RESUMEN
Background: Since its initial appearance in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has spread globally. Wastewater surveillance has been demonstrated as capable of identifying infection clusters early. The purpose of this study was to investigate a quick and simple method to detect SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater in Thailand during the early stages of the second outbreak wave when the prevalence of the disease and the virus concentration in wastewater were low. Methods: Wastewater samples were collected from a hospital caring for patients with COVID-19 and from 35 markets, two of which were associated with recently reported COVID-19 cases. Then, samples were concentrated by membrane filtering prior to SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-qPCR. Results: SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in the wastewater samples from the hospital; the Ct values for the N, ORF1ab, and S genes progressively increased as the number of patients admitted to the treatment floor decreased. Notably, the ORF1ab and S genes were still detectable in wastewater even when only one patient with COVID-19 remained at the hospital. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in the wastewater samples from fresh market where COVID-19 cases were reported. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 is sensitive and can detect the virus even in places with a high ambient temperature and relatively low prevalence of COVID-19.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , Humanos , ARN Viral , Aguas Residuales , Monitoreo Epidemiológico Basado en Aguas ResidualesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Thailand's long-standing HIV sero-sentinel surveillance system for people who inject drugs (PWID) is confined to those in methadone-based drug treatment clinics and representative data are scarce, especially outside of Bangkok. METHODS: We conducted probability-based respondent-driven sampling (RDS) surveys in Bangkok (n=738) and Chiang Mai (n=309) to increase understanding of local HIV epidemics and to better inform the planning of evidence-based interventions. RESULTS: PWID had different epidemiological profiles in these two cities. Overall HIV prevalence was higher in Bangkok (23.6% vs. 10.9%, p<0.001) but PWID in Bangkok are older and appear to have long-standing HIV infections. In Chiang Mai, HIV infections appear to be more recently acquired and PWID were younger and had higher levels of recent injecting and sexual risk behaviors with lower levels of intervention exposure. Methamphetamine was the predominant drug injected in both sites and polydrug use was common although levels and patterns of the specific drugs injected varied significantly between the sites. In multivariate analysis, recent midazolam injection was significantly associated with HIV infection in Chiang Mai (adjusted odds ratio=8.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.2-54.5) whereas in Bangkok HIV status was not associated with recent risk behaviors as infections had likely been acquired in the past. CONCLUSION: PWID epidemics in Thailand are heterogeneous and driven by local factors. There is a need to customize intervention strategies for PWID in different settings and to integrate population-based survey methods such as RDS into routine surveillance to monitor the national response.