Markets that deal in camels may help spread MERS-CoV variants..

This camel/MERS-CoV study from Farag and colleagues, serves as follow-up of sorts to my last post. The paper, which was published in July 2015's Infection, Ecology and Epidemiology, is entitled High proportion of MERS-CoV shedding dromedaries at slaughterhouse with a potential epidemiological link to human cases, Qatar 2014.[1]

The authors remind us in the background that the routes of direct or indirect zoonotic transmission are still unknown but that a "large proportion of MERS cases" are suspected to have resulted from zoonotic transmission.

105 dromedary camels (DCs) either from a market sale or directly from Qatar or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) were sampled in February (n=53) and March (n=52), 2014. Samples included nasal, oral, rectal and bronchial swabs and lymph nodes from animals grouped into age 3 groups: 0 to 6 months (n=41), 7 to 12 months (n=35) or greater than 12 months (n=29) of age. Testing for virus was by Corman et al's UpE and N gene real-time RT-PCRs.[2] Testing for antibodies was via the detection of a reaction to the MERS-CoV, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV and human CoV (HCoV)-OC43 spike domain S1 antigen using the protein-microarray method described previously by this group.[4]

Findings...

• 59% of DCs had at least one MERS-CoV RNA positive sample but no significant difference in viral load was apparent between sample types or ages
• 61/101 (60.3%) of DC's nasal samples had RNA detected
• 23/102 (22.5%) of DC's saliva samples had RNA detected
• 15/103 (14.6%) of DC's rectal samples had RNA detected
• 7/101 (6.9%) of DC's bronchial samples had RNA detected 
• 5/53 (9.4%) of DC's lymph nodes had RNA detected
• 5 different MERS-CoV variants (subtly different versions of MERS-CoV) were circulating in Qatar among the sampled animals at this time according to RT-PCR/sequencing method that targets a fragment of the S2 domain of the MERS-CoV Spike gene.[3]
• 100/103 (97%) animals were reactive for IgG, and most of 53 animals tested, had antibodies capable of specifically neutralizing cellular infection by MERS-CoV as determined by a 90% plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT90; [5])
• Antibody levels and viral load did not correlate suggesting - based on this subset of the immune response - that reinfection may be possible since protection may be limited, as it is among humans with the 4 known HCoVs. The authors note that this may prove a challenge for any future DC vaccine which would need to produce a protective effect to meets its need
• No age-specific differences were found in MERS-CoV RNA shedding - usually younger DCs are distinctly more likely to be shedding viral RNA than older DCs

Discussion...

The authors noted here that discrepancies do exist between their study and those of some others - specifically, that others have not found viral RNA in faeces - but those studies also tested fewer animals. It is important, when percentages are not high, to test enough animals to see the full extent of MERS-CoV shedding and potential transmission routes.

DCs from different regions within Qatar and outside Qatar, may be shedding MERS-CoV while in DC markets and holding pens, sometimes for weeks, awaiting slaughter. 

Camel markets are thus a likely high risk area for acquiring a MERS-CoV infection - and multiple variants can be circulating here. 

In previous Qatari investigations, human cases have been linked with visits to the areas studied here and have also included DC slaughterer cases, supporting the notion that humans with DC exposures (presumably when they are infected with MERS-CoV) are at risk of becoming infected themselves. 

Yet this study did not manage to capture the process of transmission in action. It is that process that holds such importance for this chapter on MERS-CoV and especially for those who disbelieve the role of DCs in human MERS cases. 

In the next post, we will re-visit a study that did seem to capture DC>human infection.

References...

1. High proportion of MERS-CoV shedding dromedaries at slaughterhouse with a potential epidemiological link to human cases, Qatar 2014.
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4505336/
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23041020 
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25728084
4. http://virologydownunder.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/if-you-are-often-in-contact-with-camels.html
5. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(13)70164-6/abstract

MERS-CoV snapdate on canaries...

MERS-CoV detections among healthcare workers (HCWs)

HCWs are akin to the canary in the coal mine - when HCWs get sick with a particular bug, this can signal that the bug may well be more active in the the wider community. 

This graph looks at the canaries and suggest that there has been a relatively long period in which they have been getting infected.

Healthcare workers positive for MERS-CoV over time.
Some reported or hypothesized clusters and outbreaks are flagged.
Click on image to enlarge.

A quick look at my database shows that most of the MERS-CoV-positive HCWs reported since October have been from Riyadh in Ar Riyadh region and Taif in Makkah region. 

Just before that, in early September, there were 2 HCWs from Jubail in the Ash Sharqiyah (eastern) region. 

If we look at the new time-based occurrence heatmap I have on my MERS-CoV static page here, the recent group of HCWs come from the areas with most cases. No big surprise there. Perhaps more surprising is why these HCWs are, presumably, still acquiring there infection in hospital settings given eh attention that infection prevention and control practices had, especially (before?) during and after the Jeddah outbreak last year.

A recent paper from Profs Drosten and Memish speaks to this topic of infection control and hospital spread of MERS-CoV a little.[1] 

It reports finding a 40-year old female (40F) nurse who, despite MERS-CoV being such a wimpy transmitter between humans, became infected after attending an infected patient. 40F did not perform any aerosol-generating procedures  but also wore only a surgical mask and gloves - it reads as though she was not fully protected against droplet, and certainly not against airborne, exposure. 

The 40F HCW then went on to shed virus for a 42-day period as determined by MERS-CoV specific RT-PCR. She was not ill during this time. Hard to contain much?

So with all that in mind, it's no longer hard to imagine how spread of MERS-CoV virus occurs within, around and between hospital settings. Also helps to explain how some of the new cases might seem strange - if not testing for subclinical or asymptomatic cases as a routine. I recall that in Saudi Arabia routine testing of milder cases is not occurring, but I cannot find a source for that recollection just now so I stand to be corrected (please send if you know if a reference that alludes to that).

A couple of quick questions spring to mind:

1. Just how widespread is this lengthy shedding period?
2. What does this say about how mild a virus MERS-CoV is when comorbidities are not a factor?
3. What role do genetics play in the host's containment and clearance of MERS-CoV infection?

Heatmap of MERS-CoV detection by date and region
within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Click on image to enlarge.

Reference..

1. A Case of Long-term Excretion and Subclinical Infection With Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus in a Healthcare Worker. Manal Al-Gethamy, Victor M. Corman, Raheela Hussain, Jaffar A. Al-Tawfiq, Christian Drosten and Ziad A. Memish.
   http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/01/01/cid.ciu1135.long