Back to Search Start Over

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of orofecal transmission: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Authors :
Carl J. Heneghan
Elizabeth A. Spencer
Jon Brassey
Annette Plüddemann
Igho J. Onakpoya
David H. Evans
John M. Conly
Tom Jefferson
Author Affiliations :
<relatesTo>1</relatesTo>Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK<br /><relatesTo>2</relatesTo>Trip Database Ltd, Newport, NP20 3PS, UK<br /><relatesTo>3</relatesTo>Department of Medical Microbiology & Immunology, Li Ka Shing Institute of Virology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E1, Canada<br /><relatesTo>4</relatesTo>Alberta Health Service, University of Calgary, Calgary, T2N 4Z6, Canada
Source :
F1000Research. 10:231
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
London, UK: F1000 Research Limited, 2021.

Abstract

Background: Modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are of key public health importance. SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the feces of some COVID-19 patients, suggesting the possibility that the virus could, in addition to droplet and fomite transmission, be transmitted via the orofecal route. Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of COVID-19. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO COVID-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on five criteria and report important findings. Where necessary, authors are contacted for further details on the content of their articles. Results: We include searches up until 20 December 2020. We included 110 relevant studies: 76 primary observational studies or reports, and 35 reviews (one cohort study also included a review) examining the potential role of orofecal transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Of the observational studies, 37 were done in China. A total of 48 studies (n=9,081 patients) reported single cases, case series or cohort data on individuals with COVID-19 diagnosis or their contacts and 46 (96%) detected binary RT-PCR with 535 out of 1358 samples positive for SARS-CoV-2 (average 39.4%). The results suggest a long duration of fecal shedding, often recorded after respiratory samples tested negative, and symptoms of gastrointestinal disease were reported in several studies. Twenty-nine studies reported finding SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater, river water or toilet areas. Six studies attempted viral culture from COVID-19 patients’ fecal samples: culture was successful in 3 of 6 studies, and one study demonstrated invasion of the virus into intestinal epithelial cells. Conclusions: Varied observational and mechanistic evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 can infect and be shed from the gastrointestinal tract, including some data demonstrating viral culture in fecal samples. To fully assess these risks, quantitative data on infectious virus in these settings and infectious dose are needed.

Details

ISSN :
20461402
Volume :
10
Database :
F1000Research
Journal :
F1000Research
Notes :
Revised Amendments from Version 1 Thank you to both reviewers who offered suggestions to improve the manuscript; we have made additions and edits to include their suggestions. We have added a definition for viral load. We have added an explanation that these studies do not provide an estimate of infectious virus concentration and that it is not reasonable to deduce human transmission risk from PCR positive samples. We note that there may be overlap in included studies, but that we have no adequate means to identify this; we also explain that the reviews may also overlap. We note that limited data on sex or by age-group precluded additional investigation into these factors. We are grateful that the error in the table was noticed and we have deleted this unnecessary total number from the table. The issue of how many studies were available as preprints and how these varied by study type is interesting but beyond the scope of this review, not least because this changes over time. The next time we update this review we hope to have a better breakdown of those fully published, and hopefully a better bank of evidence to analyse., , [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsfor.10.12688.f1000research.51592.2
Document Type :
systematic-review
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.51592.2