Abstract
Especially during global pandemics but also in the context of epidemic waves, the capacity for diagnostic qRT-PCRs rapidly becomes a limiting factor. Furthermore, excessive testing incurs high costs and can result in an overstrained work force in diagnostics departments. Obviously, people aim to shorten their isolation periods, hospitals need to discharge convalescent people, and re-employ staff members after infection. The aim of the study was to optimize retesting regimens for test-to-release from isolation and return-to-work applications. For this purpose, we investigated the association between Ct values at the first diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the period until test negativity was reached, or at least until the Ct value exceeded 30, which is considered to indicate the transition to a non-infectious state. We included results from the testing of respiratory material samples for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, tested from 01 March 2020 to 31 January 2022.
Lower initial Ct values were associated with longer periods of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positivity. Starting with Ct values of <20, 20-25, 25-30, 30-35, and >35, it took median intervals of 20 (interval: 14-25), 16 (interval: 10-21), 12 (interval: 7-16), 7 (interval: 5-14), and 5 (interval: 2-7) days, respectively, until the person tested negative. Accordingly, a Ct threshold of 30 was surpassed after 13 (interval: 8-19), 9 (interval: 6-14), 7 (interval: 6-11), 6 (interval: 4-10), and 3 (interval: 1-6) days, respectively, in individuals with aforementioned start Ct values. Furthermore, the time to negativity was longer for adults versus children, wild-type SARS-CoV-2 variant versus other variants of concern, and in patients who were treated in the intensive care units.
Based on these data, we propose an adjusted retesting strategy according to the initial Ct value in order to optimize available PCR resources.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any external funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The ethics committee of the medical faculty of the University of Duisburg-Essen approved the analysis of data for the improvement of diagnostic procedures.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
Additional aggregated data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors