Evaluation of Viral Loads in Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Infection: Higher Loads Do Not Translate Into Different Testing Scenarios

  1. Juan Luis Gomez Marti
  2. Ashley Mays
  3. Melissa McCullough
  4. Alan Wells
  5. Tung Phan

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The Delta SARS-CoV-2 variant is very infectious, and it is spreading quickly during this pandemic. In the study, we compared viral loads estimated by means of the Ct values emerging from RT-PCR swab tests in surging cases infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in the fourth wave of COVID-19 with the three prior waves. The data comprised viral loads from positive cases detected within the UPMC health care system in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. A total of 2059 upper airway samples were collected and tested for SARS-CoV-2 positive by RT-PCR during March 2020 to September 2021. We did not observe significant difference in viral load difference between the third (December 2020 to January 2021) and fourth (June 2021 to September 2021) waves; however, they had the higher viral load than the first (March 2020 to June 2020) and second waves (June 2020 to August 2020). We did find an age-related effect with the elderly presenting with lower viral loads, which was also seen in the earlier waves. However, the level of the viral loads in the fourth wave in the respect of the previous ones was not sufficiently increased to change our testing strategies by means of increased use of rapid antigen tests (RAT).

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1177/11786361221087537
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.14.21265031: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.10.14.21265031v1 on medRxiv