Abstract
Background Organ transplant recipients are at increased vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 due to immunosuppression and may pose a continued transmission risk especially within hospital settings. Detailed case reports including symptoms, viral load and infectiousness, defined by the presence of replication-competent viruses in culture, provide an opportunity to examine the relationship between clinical course, burden and contagiousness, and provide guidance on release from isolation.
Objectives We performed a systematic review to investigate the relationship in transplant recipients between serial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value or cycle of quantification value (Cq), or other measures of viral burden and the likelihood and duration of the presence of infectious virus based on viral culture including the influence of age, sex, underlying pathologies, degree of immunosuppression, and/or vaccination on this relationship.
Methods We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and WHO Covid-19 databases, from 1 November 2019 until 31 December 2021. We included studies reporting relevant data for transplantees with SARS-CoV-2 infection: results from serial RT-PCR testing and viral culture data from the same respiratory samples. We assessed methodological quality using five criteria, and synthesised the data narratively and graphically.
Results We included 10 case reports and case series reporting on 38 transplantees. We observed a relationship between proxies of viral burden and likelihood of shedding replication-competent SARS-CoV-2. Two individuals shed replication-competent viruses over 100 days after infection onset. Lack of standardisation of testing and reporting platforms precludes establishing a definitive viral burden cut-off. However, most transplantees stopped shedding competent viruses when the RT-PCR cycle threshold was above 30 despite differences across platforms.
Conclusions Viral burden is a reasonable proxy for infectivity when considered within the context of the clinical status of each patient. Standardised study design and reporting are essential to standardise guidance based on an increasing evidence base.
Introduction
Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients have significant immunosuppression, affecting both cellular and humoral immunity, and less favourable outcomes with Severe Acute Respiratory Virus Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, due to the immunosuppression and/or to pre-existing comorbidities1. Immunosuppression associated with transplantation places patients at risk for prolonged carriage and shedding of several respiratory viruses2. However, identification of respiratory viral shedding, recently by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), depending on the testing platform does not correlate with the presence of replication-competent virus3. Accordingly, we sought to perform a systematic review of RT-PCR testing and viral culture of SARS-CoV-2, focussing on people receiving solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplants, following our published protocol4.
Our research questions were:
What is the correlation between serial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value or cycle of quantification value (Cq), or other measures of viral burden and the likelihood of producing replication-competent virus?
What is the likelihood and duration of the presence of infectious virus based on viral culture, among transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection?
What is the influence of age, sex, underlying pathologies and degree of immunosuppression on infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2?
What is the relationship of vaccination status on infectiousness with SARS-CoV-2?
We included studies reporting serial Cts from sequential RT-PCR testing or other measures of viral burden such as RNA gene copies of respiratory samples (from nasopharyngeal or throat specimens) along with viral culture data on the same samples, from patients about to receive a transplant or who were post-transplant, with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Methods
Search Strategy
We searched the following electronic databases: LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database from November 2019 until December 31, 2021. No language restrictions were applied.
The literature search terms were: (coronavirus OR covid-19 OR SARS-CoV-2) AND (immunosuppressed OR immunocompromised OR transplant OR immunosuppression OR “immune deficient” OR HIV) AND (CPE OR “cytopathic effect” OR “Viral culture” OR “virus culture” OR vero OR “virus replication” OR “viral replication” OR “cell culture” or “viral load” OR “viral threshold” OR “log copies” OR “cycle threshold”).
Screening
Four reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to identify studies for consideration of full text. Full text screening was performed in duplicate and disagreements arbitrated by a fifth reviewer.
Inclusion criteria
We included studies reporting serial Cts from sequential RT-PCR testing, or RNA gene copies of respiratory samples (nasopharyngeal, throat, sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, endotracheal tube secretions) AND viral culture data from the same samples from patients about to receive a transplant or post-transplant with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We included primary studies provided they reported sufficient information to extract quantitative data on the PCR testing and the viral culture for each included individual. Studies that included transplant and non-transplant patients were included if we could ascertain the results separately. Studies reported only in poster or abstract form were excluded. Reviews were excluded but the reference lists screened for potential relevant primary studies.
Exclusion criteria
We excluded studies using post-mortem samples only and non-respiratory samples only. We did not include studies of non-transplant patients or those not attempting viral cultures.
Data extraction
One reviewer extracted data, which was independently checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements were arbitrated by a third reviewer. Data were extracted on study type and study characteristics, including population, setting, sampling and laboratory methods, clinical information, prescribed treatments, vaccination status, laboratory findings, and clinical outcomes. For three studies we sought clarification from the corresponding authors.
Quality assessment
We assessed the quality of included studies according to five criteria:
Were the criteria for diagnosing a case clearly reported and appropriate?
Was the reporting of patient/population characteristics including clinical symptoms, treatments with degree of immunosuppression and outcomes adequate?
Was the study period, including follow-up, sufficient to adequately assess any potential relationship between viral burden measures and likelihood of producing replication-competent virus and the rise in neutralising antibodies? We defined sufficient as more than one observation.
Were the methods used to obtain RT-PCR results replicable, generalisable and appropriate? We considered that each study should establish the relationship between their Ct values and the target gene copy number, using internal standards.
Were the methods used to obtain viral culture results replicable and appropriate? We considered the methods used should, at a minimum, include a description of specimen sampling and management, preparation, media and cell line used, exclusion of contamination or co-infection (use of good controls and appropriate antibacterials and antimycotics and possible use of gene sequencing if available), and results of inspection of culture.
Data reporting and pooling
We reported study flow according to PRISMA reporting standards5. We reported study characteristics including age, sex, clinical symptoms, treatments and events in the participants in tabular form. We presented data on disease burden measures and on viral culture in tabular form. For studies reporting more than one patient participant, data were extracted related to each participant if available. We plotted median, interquartile ranges (IQRs) and outliers for viral culture results in relation to the duration of symptoms, and individual study plots to day 120 of viral culture results and cycle thresholds.
We were unable to meta-analyse the data on PCR cycle counts/RNA log copies and viral culture, due to a lack of detailed information on laboratory practices, assays and because of the absence of internal controls in some studies, and heterogeneous sampling. We therefore reviewed the studies narratively, and where possible presented the results graphically within the limitations noted.
We analysed the relationship between cycle threshold, days of onset of symptoms and likelihood of shedding replication-competent virus by presenting the data on a scatter plot
Results
The literature search identified 12,988 titles for screening. Of these 63 underwent full-text review. A total of 53 studies were excluded after full-text analysis: reasons are reported in the list of excluded studies (see Supplementary File: List of excluded studies)
The 10 included studies (Figure 1 reported data for 30 transplant patients (7 females and 23 males): renal (21), cardiac (5), bone marrow transplant (9), liver (2), bilateral lung (1). For one study the number of males and females was not available for the relevant patient group. 6 The 38 patients were in seven countries: Saudi Arabia7, France 8,9, Germany 10,11,12, Austria 13, Denmark 14, Canada 15 and the USA6, and were aged between 26 and 77 years old.
PRISMA flow chart of study screening for inclusion.
A total of 36 were infected with SARS-CoV-2 post-transplant: 21 patients in 3 studies had had kidney transplant 7,8,12, 5 patients in 4 studies had had a cardiac transplant7,10,15,9, 1 previous bone marrow transplant for multiple myeloma 14, 1 liver transplant 14 and eight hematopoietic cell transplants6. Two patients were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and subsequently underwent transplant: 1 liver transplant 11, 1 patient had bilateral lung transplantation after a SARS-CoV-2 infection that severely affected the lungs 13.
Typically, patients received 6a mixture of antivirals, antibiotics, convalescent plasma and immune suppressants, as reported in Table 1. The clinical course of COVID-19 varied widely amongst the included patients, from mild COVID-19 related symptoms to severe pneumonia and lung failure; no deaths were specifically reported for this group, although deaths were reported for 4 aggregate patients in one study within 30 days of diagnosis6. Prescribed treatments reflected the variation in severity.
Characteristics of transplant patients in included studies.
Quality Assessment
Table 2 reports study quality based on five criteria. Three studies 15,9,12 met all five criteria. Follow-up was judged adequate in all studies; in nine studies the reporting of patient characteristics was sufficiently comprehensive6,8,10,13,11,14,15,9,12 and clinical information was missing for one study 7. Case definition was missing or unclear in four studies6, 7 10 14, and methods for RT-PCR testing were unclear for three studies6,10,13. The methods used for viral culture were unclear in four studies 7,10,13,11 and one study reported using a cell line that has not typically been used to demonstrate SARS-CoV-2 growth - Buffalo green monkey kidney (BGMK) cell line8.
Quality of included studies.
