [Murphy 2020].

A third study [Speake 2020] reported that sufficient viral RNA was available to generate an adequate sequence for 25 of the 29 samples that were RT-PCR positive. The authors obtained 100% coverage for 21 and partial coverage (81%–99%) for 4 samples. The phylogenetic tree for the 21 complete genomes revealed that they belonged to either the A.2 (n = 17) or B.1 (n = 4) sublineages of SARS-CoV-2. All of the complete A.2 sequences belonged to a distinct genomic cluster separated by <2 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. The 4 B.1 viruses comprised 3 B.1.31 and 1 phylogenetically more distant B.1 strain. Of the 4 partial sequences, 3 clustered with the A2 strains, and the other was designated B.1.1 and was phylogenetically close to the B.1.31 sequences [Speake 2020].

On another flight, the authors demonstrated that the viral sequences of the index cases and the secondary cases were assigned to lineage B.1 and were genetically identical, apart from 1 mutation from the sample from one secondary case [Swadi 202]). Three studies used databases (e.g., GISAID) to identify the country of the source of infection [Choi 2020; Speake 2020; Swadi 2021].

Viral cultures

Two studies [Nir-Paz 2020; Speake 2020] performed viral culture (Table 1, Table 5, Appendix 7). One study [Nir-Paz., 2020] reported that one asymptomatic index case presented positive viral cultures 4 days after arrival. No data was provided on the methods used for the cultures. The Ct value of RT-PCR, performed on the first day after arrival was 24. The authors report that the passenger presented an RT-PCR positive for 26 days, but the latter Ct values are not specified [Nir-Paz 2020].

In another study [Speake 2020], viral cultures were performed using Vero E6 cells. Specimens were inspected for cytopathic effects daily for up to 10 days. The authors attempted to culture 17 PCR-positive specimens, nine (53%) of which grew SARS-CoV-2. Of note, 4/11 persons who were infectious on the flight had culture-positive specimens collected the next day.

Summary of main findings

We identified 18 studies assessing the in-flight transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and 2 studies investigating the presence of the virus in the wastewater of aircrafts. The evidence from the studies reporting on the on-board transmission suggests that the risk of infection could be higher in individuals seated within 2 rows of the index cases. Nonetheless, identifying secondary cases seated within a greater distance limits the evidence for restricting the contact tracing to this area.

Regarding the duration of the flight, there were short, medium, and long flights with a low or a high number of secondary cases. For example, in one short flight, of approximately two hours, the authors reported two index cases and five secondary cases [Pavli 2020]. Another study investigating a flight that lasted 18 hours reported two index cases and four secondary cases [Swadi 2021]. The hypothesis on the assumption that the risk of transmission increases with the length of flight due to higher exposure postulated in other airborne diseases [Dowdall 2010] needs further investigation.

It is not clear whether the use of masks can prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in flights. The flights where some of the passengers and crew used FFP2 masks [Nir-Paz 2020] or N95 masks [Bae 2020] presented an attack rate of 0% and 0.32% respectively. However, the authors did not specify if a “fit test” was performed to assess if the mask fits and seals properly so potentially contaminated air cannot leak into the respirator. Furthermore, most of the studies did not provide clear data on the masking of passengers and crew.

The included studies reported on the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or symptomatic individuals. However, a major limitation of most studies consisted of the possibility of asymptomatic index cases transmitting the infection and of asymptomatic secondary cases not being investigated due to lack of any symptoms, with lowering the quality of case ascertainment.

In addition, the number of studies that reported on Ct of RT-PCR is limited; therefore, case ascertainments are likely to be biased [Jefferson 2021]. The timeline of the sample collections also is suggestive of bias in some studies.

The four studies that performed GS and phylogenetic analysis [Choi 2020; Murphy 2020; Speake 2020; Swadi 2021] report higher quality reliable evidence, indicating that aircraft may be a setting associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission. GS alone cannot prove the presence of infectious materials, as the amplicon-based methods now often used to assemble SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences require only viral RNA. Nor can amplification-based SARS-CoV-2 sequencing exclude infections caused by other agents such as rhinoviruses and OC43. However, such methods do provide secure phylogenetic insights into the relationship between the putative index and secondary cases. Nonetheless, the use of databases like Global initiative on sharing all influenza data (GISAID) to ascertain transmission may induce bias. A recent review [Furuse, 2021] found that, even though many developing countries have high numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases, they have few published sequences. Such missing data could create bias in a phylogeographic analysis to elucidate the global transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. Substantial gaps in global sequencing data may impede the accurate identification of a source of infection.

