key: cord-0868059-ib1nk3va
authors: de Jong, Florus C.; GeurtsvanKessel, Corine H; Molenkamp, Richard; Bangma, Chris H.; Zuiverloon, Tahlita C.M.
title: Sewage Surveillance System using Urological Wastewater: Key to COVID-19 Monitoring?
date: 2020-10-13
journal: Urol Oncol
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.10.008
sha: d6afd20b616baa9e25a57ec56e26af675c640f27
doc_id: 868059
cord_uid: ib1nk3va

Since December 2019, the emergence of a new Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome- coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a global coronavirus pandemic disease (COVID-19), with devastating consequences for all healthcare worldwide, including urological care. COVID-19 has led to concern among urological healthcare workers about viral presence, detection and routes of transmission during routine clinical practice. The potential presence of (active) virus in bodily fluids of COVID-19 patients remains a continuing topic of debate. Therefore, we highlight viral detection methods and review the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in urine, faeces and semen. Finally, we discuss how excretion of virus particles through urological bodily fluids might be pivotal to epidemiologic monitoring and control of the disease.

December 2019 a new coronavirus was first discovered in Chinese patients that presented with cough, fever and severe dyspnoea [1] . Patients showed similar symptoms as the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome caused by a coronavirus (SARS-CoV) [1, 2] . On a molecular level, the novel coronavirus showed high resemblance to SARS-CoV and therefore the new strain was named SARS-CoV-2 [3] . SARS-CoV-2 spread rapidly around the globe and by March 2020 the World Health organization (WHO) declared the disease, COVID-19, a pandemic [4] . As of July 2020, there are at least 16 million confirmed cases and more than 640 thousand deaths globally due to COVID-19 and the number of new cases is increasing daily [5] . The viral crisis has caused an enormous flow of COVID-19 patients into hospitals, resulting in drastic effects on regular healthcare, including urological care.

As a result, many countries were forced to take firm preventative measures to reduce spread of the virus, [6, 7] .

Uro-oncological healthcare workers often come into contact with bodily fluids such as urine, faeces and semen. Uncertainty about modes of transmission, SARS-CoV-2 related urological symptoms and viral detection of SARS-CoV-2 in urological bodily fluids has led to questions and concerns among urological healthcare workers worldwide [8] . The WHO has strongly advised hygiene measures and social distancing to reduce viral spread, yet this can be a clear challenge for the urologist during procedures that require close contact with the patient e.g. urinary cystoscopy, digital rectal examination, semen analyses or trans-rectal ultrasound. Thus, it is of utmost importance for urologists to know if SARS-CoV-2 disseminates through urine, faeces or semen, as this may affect patient and personal safety. Since it is unclear whether the virus spreads via other bodily fluids than aerosols, the policy of using personal protective equipment in urological clinics is recommended. Over the past few months, contradictory evidence on the presence of (active) virus in bodily fluids was published [9, 10] . In addition, it is largely unknown how viral load in bodily fluids is changing over time from the acute to recovery phase of the infection and to what extent patients are actually contagious through faeces, urine and semen. The objective was to briefly inform on viral detection and possible pitfalls in humans. We highlight urologically important SARS-CoV-2 related symptoms, whether (active) virus is detected in urine, faeces and semen specimens and discuss if the viral excretion poses a risk for urological healthcare workers. Finally, we discuss how the presence of viral particles in wastewater may play a pivotal role in the epidemiologic monitoring of COVID-19.

Sensitivity for detection of SARS-CoV-2 is dependent on test characteristics, the frequency and timing of testing itself, and on the biological nature of this specific coronavirus. The main transmission route of SARS-CoV-2 is via the respiratory tract.

Detection of viral RNA in respiratory tract specimens by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been the hallmark of COVID-19 diagnosis.

Viral RNA in the nasopharyngeal swab becomes detectable as early as day one of symptoms and mostly peaks within the first week of symptom onset. RNA loads often start to decline by week 3 and subsequently can become undetectable [11] . In severely ill hospitalized patients, RT-PCR positivity may persist beyond 3 weeks after onset of illness, whereas most mild cases will then yield a negative RT-PCR result [12] . While there is ample experience with RT-PCR of SARS-CoV-2, many questions remain. Prolonged RNA detection via RT-PCR without clinical signs of disease has been described, and this might prevent the timely discharge of clinically recovered patients from hospitals and complicates discussions on risk of transmission [13] [14] [15] .

Moreover, while a positive RT-PCR test indicates the presence of viral RNA genome, it does not necessarily mean that the virus is still infectious in nature [13, 16] .

As SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus, initial RT-PCR protocols were developed in expert laboratories and implemented in specialized public health care laboratories and hospitals [17, 18] . Shortly thereafter, an increasing number of commercial RT-PCR kits became available of which only few have been systematically evaluated [19, 20] .

Currently, there is a plethora of different commercial RT-PCR tests available including easy-to-use or "point-of-care" assays [21] . However, some FDA-approved tests also appear to have drawbacks and test sensitivity may differ [22] . Since SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus with potentially a high mutation-rate, the genetic targets of RT-PCR assays are chosen at relatively conserved regions of the viral genome. Most assays consist of a sensitive screening assay that also detects other SARS-related coronaviruses such as the 2003 SARS-CoV and a SARS-CoV-2 specific confirmation assay [19] . Most RT-PCR assays demonstrate a high analytical sensitivity, detecting just a few RNA genomes [19, 20] . Clinical sensitivity, however, can be lower, which is predominantly caused by inadequate sampling or timing of sampling [22] . As massive testing is expected to continue in the near future, it is essential that healthcare workers are adequately trained to prevent sampling errors [23] .

Up to now, neutralizing antibodies are considered a hallmark of protection against SARS CoV-2, although the durability and robustness of the immune responses against SARS CoV-2 are still under investigation [24, 25] . Identification of neutralizing antibodies by a virus neutralization assay is regarded as the gold-standard in coronavirus serology, but this assay is labor-intensive and time-consuming, as it requires qualified personnel and increased biosafety laboratories. For this reason, commercial serological assays with a sensitivity >98% are nowadays readily available to determine antibody responses in a diagnostic setting [26, 27] . Laboratory serological assays generally detect IgA, IgM and/or IgG against specific proteins of the virus. Although these antibodies have been found to be positive even as early as the fourth day after symptom onset, higher levels occur in the second and third week of illness. In patients with mild infection, antibody responses generally develop slower than in patients with severe infection [11, 13, 24] . A recent study shows that a decline in antibody titers is observed within 94 days post onset of infection, but future studies are required to determine the threshold for protection from re-infection [28] .

Serological testing against SARS CoV-2 is mostly used to determine if an individual has been exposed to SARS CoV-2, in follow up of hospitalized patients, or in diagnosing patients with mild to moderate illness who may present late, beyond the first two weeks of illness onset [16] . In several assays a cut-off has been determined above which antibodies will be functional (neutralizing), yet there is ongoing debate about the amount and duration of protective immunity against SARS CoV-2 once antibodies can be detected [26, 29] .

Both the kidney, urinary bladder and prostate (over)express ACE2 receptors and TMPRSS2 proteases which SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter into cells [30] [31] [32] [33] . Possibly, due to the high presence of ACE2 receptors in podocytes, which are folded around the capillaries in the renal corpuscle of nephrons in the kidney, COVID-19 may lead to renal inflammation [34] . In many COVID-19 patients admitted into hospitals, urine analysis shows proteinuria (44%) and haematuria (27%) [35] . In critically ill patients, 15-58% patients have severe renal dysfunction, leading to death in 81-100% of patients [9, 35] . As opposed to severe renal complications and abnormal urine analyses, the remainder of the urinary tract seems largely unaffected by COVID-19.

A study of 1099 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 reported that patients had no urological symptoms [2] . These findings were confirmed in a recent systematic review containing 20 additional smaller studies and 3714 positive patients, none of whom reported micturition symptoms [9] .

Studies on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR in urine sediments found ambiguous results. In multiple small cohort studies, a single urine specimen was collected from COVID-19 patients, all of which were negative for detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] . However, detailed study information is limited, few of the tested patients were considered severely ill and it is often unknown which patients had urine samples tested. More importantly, data on specimen collection and testing after hospital admission (i.e. acute vs. recovery phase) is lacking. Two studies showed that SARS-CoV-2 was absent in multiple urine samples per patient [13, 41] .

