Elizabeth A Spencer’s research while affiliated with University of Oxford and other places

The extent to which the oro-faecal route contributes to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is not established. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in faeces and other gastrointestinal sources by examining studies that used viral culture to investigate the presence of replication-competent virus in these samples. We conducted searches in the WHO COVID-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar for SARS-CoV-2 using keywords and associated synonyms, with a search date up to 28 November 2023. We included 13 studies involving 229 COVID-19 subjects – providing 308 faecal or rectal swab SARS-CoV2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-positive samples tested with viral culture. The methods used for viral culture across the studies were heterogeneous. Three studies (two cohorts and one case series) reported observing replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by quantitative RT-PCR (qPCR) and whole-genome sequencing, and qPCR including appropriate cycle threshold changes. Overall, six (1.9%) of 308 faecal samples subjected to cell culture showed replication-competent virus. One study found replication-competent samples from one immunocompromised patient. No studies were identified demonstrating direct evidence of oro-faecal transmission to humans. Our review found a relatively low frequency of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in faecal and other gastrointestinal sources. Although it is biologically plausible, more research is needed using standardized cell culture methods, control groups, adequate follow-up, and robust epidemiologic methods, including whether secondary infections occurred, to determine the role of the oro-faecal route in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Background The extent to which the oro-faecal route contributes to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is not established. Methods We systematically reviewed the evidence on the presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in faeces and other gastrointestinal sources by examining studies that used viral culture to investigate the presence of replication-competent virus in these samples. We conducted searches in the WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar for SARS-CoV-2 using keywords and associated synonyms, with a search date up to 28th of November 2023. Results We included 13 studies involving 328 COVID-19 subjects - providing 314 faecal or rectal swab SARS-CoV2 positive samples tested also with viral culture. The methods used for viral culture across the studies were heterogeneous. Three studies (2 cohorts and 1 case-series) reported observing replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by quantitative RT-PCR (qPCR) and whole genome sequencing, and qPCR including appropriate cycle threshold changes. Overall, six (1.9%) of 314 faecal samples subjected to cell culture showed replication-competent virus. One study found replication competent samples from one immunocompromised patient. No studies were identified demonstrating direct evidence of oro-faecal transmission to humans. Conclusions Our review found a relatively low frequency of replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 in faecal and other gastrointestinal sources. Although it is biologically plausible, more research is needed, using standardized cell culture methods, control groups, adequate follow-up and robust epidemiologic methods, including whether secondary infections occurred, to determine the role of the oro-faecal route in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Background Vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been reported but appears uncommon. Objectives This study systematically reviewed the evidence on vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from pregnant women to their neonates. Search strategy Literature searches in WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar for SARS-CoV-2 using keywords and associated synonyms, search date to 20 December 2020; no language restrictions. Selection criteria Studies of any design reporting transmission. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently assessed article eligibility and extracted data. Results were reported descriptively; no meta-analyses were possible. Main results 106 studies were included: 40 reviews and 66 primary studies, most conducted in hospitals. 32 case reports were assessed as high risk of bias, due to the study design; across the 34 remaining primary studies, risk of bias was low to moderate. Sixteen case reports described vertical transmission. In cohort studies and case series, 65/2391 (2.7%) neonates born to mothers with a COVID-19 diagnosis tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 24 hours of birth; the proportion of positive neonates ranged from 0% to 22%. Twenty studies reported no vertical transmission. Maternal symptomatology and mode of delivery were not correlated with vertical transmission. 7/25 studies of placental tissue identified SARS-CoV-2; vertical transmission was infrequent. No study reported the results of viral culture to detect SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions These findings indicate that vertical transmission is possible, but not frequent. Further high-quality studies are needed to understand vertical transmission. Funding World Health Organization: WHO registration No 2020/1077093.

