Faecal shedding models for SARS-CoV-2 RNA among hospitalised patients and implications for wastewater-based epidemiology
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
The concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in faeces is not well established, posing challenges for wastewater-based surveillance of COVID-19 and risk assessments of environmental transmission. We develop versatile hierarchical models for faecal RNA shedding and apply them to data collected in six studies. We find that the mean number of gene copies per mL of faeces is 1.9 × 10 6 (2.3 × 10 5 –2.0 × 10 8 95% credible interval) among unvaccinated hospitalised patients. Using Bayesian model comparison, we find no evidence for a subpopulation of patients who do not shed RNA: limits of quantification can account for negative stool samples. Our models indicate that hospitalised patients represent the tail of the shedding profile with a half-life of 34 hours (28–43 95% credible interval), suggesting that wastewater-based surveillance signals are more indicative of incidence than prevalence and can be a leading indicator of clinical presentation. Shedding among inpatients cannot explain high RNA concentrations observed in wastewater, consistent with more abundant shedding during the early infection course. We show that the models generalise and can predict summary statistics of held-out clinical datasets. However, shedding prior to hospitalisation cannot be constrained due to lack of samples, and information on viral variants was not available.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.16.21253603: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.03.16.21253603: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code and data.
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
