The prevention of nosocomial SARS-CoV2 transmission in endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations within gastroenterology to identify best practice.

Endoscopy generates aerosol droplets and fomites, thereby increasing the risk of SARS-CoV2 transmission to healthcare workers and uninfected patients within endoscopy departments. Despite the sharp rise in the incidence of COVID-19, authoritative recommendations to limit the spread of SARS-CoV2 within gastrointestinal endoscopy units are lacking. Therefore, with the primary aim of identifying best practice and scrutinizing its supporting evidence, we conducted a systematic review of literature for articles published between 1 January 2002 and 15 March 2020 in five databases relating to both the current SARS-CoV2 and the previous SARS-CoV outbreaks. Official websites for gastroenterology and endoscopy societies in the 15 most affected countries were also searched. Unfortunately, a paucity of high quality data and heterogeneity of recommendations between countries was observed. Interestingly, not all countries advocated the postponement of non-urgent or elective procedures. Recommendations for patient screening and personal protective equipment were commonly featured in all recommendations but specifics varied. Only 32% (9/28) of all gastroenterology and endoscopy societies issued guidance on endoscopy in the COVID-19 pandemic. In conclusion, stronger evidence to inform current practice and robust guidelines are urgently needed to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV2 in gastrointestinal endoscopy departments worldwide.


INTRODUCTION
SARS-CoV2 has spread to all major continents. Over 100,000 individuals have been infected and new cases are rising at an alarming rate. Over 3000 healthcare workers (HCW) in China alone are suspected of COVID-19 and over 1,700 tested positive.
[1] These statistics underline the imperative need to define appropriate protective guidelines for HCWs in high risk specialties such as gastroenterology to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV2 both to patients and colleagues. Singapore at one point in time had the largest cohort of infected patients outside China in the early phases of the SARS-CoV2 outbreak. Given the novelty of the disease, the quality of preventative measures implemented within our endoscopy units was unknown. Therefore, with the primary aim of identifying best practice in current literature to curb the spread of SARS-CoV2, we performed a systematic review to scrutinize the evidence and practice protocols related to both  and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).
The search was conducted by 2 reviewers independently (JO and YYD). All articles types were screened by abstracts. Duplicates and irrelevant articles were removed.
There were no language restrictions. Included articles that were not in English were translated. Extracted data were analyzed for qualitative synthesis by JO and YYD. Any disagreements were resolved by discussions between all three authors.

Outcome assessment
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
(which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https: //doi.org/10.1101//doi.org/10. /2020 Our primary outcome was the effect of preventative measures on the incidence of COVID-19 cases within endoscopy departments. Our secondary outcome was the quality of recommendations for (i) patient selection including screening, (ii) peri-and intra-endoscopy practices, and (iii) post-procedure practices.

Eligibility selection and data extraction
Data from included articles was extracted independently by JO and YYD using predesigned forms on Microsoft Word (2007 Home Edition;Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Washington). In the event quantitative data was not reported to achieve our primary objective, articles were still scrutinized for data to achieve our secondary objective.
Articles with missing data that could not satisfy both primary and secondary objectives were excluded from qualitative synthesis.

Quality Assessment
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of the only article that provided quantitative data on the intervention of protective measures.
[6] This scored 3 stars for selection, no stars for comparability, and 1 star for outcome, making it a poor-quality study.

Statistical analysis and qualitative synthesis
There was insufficient data in current literature to perform any statistical analyses to meet our primary objective. For our secondary objective, qualitative analyses involved the stringency and level of detail in the recommendations across three domains: patient selection, peri-procedural and intra-procedural practices, and postprocedural practices. A fourth domain "general advice" was created to report any useful data which did not fit the previous three domains. For patient selection, . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
(which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https: //doi.org/10.1101//doi.org/10. /2020 screening protocols (e.g. temperature readings, imaging, etc.), contingency plans for a high-risk patient newly detected in endoscopy (suspected or positive patient), triaging, and recommendations for PPE (patients and front desk staff) were assessed. For peri-procedural and intra-procedural practices, the recommendation for PPEs and infection control measures were assessed. For post-procedural practices, decontamination practices and recommended PPE for transfer staff.
Monitoring of staff and contingency plans for unprotected HCWs post-exposure were assessed and included under "general advice". All authors contributed to the qualitative synthesis.

