The recent appearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has led to the publication of the first evidence on gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS), the possible enteric involvement of the virus and the detection of RNA in stool, with its possible implication in the fecal–oral transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to conduct a systematic review to describe the epidemiological scientific evidence on GIS, enteric involvement and fecal excretion of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and to discuss the possible fecal–oral transmission pathway of COVID-19.

No abstract

Objectives: to conduct a systematic review to describe the epidemiological scientific evidence on gastrointestinal symptoms (GIS), enteric involvement and fecal excretion of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and to discuss the possible fecal-oral transmission pathway of COVID-19.Methods: We have reviewed GIS, enteric involvement, and fecal test results of SARS CoV-2 from case reports and retrospective observational studies related to the digestive system published about the outbreak.Results: The prevalence of GIS in patients infected with SARS CoV-2 ranges from 1.7% (1/56)-100% (10/10), GIS included diarrhea 1/99(1%)-8/10(80%), nausea/vomiting 1/28(3.6%)-5/10 (50%), abdominal pain 2/103(1.9%)-1/3(33.3%). A total of 3% of infected patients may experience GIS in the absence of respiratory symptoms. A pooled analysis of the results showed 16.1% GIS, 8.3% diarrhea and 12% nausea-vomiting. A higher percentage of diarrhea in patients with severe disease (5.8%) than in non-severe disease (3.5%), and a more severe course in patients with GIS (22.97%) than in those without GIS (8.12%) was found. Histological studies demonstrated the presence of ACE2 receptors and the nucleocapsid of the virus in gastrointestinal. The RNA of the virus has been detected in 27-53% of patients with COVID-19 in whom respiratory and stool samples have been analyzed, and it may persist in stool for up to an average of 11.2 days after negativization of the respiratory samples.Conclusions: GIS are common in SARS CoV-2 infection at the time of patient admission, sometimes represent the only clinical manifestation. Infection of the GI tract is possible due to the presence of ACE2 receptors, and there may be viral replication with fecal elimination.

Healthcare professionals in endoscopy units have a possible risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by different routes: inhalation of airborne droplets, aerosols, conjunctival contact and faecal-oral transmission. Objective To describe the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a series of patients scheduled for digestive endoscopy at the Hospital Santa Caterina, Salt, (Girona). Methods Descriptive study of a series of cases of patients scheduled for endoscopy during the month of May 2020, when endoscopic activity was resumed after the peak of the pandemic, following SCD, SEED, AEG and ESGE recommendations. We examined nasopharyngeal samples 48−72 h before the appointment, by RT-PCR, in all patients. RNA extraction was performed using the kits: Qiagen®-adapted, BiosSprint®96-DNA-Blood-Kit (384). For amplification-detection of SARS-CoV-2, methods recommended by the WHO and the CDC were followed. Results 110 asymptomatic patients without close contact with a positive case in the previous 14 days were scheduled; 105 (96.4%) were negative and five (4.5%) were positive. Two patients developed respiratory symptoms after diagnosis (presymptomatic) and three remained asymptomatic. Allfive5 patients were autochthonous cases with no history of travel or residence in another city or country associated with high prevalence of infection. Four cases were women aged 60–81 years. The N gene was detected in all cases. Conclusions A high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in patients scheduled for digestive endoscopy. Given the risk of transmission to professionals, we consider it advisable to perform SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR 48−72 h before the examination in situations of high incidence in the population.

Direct‐acting antivirals (DAAs) resolve chronic HCV infection in >95% of patients, but a small percentage do not respond to DAA‐based therapy. These may be difficult to treat because of resistance‐associated substitutions (RAS) emerging after treatment failure. Triple therapy with sofosbuvir (SOF)/velpatasvir (VEL)/voxilaprevir (VOX) is the recommended retreatment after DAA‐based failure. However, in rare cases, failure to triple therapy occurs, and there is little information characterizing the viruses that relapse. To determine the RAS profile after failing SOF/VEL/VOX, and seek suitable alternatives for retreatment, samples from 5 patients were analysed using MiSeq Illumina deep sequencing before and after triple therapy. All patients were men, aged 59–78 years, 2 HCV genotype (G) 1b and 3 G3a. The most prevalent NS3 substitutions after SOF/VEL/VOX failure were Y56F and A166T. Four patients had the NS5A RAS, Y93H, after triple failure, and Y93H was observed in both G1b patients before retreatment and after SOF/ledipasvir failure. In 2 G3a patients, Y93H appeared at triple failure, and on the other G3a, A30K persisted in 100% of viral genomes. Finally, G1b patients showed C316N in NS5B, associated with SOF failure, but G3a patients had no known NS5B substitutions. HCV RAS analysis identified the following substitutions present at higher rates after triple failure: Y56F in NS3 (G1b), A166T in NS3 (G3a), A30K or Y93H in NS5A, and C316N in NS5B (G1b). A RAS‐based salvage treatment (SOF + glecaprevir/pibrentasvir + RBV) was successfully used in one G3a patient.