Specimens were longitudinally collected, with up to 6 urines per patient, and viral detection was performed in the first and second week after onset of symptoms, with detailed description of RNA extraction and RT-PCR methods available. Importantly, serial sampling reduces the risk of sampling errors in different phases of disease. In contrary to previous reports, three Chinese studies showed that viral genome was detected in a low number of collected urine sediments, 3/116 (3%), 4/56 (7%) and 1/9 (11%) patients respectively [14, 42, 43] . In the largest study to date investigating viral detection in bodily fluids, 180 urine samples were tested in 96 buccal-swab proven COVID-19 patients [12] . Investigators noted that just one critically ill patient had a positive urine sample 2 weeks after initial symptoms began. However, reviewed studies merely investigated the presence of viral genome and did not investigate viral activity and transmission potential in preclinical research. Notably, scientists from South-Korea recently published that in 2/247 (0.8%) urine specimens, samples were actually contagious and virus was able to replicate in vitroalthough with a very low viral load [44] . Authors conclude that viral transmission is not impossible through urine specimens, but that the risk is very low. These results are sharply contrasted by the high number of positive urine sediments in the 2003 SARS-CoV outbreak in Hong-Kong, in which SARS-CoV was detected in 42% of septic patients [45, 46] . Moreover, SARS-CoV was detected in urine up to 21 days after onset of symptoms with peak-positivity at day 10. In conclusion, only few studies report viral genome detectable in urinary sediment in a low number of cases. Only one study showed potential viral replication in vitro from SARS-CoV-2 isolated from urine [44] . Thus, it seems that SARS-CoV-2 transmission via urine might be possible, but probably does not play a major role in COVID-19 spread.

To determine the infectivity of faeces by SARS-CoV-2, the same RT-PCR based tests are used as in other human secretions. Basically, the presence of viral genome in stool is analyzed without specialized preparation or selection of the material [13, 40] . The presence of specific viral genome serves as a surrogate for infectivity, but is no prove for the ability of viral transmission from the faeces [47] . To investigate possible enterocyte involvement, human enterocyte organoids were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the virus showed replication potential in-vitro, leading to mRNA expression changes and ACE2-receptor upregulation [48] . Moreover, the ACE2receptor expressed in the stratified epithelium of the upper esophagus and in the enterocytes from ileum and colon [49] [50] [51] . However, the exact mechanism of COVID-

needed to provide convincing evidence of viral replication in the human gut lining. A review article on GI-symptoms and infectivity published as early as March 2020, described the digestive symptoms of patients defined by positive throat swabs, urinary, or blood test [52] . In an estimate of 500 retrospective cases, the overall incidence varied between 3-79%, with diarrhea as the dominant feature in children and adults, followed by anorexia, vomiting, nausea and even GI-bleeding (4-13%).

These features were observed starting several days before, as well as after the RT-PCR diagnosis and lasted on average 4-5 days [53] . There appeared to be no relation between viral shedding, intensity of the overall disease and GI-symptoms [40] . Early reports on viral positivity in stool samples are from the Hubei-3 hospital [38] . In 44/154 patients, SARS-CoV-2 was detected in faeces, while no urinary excretion was observed. In two patients with positive stool tests, there were no GIsymptoms. In 36% (5/14) to 53% (39/73) faecal tests became positive, 2-5 days later than sputum tests was positive. Faecal excretion persisted after sputum excretion in 23% (17/73) to 82% (54/66) patients for 1-11 days [52] . On April 2020, serial measurements were obtained from patients with high SARS-CoV-2 blood and throat titers, but all stool tests were negative [13] . This leaves us with the conclusion that viral particles are found in faeces and that stool samples might be infectious, but that the evidence is low and indirect. The GI tract can be involved during a clinical COVID-19 infection, yet possibly gives symptoms only in a low percentage of patients.

Vastly increasing numbers of infected patients, uncertainty of the effects of SARS-CoV-2 on the male reproductive system and the lack of data on the possibility of disease transmission via semen led to recommendations from the major reproductive societies (ASRM, ESHRE and IFFS) to discontinue all treatments in assisted reproductive care except for urgent cases [54] . RNA and protein expression of the ACE2 receptor has been shown in Sertoli and Leydig cells of the testis [55, 56] .

Moreover, other viral infections like Zika, Ebola and Influenza that are known to cross the blood-testis barrier, are found in semen, can cause orchitis with male infertility and the testes could serve as a reservoir of the virus [57] . These findings further reinforce concerns about potential risks of viral transmission via semen, potential damaging effects on the testes and sperm quality, and possible contamination of laboratory personnel during assisted reproduction. Up to now, in five independent studies 108 patients have been investigated for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] . Four studies investigating both patients in the acute and recovery phase of viral infection showed no evidence of the virus in semen [58] [59] [60] 62] .

Importantly, even SARS-CoV-2 positive patients confirmed by RT-PCR showed no presence of virus in tested semen. In contrary, one study in 38 patients showed the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in 6/38 patients; virus was detectable in 4/15 in the acute phase and 2/23 in the recovering phase [61] . Unfortunately, no detailed information was available on the timing of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis relative to semen analysis or how the semen was collected and handled. As it has become apparent that the COVID-19 crisis will likely last until the development of a proper vaccine, the reproductive task forces emphasized the continuation of reproductive care. Based on the available data and successful mitigation strategies in some areas, starting from April 2020, the major reproductive societies have sanctioned gradual and judicious resumption and delivery of full reproductive care as this type of care is considered an essential part of human physical and mental well-being [63] . Furthermore, the guideline does not mandate pre-emptive testing in new patients. In summary, while we are aware of difficulties to obtain reproductive research specimens specifically during acute SARS-CoV-2 infections, current data on viral presence in semen is limited and points toward a low viral presence in the male reproductive system. More knowledge on viral interaction with the male reproductive system should be pursued.

The above review on COVID-19 related viral elements in urine, faeces, and semen suggests that viral presence in bodily secretions specifically handled in the urooncological practise is low. However, the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 cannot be transmitted from urine, faeces and semen to humans should be further tested in preclinical and epidemiological studies. Current evidence on infectiousness between bodily fluids and humans is limited, thus no definitive recommendations for urological care can be formulated [63] . Therefore, caution is advised in the daily urological practice until more evident data is available. The first phase 1/2 trial with a COVID-19 vaccine shows promising results, but it remains to be seen whether these results endure in a phase 3 trial [64] . Until a working vaccine has been developed and distributed among healthcare workers, personal protective equipment remains strongly recommended in suspected COVID-19 patients [63, 65] .

Although the incidence of reported test positivity is low, viral RNA may act as surrogate marker for the presence of virus in the environment [66, 67] . SARS-CoV-2 has been found in the sewage, days after wastewater disposal [68] [69] [70] . A sewage surveillance system might therefore prove pivotally important in epidemiologic monitoring of the disease, complementary to the information obtained by regional reporting of disease symptoms and serum testing for COVID-specific antibodies [71] .

Current RT-PCR-based tests are sufficiently sensitive to illustrate the presence of infected patients in a geographical area by analysis of its wastewater [68] . Rapid and regular testing and isolation of COVID-19 patients is regarded highly important to contain viral spread, and while serum tests are available to identify individual patients, the daily application and determination is logistically challenging, especially in densely populated urban areas [72] . Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic is significantly complicated and aggravated by viral transmission between nonsymptomatic human carriers [73, 74] . Excretion of the viral components in faeces has been reported 1-2 days previous to clinical respiratory symptoms, so sewage control might be an important trigger to targeted individual testing in areas at risk [75] . Though individual patients cannot be identified, this sewage control also allows for the fast instalment of regional/local quarantines and group testing [75] . In a network of 29 sewage treatment plants in The Netherlands, including around the national airport and in provincial capitals, viral detection started soon after the identification of the first symptomatic patients in February 2020 [70] . Analysis of viral spread in wastewater was executed in parallel to the development of the clinical disease by the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) [76] . Early reports from a trial period in showed peak presence of SARS-CoV-2 in all sewage plants when hospital admissions were highest. A steady decrease in hospital admissions was accompanied by a decreased presence of virus in the sewage as well [76] . Final measurements are expected to be published by the RIVM in July. The RIVM anticipates that a finely-meshed network of sewage surveillance centres is needed for early identification of new COVID-19 infections within the general population. Finally, outcomes do not proof that COVID-19 infections can be infectious by wastewater, but do enhance the importance of the advises for basic hygienic discipline, as it enables the use of wastewater for disease monitoring.

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 in urological bodily fluids like, urine, faeces and semen is low. Nonetheless, COVID-19 transmission by respiratory shedding still poses a significant healthcare risk. Therefore, it is highly recommended clinicians use personal protective equipment during diagnostic and surgical procedures, especially when patients are symptomatic. Besides, urological healthcare workers are advised to act in accordance with COVID-19 recommendations of the WHO, the national Public Health Institutions and urological guidelines. As countries aim to contain viral transmission between humans, rapid testing and quarantine may not be enough to reduce viral spread. Analysing wastewater for SARS-CoV-2 using a sewage surveillance system might complement other preventive measures and could act as warning system for return of the virus by early identification of new viral clusters.

None of the contributing authors have any conflict of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter in the manuscript. No funding was required for this work.