Search results
9 guidelines [4-12] and 2 articles [13][14] on preventative measures during the SARS outbreak were reviewed for qualitative synthesis. 9 of 10 guidelines related to the COVID-19, the other was the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) 2003 recommendation for the SARS outbreak [12]. Of the 8 COVID-19 guidelines, 3 originated from China, 2 from US, 2 from UK and 1 from Spain. Of all gastrointestinal-related societies reviewed, 32% (9/28) had published advice on the management of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases at the point of writing. Only 1 of all reviewed articles cited the efficacy of its preventative measures on the incidence of COVID-19 cases, however, sample size was small and period of observation abrupt (See Table 1). There was insufficient data in literature for metaanalyses. Breadth of recommendations and depth of detail varied considerably in all domains between countries, being most stringent in China.

Patient selection
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 Details of patient selection for endoscopy has been summarised in Table 2. Not all guidelines and countries recommended the postponement of non-urgent or elective procedures. In Spanish and British guidelines, cases referred to endoscopy were primarily triaged by patient risk of having COVID-19. In contrast to US, China and Singapore, endoscopy cases were firstly triaged by clinical need then by patient risk of COVID-19. In terms of screening protocols, all protocols advocated the use of body temperature > 37.5 o C, symptoms of COVID-19, travel history and contact history. Recommendations from China appeared to be most stringent and advocated the use of chest computerised tomography (CT Lung) and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-QCR) in suspicious cases. Apart from Chinese related guidelines that recommended the isolation of all positive patients detected through endoscopy screening, detailed contingencies for suspected or newly diagnosed patients as a result of screening were commonly lacking. Personal protective equipment (PPE) recommendations for "front desk" staff and patients in waiting areas was also neglected in some recommendations.

Peri-and Intra-procedural practice recommendations
Stringency of PPE recommendations varied significantly but tended to be more stringent in Asian countries that were previously exposed to the SARS outbreak. The most apparent difference was in the recommendation for respiratory PPEs ( is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 with intermediate risk in the US [8], and those with high risk in the UK.
[10] Negative pressure ventilation rooms are recommended in some guidelines but not all.

Post-procedural recommendations
Recommendations for decontamination practices were fairly consistent (Table 3) but some guidelines were more detailed and included air purification measures.
Chlorine-containing disinfectants of varying strengths and double-bagging of waste were commonly recommended. General consensus was that standard scope decontamination procedures were adequate. Management of patients post-sedation and recommended PPE for transfer staff were often not mentioned although would be helpful in future revisions.

General Advice
Most guidelines have commented on, and recommend, the continuation of immunesuppressive medication including biologics in patients already established them. In the event patients become unwell whilst on these medication, the general consensus is for them to seek medical advice urgently. There were no statements from gastrointestinal-related societies against the use of ibuprofen in COVID-19 at the point of writing. 2 of 5 guidelines advised HCWs on how to monitor for signs of selfinfection and when to self-report. Only 1 guideline advocated patient follow-up in the community (via telephone) post-procedure. [8]

DISCUSSION
This review highlights the paucity and need for high-quality evidence. There was little evidence to inform which preventative measures worked best at reducing the . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.17.20037564 doi: medRxiv preprint incidence of COVID-19 cases in gastrointestinal or endoscopy departments. We have found that current practice is being guided mainly by level 4 and level 5 evidence. Further research in these areas are urgently needed.
Transmission of SARS-CoV2 is through droplets or fomites. It is postulated SARS-CoV2 binds to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 receptors, and with the assistance of Transmembrane Serine Protease 2, enters cells. However, the median incubation time of the virus is 5.1 days but can extend to more than 11 days (11.5 days = 97.5% percentile), and in the meanwhile they remain asymptomatic but infectious. [18,19] This poses significant problems for screening tools that are heavily dependent on symptomatology. Furthermore, COVID-19 related diarrhoea could also be mistaken for a flare of inflammatory bowel disease or bowel preparation and vice versa. As the spread of COVID-19 becomes more rampant in local communities, screening for travel history may also be limited.
Contact screening for exposure to individuals who have symptoms of COVID-19 may prove to be more useful. Nonetheless, this review has not identified any data on the accuracy of question-based screening tools including performance statistics such as . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 area under receiver operating characteristic, positive and negative predictive values, etc.
Given the limitations of question-based screening methods, patient follow-up postprocedure becomes extremely important at detecting "false negatives" that slipped through current processes. Identification of any infected patient post-procedure who was within the window of the viral incubation at the time of endoscopy would have significant implications; undetected transmission to HCWs and other patients in the department must then be investigated. A robust contact screening program is then necessary to contain the spread of COVID-19 among exposed staff and patient contacts. Only 1 guideline identified in this review advised on post-procedure followup at Day 7 and Day 14 by telephone. We believe this should be a common feature in all future guidance on COVID-19. As screening methods improve and detection kits become more readily available, biological and radiological screening methods that are advocated by Chinese guidelines may become more efficient at disease detection although would be costly. If COVID-19 becomes a protracted pandemic, one possible solution to help restore normal work flow in endoscopy could be serial screening e.g. 2 throat swabs for viral RNA 2 weeks apart before listing for endoscopy. In conclusion, stronger evidence to inform current practice and robust guidelines are urgently needed to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV2 in gastrointestinal endoscopy departments worldwide.

Acknowledgements:
JO is supported by the W.D. Armstrong Doctoral Fellowship from Cambridge University and a development grant from the National . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 University of Singapore. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS or the Department of Health.

Funding:
This is an unfunded study. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint  . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint . https: //doi.org/10.1101//doi.org/10. /2020   . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

(which was not peer-reviewed)
The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 Page 17 of 20 Contingency plan for high-risk patients detected in endoscopy: -All patients found to COVID-19 positive to be quarantined in isolation ward.
-Triage suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patient to designated area. Carers and relatives prohibited from endoscopy department unless necessary.
-Check body temperature before entering endoscopy.
-Classify risk: (i) Low = No symptoms, no contact risks, not from high risk area (ii) Intermediate = One of any positive (iii) High risk = Symptomatic with either contact risk of from high risk area.
PPE recommendation (general staff): -All patients to be offered surgical face masks [6] Contingency plan for high-risk patients detected in endoscopy: -Not stated.
Triaging: -Carry on with all procedures but postpone elective procedures if suspected or confirmed COVID-19.
-Hospitals to decide internally about postponing non-urgent procedures.
Screening protocol [7]: (i) Travel history, (ii) Body temperature, (iii) Patients given symptom, (iv) Information sheet and asked to report any symptoms at front desk.

PPE recommendation (general staff): -None stated
Contingency plan for high-risk patients detected in endoscopy: -Not stated.
Triaging: -Delay all procedures for 30 days if patients have respiratory symptoms or exposure to contacts regardless of fever unless in emergencies.   -Patients to continue immunosuppression if established and contact medical team if unwell or exposed to COVID-19 patient -Face to face evaluation for patients who are on biological treatment, immunosuppressed or if they have chronic debilitating disease.
-All staff to check personal body temperature twice daily.
-Endoscopic staff are segregated into isolated teams to reduce social mixing to reduce cross exposure in event of outbreak. Table 4: Post-procedural recommendations and general advice for endoscopy during the COVID-19 outbreak.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Rationale
3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

3
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

METHODS
Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.

Not applicable
Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

5
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

4, 5, 6
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

4
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

4, 5
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

5
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

4, 5
Risk of bias in individual studies 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

5
Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

4, 5
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I 2 ) for each meta-analysis.

Metaanalyses not done
Page 1 of 2