@article {Williams2020.08.18.20176693, author = {Caroline M. Williams and Daniel Pan and Jonathan Decker and Eve Fletcher and Anika Wisniewska and Shirley Sze and Sara Assadi and Richard Haigh and Mohamad Abdulwhhab and Paul Bird and Christopher W Holmes and Alaa Al-Taie and Baber Saleem and Jingzhe Pan and Natalie J Garton and Manish Pareek and Michael R Barer}, title = {Exhaled SARS-CoV-2 quantified by face-mask sampling in hospitalised patients with covid-19}, elocation-id = {2020.08.18.20176693}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1101/2020.08.18.20176693}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, abstract = {Background Human to human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is driven by the respiratory route but little is known about the pattern and quantity of virus output from exhaled breath. We have previously shown that face-mask sampling (FMS) can detect exhaled tubercle bacilli and have adapted its use to quantify exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19.Methods Between May and December 2020, we took two concomitant FMS and nasopharyngeal samples (NPS) over two days, starting within 24 hours of a routine virus positive NPS in patients hospitalised with covid-19, at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, UK. Participants were asked to wear a modified duckbilled facemask for 30 minutes, followed by a nasopharyngeal swab. Demographic, clinical, and radiological data, as well as International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) mortality and deterioration scores were obtained.Exposed masks were processed by removal, dissolution and analysis of sampling matrix strips fixed within the mask by RT-qPCR. Viral genome copy numbers were determined and results classified as Negative; Low: <=999 copies; Medium: 1,000-99,999 copies and High >= 100,000 copies per strip for FMS or per 100{\textmu}l for NPS.Results 102 FMS and NPS were collected from 66 routinely positive patients; median age: 61 (IQR 49 - 77), of which FMS was positive in 37\% of individuals and concomitant NPS was positive in 50\%. Positive FMS viral loads varied over five orders of magnitude (\<10-3.3 {\texttimes} 106 genome copies/strip); 21 (32\%) patients were asymptomatic at the time of sampling. High FMS viral load was associated with respiratory symptoms at time of sampling and shorter interval between sampling and symptom onset (FMS High: median (IQR) 2 days (2-3) vs FMS Negative: 7 days (7-10), p=0.002). On multivariable linear regression analysis, higher FMS viral loads were associated with higher ISARIC mortality (Medium FMS vs Negative FMS gave an adjusted coefficient of 15.7, 95\% CI 3.7-27.7, p=0.01) and deterioration scores (High FMS vs Negative FMS gave an adjusted coefficient of 37.6, 95\% CI 14.0 to 61.3, p=0.002), while NPS viral loads showed no significant association.Conclusion We demonstrate a simple and effective method for detecting and quantifying exhaled SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised patients with covid-19. Higher FMS viral loads were more likely to be associated with developing severe disease compared to NPS viral loads. Similar to NPS, FMS viral load was highest in early disease and in those with active respiratory symptoms, highlighting the potential role of FMS in understanding infectivity.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT04481646Funding StatementMP is funded by a NIHR Development and Skills Enhancement Award and is supported by NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). DP is supported by the NIHR. SS is supported by an NIHR Academic Clinical Lectureship in Cardiology. Funding for this project came from the University of Leicester LD3/MRC CiC.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Health Research Authority (20/WM/0153).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesIndividual participant data will be available that underlie the results reported in this article after de-identification along with the study protocol between 9-36 months post publication.}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/21/2020.08.18.20176693}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/21/2020.08.18.20176693.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }