Systematic review of wastewater surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in human populations

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed studies using wastewater for AMR surveillance in human populations, to determine: (i) evidence of concordance between wastewater-human AMR prevalence estimates, and (ii) methodological approaches which optimised identifying such an association, and which could be recommended as standard. We used Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) to quantify concordance between AMR prevalence estimates in wastewater and human compartments (where CCC = 1 reflects perfect concordance), and logistic regression to identify study features (e.g. sampling methods) associated with high agreement studies (defined as >70% of within-study wastewater-human AMR prevalence comparisons within ±10%).

RESULTS

Of 8,867 records and 441 full-text methods reviewed, 33 studies were included. AMR prevalence data was extractable from 24 studies conducting phenotypic-only (n = 7), genotypic-only (n = 1) or combined (n = 16) AMR detection. Overall concordance of wastewater-human AMR prevalence estimates was reasonably high for both phenotypic (CCC = 0.85 [95% CI 0.8-0.89]) and genotypic approaches (CCC = 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.9)) despite diverse study designs, bacterial species investigated and phenotypic/genotypic targets. No significant relationships between methodological approaches and high agreement studies were identified using logistic regression; however, this was limited by inconsistent reporting of study features, significant heterogeneity in approaches and limited sample size. Based on a secondary, descriptive synthesis, studies conducting composite sampling of wastewater influent, longitudinal sampling >12 months, and time-/location-matched sampling of wastewater and human compartments generally had higher agreement.

CONCLUSION

Wastewater-based surveillance of AMR appears promising, with high overall concordance between wastewater and human AMR prevalence estimates in studies irrespective of heterogenous approaches. However, our review suggests future work would benefit from: time-/location-matched sampling of wastewater and human populations, composite sampling of influent, and sampling >12 months for longitudinal studies. Further research and clear and consistent reporting of study methods is required to identify optimal practice.

Are medical procedures that induce coughing or involve respiratory suctioning associated with increased generation of aerosols and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection? A rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

The risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from aerosols generated by medical procedures is a cause for concern.

AIM

To evaluate the evidence for aerosol production and transmission of respiratory infection associated with procedures that involve airway suctioning or induce coughing/sneezing.

METHODS

The review was informed by PRISMA guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed for studies published between January 1st, 2003 and October 6th, 2020. Included studies examined whether nasogastric tube insertion, lung function tests, nasendoscopy, dysphagia assessment, or suctioning for airway clearance result in aerosol generation or transmission of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, MERS, or influenza. Risk of bias assessment focused on robustness of measurement, control for confounding, and applicability to clinical practice.

FINDINGS

Eighteen primary studies and two systematic reviews were included. Three epidemiological studies found no association between nasogastric tube insertion and acquisition of respiratory infections. One simulation study found low/very low production of aerosols associated with pulmonary lung function tests. Seven simulation studies of endoscopic sinus surgery suggested significant increases in aerosols but findings were inconsistent; two clinical studies found airborne particles associated with the use of microdebriders/drills. Some simulation studies did not use robust measures to detect particles and are difficult to equate to clinical conditions.

CONCLUSION

There was an absence of evidence to suggest that the procedures included in the review were associated with an increased risk of transmission of respiratory infection. In order to better target precautions to mitigate risk, more research is required to determine the characteristics of medical procedures and patients that increase the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.