The positive results of viral cultures observed in two studies [Nir-Paz 2020; Speake 2020] bring further evidence on aircraft transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The positive viral cultures of index cases indicate that infectious virus was present, with potential for transmission to the secondary cases. The transmission of the virus to the secondary cases is documented by the evidence that the index case was contaminated (i.e., Ct values <25) with infectious virus (i.e., cultivatible e virus); the spread is confirmed by genetic sequencing, associated with the proof that they were clearly exposed to the virus in the environment (i.e., the route of transmission). It is noteworthy that samples from the environment were not performed in any of the studies.

Nonetheless, the authors of one study [Nir-Paz 2020] did not report on the methods used for viral cultures, and they did not perform a GS. They report non-transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to the other passengers of the flight, based on RT-PCR results, but the Ct values of the other individuals are not provided.

The second study [Speake 2020] had an elegant design with WGS and viral cultures. They did not provide Cts which would have provided additional insights into the relative abundance of infectious materials in the environment.

Similar to previous studies on aircraft transmission of pathogens [Leitmeyer & Adlhoch 2016], the validity of many studies is limited by the possibility of alternative exposures. Some common sites of alternative exposures include sites before the flight (i.e., waiting spaces), during flight (i.e., at the lavatory, movement of passengers during flight), and after landing (i.e., lining up to exit the aircraft, security checkpoints, documents check).

The variations observed in the contact tracing strategies, the timeliness of contact tracing, the proportion of passengers and crew successfully traced, the use of different case definitions, the testing strategy, and case ascertainment also give rise to further doubts about the validity of the overall findings.

Our review results are consistent with the suggestion that transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can occur in aircrafts but is a relatively rare event. Similar to the close contact transmission [Onakpoya 2021a], the research shows evidence of positive virus cultures as well as genomic evidence of on-board transmission in one study [Speake 2020]. However, the route of transmission needs further investigation. For example, recent systematic reviews reported a lack of positive viral cultures in studies on airborne [Heneghan 2021 a] and fomite transmission [Onakpoya 2021b]. Up to date, positive viral cultures were demonstrated only by studies on orofecal transmission [Heneghan 2021b] transmission.

This review did not address a comparison of risk between aircraft and non-aircraft settings. Furthermore, there is currently little evidence on the risk for transmission within comparable, non-aircraft settings (i.e. enclosed spaces like theaters or subways), with air exchange filtration system, mask wearing and minimal movement once in place, with variable screening strategies before entry.

To our knowledge, no other systematic review of the literature has been undertaken to assess the evidence for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 aboard aircraft. We performed an extensive search of the literature for eligible studies, accounted for the quality of included studies, and have reported outcomes (GS and viral cultures). We included results from one non-peer-reviewed study, which may affect the reliability of the review results. However, due to the ongoing pandemic, such studies could potentially be of research benefit.

The limitations in this review are mainly related to the quality of the included studies and the fact that we could not ascertain with certainty if two papers were reporting on the same flight [Chen 2020; Yang 2020]. In addition, the data extraction was challenging due to missing, incomplete, or unclear descriptions of the investigations. In addition, we may not have identified all relevant studies examining the SARS-CoV-2 transmission of aircraft associated transmission events.

Our findings emphasize the need for a standardized approach to investigation and reporting on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 aboard aircraft.

Future studies should aim for comprehensive assessment of passengers and crew, with a complete follow-up strategy. Factors that may influence transmission, such as infectivity of the index case (asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic, or symptomatic, with or without mask), the susceptibility of passengers (previous COVID-19 infection or vaccination, wearing or not of masks), and effectiveness of exposure (proximity to the index case, duration of exposure, technical specifications of the airplane, quality of cabin air) should be consistently assessed across studies.

Research should include Ct values when reporting RT-PCR results and describe the timing and sample collection methods. In addition, further studies, including virus isolation, whole-genome sequencing, and phylogenetic analysis, should be conducted to strengthen the current evidence. Therefore, standardization of research reporting should be a priority. Furthermore, new studies should take into account other factors that might impact transmission patterns, including natural immunity and vaccination coverage.

Conclusion

Current evidence indicates that the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 aboard aircraft is low, but the published data do not permit any conclusive assessment of the likelihood and extent. Furthermore, the quality of evidence from most published studies is low. The variation in study design and methodology restricts the analysis of findings across studies. Standardized guidelines for the reporting of future research should be developed.