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan

Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China

WHO. Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it. 2020. Available through

Situation Reports

WHO. Situation Reports

Urological implications of SARS CoV-19

A Global Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 on Urological Services

COVID-19 resource

A systematic review on COVID-19: urological manifestations, viral RNA detection and special considerations in urological conditions

Gastrointestinal involvement in COVID-19: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Interpreting Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2

Viral load dynamics and disease severity in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Zhejiang province, China

Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019

Persistence and clearance of viral RNA in 2019 novel coronavirus disease rehabilitation patients

Positive RT-PCR Test Results in Patients Recovered From COVID-19

Shedding of infectious virus in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): duration and key determinants. medRxiv

Molecular Diagnosis of a Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Causing an Outbreak of Pneumonia

Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR

Comparison of commercial realtime reverse transcription PCR assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2

Comparison of seven commercial RT-PCR diagnostic kits for COVID-19

Assay Techniques and Test Development for COVID-19 Diagnosis

COVID-19 laboratory testing issues and capacities as we transition to surveillance testing and contact tracing

Respiratory sampling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2: An Overview

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2-Specific Antibody Responses in Coronavirus Disease Patients

Detection of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Humoral and Cellular Immunity in COVID-19 Convalescent Individuals

An evaluation of COVID-19 serological assays informs future diagnostics and exposure assessment

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients of novel coronavirus disease

Longitudinal evaluation and decline of antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2 infection

Serological Approaches for COVID-19: Epidemiologic Perspective on Surveillance and Control

Expression of ACE2, the SARS-CoV-2 Receptor, and TMPRSS2 in Prostate Epithelial Cells

Expression of the SARS-CoV-2 cell receptor gene ACE2 in a wide variety of human tissues

SARS-CoV-2 Cell Entry Depends on ACE2 and TMPRSS2 and Is Blocked by a Clinically Proven Protease Inhibitor

Expression profiling meta-analysis of ACE2 and TMPRSS2, the putative anti-inflammatory receptor and priming protease of SARS-CoV-2 in human cells, and identification of putative modulators

Identification of a potential mechanism of acute kidney injury during the COVID-19 outbreak: a study based on single-cell transcriptome analysis

Kidney disease is associated with in-hospital death of patients with COVID-19

Comparison of different samples for 2019 novel coronavirus detection by nucleic acid amplification tests

Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens

Viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in clinical samples

The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the feces of COVID-19 patients

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in clinical specimens and clinical characteristics of 10 patients with COVID-19 in Macau

Coronavirus Disease 19 Infection Does Not Result in Acute Kidney Injury: An Analysis of 116 Hospitalized Patients from Wuhan, China

SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in urine, blood, anal swabs, and oropharyngeal swabs specimens

Isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from urine of a COVID-19 patient

Clinical progression and viral load in a community outbreak of coronavirus-associated SARS pneumonia: a prospective study

The aetiology, origins, and diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome

Infectious SARS-CoV-2 in Feces of Patient with Severe COVID-19

SARS-CoV-2 productively infects human gut enterocytes

High expression of ACE2 receptor of 2019-nCoV on the epithelial cells of oral mucosa

Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein, the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first step in understanding SARS pathogenesis

Single cell RNA sequencing of 13 human tissues identify cell types and receptors of human coronaviruses

Review article: gastrointestinal features in COVID-19 and the possibility of faecal transmission

Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus-Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China

Joint Statement on COVID-19

scRNA-seq Profiling of Human Testes Reveals the Presence of the ACE2 Receptor, A Target for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Spermatogonia

The novel angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) homolog, ACE2, is selectively expressed by adult Leydig cells of the testis

The Breadth of Viruses in Human Semen

Absence of SARS-CoV-2 in Semen of a COVID-19 Patient Cohort

Absence of 2019 novel coronavirus in semen and testes of COVID-19 patients

No evidence of severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus 2 in semen of males recovering from coronavirus disease 2019

Clinical Characteristics and Results of Semen Tests Among Men With Coronavirus Disease

Study of SARS-CoV-2 in semen and urine samples of a volunteer with positive naso-pharyngeal swab

COVID-19 Combined Oncology Recommendations

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, singleblind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet

Personal Protective Equipment and COVID-19: A Review for Surgeons

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses in the environment and on common touch surfaces and the influence of climatic conditions: A review

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2 in the environment and COVID-19 transmission risk from environmental matrices and surfaces

First confirmed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated wastewater in Australia: A proof of concept for the wastewater surveillance of COVID-19 in the community

How sewage could reveal true scale of coronavirus outbreak

SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater: potential health risk, but also data source

Early SARS-CoV-2 outbreak detection by sewagebased epidemiology

Critical medical ecology and SARS-COV-2 in the urban environment: a pragmatic, dynamic approach to explaining and planning for research and practice

COVID-19 transmission through asymptomatic carriers is a challenge to containment. Influenza Other Respir Viruses

A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers

Wastewater surveillance for population-wide Covid-19: The present and future

RIVM 2020. Sewage Research. Available through