Background: Treatments for COVID-19, including steroids, might exacerbate Strongyloides disease in patients with coinfection. We aimed to systematically review clinical and laboratory features of SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides coinfection, investigate possible interventions, assess outcomes, and identify research gaps requiring further attention. Methods: We searched two electronic databases, LitCOVID and WHO, up to August 2022, including SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides coinfection studies. We adapted the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre (WHO-UMC) system for standardized case causality assessment to evaluate if using corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs in COVID-19 patients determined acute manifestations of strongyloidiasis. Results: We included 16 studies reporting 25 cases of Strongyloides and SARS-CoV-2 coinfection: 4 with hyperinfection syndrome; 2 with disseminated strongyloidiasis; 3 with cutaneous reactivation of strongyloidiasis; 3 with isolated digestive symptoms; and 2 with solely eosinophilia, without clinical manifestations. Eleven patients were asymptomatic regarding strongyloidiasis. Eosinopenia or normal eosinophil count was reported in 58.3% of patients with Strongyloides reactivation. Steroids were given to 18/21 (85.7%) cases. A total of 4 patients (19.1%) received tocilizumab and/or Anakirna in addition to steroids. Moreover, 2 patients (9.5%) did not receive any COVID-19 treatment. The causal relationship between Strongyloides reactivation and COVID-19 treatments was considered certain (4% of cases), probable (20% of patients), and possible (20% of patients). For 8% of cases, it was considered unlikely that COVID-19 treatment was associated with strongyloidiasis reactivations; the relationship between the Strongyloides infection and administration of COVID-19 treatment was unassessable/unclassifiable in 48% of cases. Of 13 assessable cases, 11 (84.6%) were considered to be causally associated with Strongyloides, ranging from certain to possible. Conclusions: Further research is needed to assess the frequency and risk of Strongyloides reactivation in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our limited data using causality assessment supports recommendations that clinicians should screen and treat for Strongyloides infection in patients with coinfection who receive immunosuppressive COVID-19 therapies. In addition, the male gender and older age (over 50 years) may be predisposing factors for Strongyloides reactivation. Standardized guidelines should be developed for reporting future research.

Rationale for the review COVID-19 treatment can worsen parasitic disease in patients with coinfection. Consequently, there is a need to investigate the infection with SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides . We aim to systematically review clinical and laboratory features of COVID-19 and Strongyloides coinfection, to investigate possible interventions and outcomes in this pathology. Also, we aim to identify difficulties in managing the parasitic disease manifestations in this context and to emphasize research gaps requiring further attention. Methods We will search two electronic databases – LitCOVID, and WHO COVID-19 and will include studies on SARS-CoV-2 and Strongyloides coinfection. We will adapt the WHO-UMC system for standardized case causality assessment to evaluate if using corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs in COVID-19 patients determined acute strongyloidiasis manifestations. Expected results We will present the evidence in three distinct packages: study description, methodological quality assessment and data extracted. We will summarize the evidence and will draw conclusions as to the quality of the evidence.

Background Solid organ and haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients are at increased vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 due to immunosuppression and may pose a continued transmission risk especially within hospital settings. Detailed case reports including symptoms, viral load and infectiousness, defined by the presence of replication-competent viruses in culture, provide an opportunity to examine the relationship between clinical course, burden and contagiousness, and provide guidance on release from isolation. Objectives We performed a systematic review to investigate the relationship in transplant recipients between serial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value or cycle of quantification value (Cq), or other measures of viral burden and the likelihood and duration of the presence of infectious virus based on viral culture including the influence of age, sex, underlying pathologies, degree of immunosuppression, and/or vaccination on this relationship. Methods We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and WHO Covid-19 databases, from 1 November 2019 until 26 October 2022. We included studies reporting relevant data for transplantees with SARS-CoV-2 infection: results from serial RT-PCR testing and viral culture data from the same respiratory samples. We assessed methodological quality using five criteria, and synthesised the data narratively and graphically. Results We included 13 case reports and case series reporting on 41 transplantees including 22 renal, 5 cardiac, 1 bone marrow, 2 liver, 1 bilateral lung, and 10 blood stem cell transplants. We observed a relationship between proxies of viral burden and likelihood of shedding replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Three individuals shed replication-competent viruses for over 100 days after infection onset. Lack of standardisation of testing and reporting platforms precludes establishing a definitive viral burden cut-off. However, the majority of transplantees stopped shedding replication-competent viruses when the RT-PCR cycle threshold was above 30 despite differences across platforms. Conclusions Viral burden is a reasonable proxy for infectivity when considered within the context of the clinical status of each patient. Standardised study design and reporting are essential to standardise guidance based on an increasing evidence base.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 transmission has been reported to be associated with close contact with infected individuals. However, the mechanistic pathway for transmission in close contact settings is unclear. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies assessing the role of close contact in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Methods: This review is part of an Open Evidence Review on Transmission Dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. We conduct ongoing searches using WHO Covid-19 Database, LitCovid, medRxiv, PubMed and Google Scholar; assess study quality based on the QUADAS-2 criteria and report important findings on an ongoing basis. Results: We included 278 studies: 258 primary studies and 20 systematic reviews. The settings for primary studies were predominantly in home/quarantine facilities (39.5%) and acute care hospitals (12%). The overall reporting quality of the studies was low-to-moderate. There was significant heterogeneity in design and methodology. The frequency of attack rates (PCR testing) varied between 2.1-75%; attack rates were highest in prison and wedding venues, and in households. The frequency of secondary attack rates was 0.3-100% with rates highest in home/quarantine settings. Three studies showed no transmission if the index case was a recurrent infection. Viral culture was performed in four studies of which three found replication-competent virus; culture results were negative where index cases had recurrent infections. Eighteen studies performed genomic sequencing with phylogenetic analysis – the completeness of genomic similarity ranged from 77-100%. Findings from systematic reviews showed that children were significantly less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 and household contact was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection. Conclusions: The evidence from published studies demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted in close contact settings. The risk of transmission is greater in household contacts. There was a wide variation in methodology. Standardized guidelines for reporting transmission in close contact settings should be developed.

Background: Airborne transmission is the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in the air. We carried out a systematic review to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies of the role of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We searched LitCovid, MedRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database from 1 February 2020 to 30 May 2022 and included studies on airborne transmission. Data were dual extracted, and we assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool. Results: We included 128 primary studies and 29 reviews on airborne SARS-CoV-2. Of the 128 primary studies, 105 (82%) reported data on RT-PCR from air samples, 28 (22%) report cycle threshold values and 36 (28%) copies per sample volume. All primary studies were observational. The research often lacked standard methods, standard sampling sizes and reporting items. We found 69 descriptions of different air samplers deployed. Of the 80 in-hospital studies that reported binary RT-PCR tests, 362/3079 air samples from 75 studies conducted in hospital ward environments were positive (median 8%, IQR=0 to 23%); 23 studies reported 74/703 RT-PCR positive air samples in the ICU setting (median 17%, IQR=0% to 38%) Thirty-eight studies reported potential air transmission in the outdoors or in the community. Twenty-six studies attempted viral culture, none of which definitively demonstrated that replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 could be recovered in the air. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detectable intermittently in the air in various settings. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on airborne transmission are needed. The lack of recoverable viral culture of SARS-CoV-2 from air samples prevents firm conclusions about the definitive role of airborne transmission in SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Maritime and river travel may be associated with respiratory viral spread via infected passengers and/or crew and potentially through other transmission routes. The transmission models of SARS-CoV-2 associated with cruise ship travel are based on transmission dynamics of other respiratory viruses. We aimed to provide a summary and evaluation of relevant data on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard cruise ships, report policy implications, and highlight research gaps. Methods: We searched four electronic databases (up to 26 May 2022) and included studies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission aboard cruise ships. The quality of the studies was assessed based on five criteria, and relevant findings were reported. Results: We included 23 papers on onboard SARS-CoV-2 transmission (with 15 reports on different aspects of the outbreak on Diamond Princess and nine reports on other international cruises), 2 environmental studies, and 1 systematic review. Three articles presented data on both international cruises and the Diamond Princess. The quality of evidence from most studies was low to very low. Index case definitions were heterogeneous. The proportion of traced contacts ranged from 0.19 to 100%. Studies that followed up >80% of passengers and crew reported attack rates (AR) up to 59%. The presence of a distinct dose-response relationship was demonstrated by findings of increased ARs in multi-person cabins. Two studies performed viral cultures with eight positive results. Genomic sequencing and phylogenetic analyses were performed in individuals from three cruises. Two environmental studies reported PCR-positive samples (cycle threshold range 26.21-39.00). In one study, no infectious virus was isolated from any of the 76 environmental samples. Conclusion: Our review suggests that crowding and multiple persons per cabin were associated with an increased risk of transmission on cruise ships. Variations in design, methodology, and case ascertainment limit comparisons across studies and quantification of transmission risk. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting studies on cruise ships of acute respiratory infection transmission should be developed.

Introduction The role of fomites in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is unclear. Our objective was to assess whether SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through fomites, using evidence from viral culture studies. Methods We conducted searches in the WHO Covid-19 Database, PubMed, LitCovid, medRxiv, and Google Scholar to 31 December 2021. We included studies that investigated fomite transmission and performed viral culture to assess the cytopathic effect (CPE) of positive fomite samples and confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 as the cause of the CPE. We assessed the risk of bias using a checklist modified from the QUADAS-2 criteria. Results We included 23 studies. The overall risk of bias was moderate. Five studies demonstrated replication-competent virus from fomite cultures and three used genome sequencing to match fomite samples with human clinical specimens. The mean Ct of samples with positive viral culture was significantly lower compared with cultured samples that returned negative results: SMD -1.45, 95%CI -2.00 to -0.90, I²=0%; P<0.00001. The likelihood of isolating replication-competent virus was significantly greater when the Ct was <30: RR 3.10 (95%CI 1.32 to 7.31, I²=71%, P=0.01). Infectious specimens were mostly detected within 7 days of symptom onset. One study showed possible transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from fomites to humans. Conclusion The evidence from published studies suggests that replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 is present on fomites. Replication-competent SARS-CoV-2 is significantly more likely when the PCR Ct for clinical specimens and fomite samples is <30. Further studies should investigate the duration of infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 and the frequency of transmission from fomites.