Results of the studies
The results are reported in Table 1 and Table 3. The clinical course of infection was highly variable (Tables and 1 and 3, and Figures 2 and 3). The time from transplant to infection varied from days to years (see for example Aydillo et al6 and Rajakumar et al15). Sampling schedules varied between studies, with no regular timetable of testing taking place, so results for PCR and viral culture are available for different time points in a patient’s clinical course and with different gaps in time between samples being taken.
SARs-CoV-2 culture results in transplant patients from days of symptom onset.
Figure 3. Duration of infectivity as indicated by viral culture and corresponding PCR cycle counts/log copies among transplant recipients.
Timings of positive culture results in Transplant Patients by duration of symptoms and Ct results Alshukairi [7], Benotmane [8], Rajakumar [15] & Niyonkuru [14] (days 1-42)
Timings of positive culture results in Transplant Patients by duration of symptoms and Ct results Aydillo [6] (day 1-90), Tarhini [9] & Weigang [12] (day 1-120)
Timings of positive culture results in Transplant Patients by duration of symptoms and log10 copies/ml results Decker [10] (days 1-36)
PCR cycle counts/log copies and viral culture results of included studies.
In response to our first study question on the correlation between proxy indicators of viral burden and infectiousness, the data from Figures 2 and 3 and Table 3 indicate a correlation between viral burden (measured as log copies or Cq/Ct) and probable infectiousness. The data suggests that earlier symptom onset is related to the likelihood of shedding replication-competent virus (Figure 2). The median time for a positive culture from onset of symptoms was 16 days (IQR 8 to 27; range 1-105, mean 19.7 days n = 59 cultures performed). The median for a negative culture was 40 days, mean 40.2 days (IQR 22 to 60; range 1-119, n = 107 cultures performed).
Five patients reported by Alshukairi et al were all culture-negative; this was in samples taken on days 9,12, 17,18 and day 26 since symptom onset, respectively 7.
Seven stem cell transplant recipients from the Aydillo et al letter who had repeated culture assessments fluctuated in and out of shedding replication-competent virus. One who had a single culture attempt was positive with an estimated Ct of 17.5 6. Patient MSK-6 shed replication competent virus until day 62 from symptom onset with an estimated Ct of 19. MSK-6 showed the longest duration infectious transplant recipient from the Aydillo et al letter6. Eight kidney transplant patients described by Benotmane and colleagues had positive viral cultures 8.
For six patients we could identify the duration of probable infectiousness, which ranged from 8 days (patient 5: day 1 to 8) to 32 days (patient 7: day 7 to 38). Four patients were infectious with reported Cts> 30 based on the individual platforms that were used to perform the Cts.
Rajakumar et al15 described two cardiac transplant patients: viral culture found replication-competent virus in samples from one patient on day 16 and in samples from the other patient on day 4 and repeatedly up to day 27, after which all viral cultures were negative15.For each patient, viral culture was negative (i.e. no replication-competent virus observed) in samples with PCR cycle counts of over 25. Within the samples giving positive viral cultures, the PCR results showed that the cycle threshold for the N gene was lower than for the E gene by an average of 5.4 Ct values.
In the study by Niyonkuru et al, the duration of infectiousness in the two patients, as indicated by replication-competent virus, was 8 and 9 days (Figure 3) 14. A cardiac transplant patient described by Tarhini9 and colleagues tested culture-positive with a Ct of 23 on day 103; all other viral cultures were negative from samples with PCR Cts of 18 to over 40 9.
Weigang et al12 described a kidney transplant patient who experienced three hospital admissions. During the first one (day zero to day 72), 19 RT-qPCR tests were performed, and alongside that viral culture was performed, showing 8/19 positive cultures (Ct values ranging from 15 to 25) and 11/19 negative (Ct values from 25 to 30). The patient was culture positive again on day 105 (Ct of 23). After re-admission at day 140 the patient was still RT-qPCR positive, but with viral culture negative; he was treated for 10 days (days 141-149) with remdesivir. Subsequently, negative RT-qPCR tests until day 189 and negative cultures suggested that the infection had resolved12.
A heart transplant patient described by Decker10 and co-workers had a positive viral culture on day 18 and day 21 with 6.2 and 6.5 log10 copies/ml. 10
Although the dataset was limited, we observed an inverse relationship (Ct/Cq) or direct relationship (log copies): the viral burden indicated by these methods correlated with infectiousness, as shown by the ability to produce replication-competent virus in culture. The presence of replication-competent virus reflects one of the highest grades of evidence supporting the capability for forward transmission of SARS-CoV-216, 17.
The robustness of the correlation is difficult to assess because laboratory methods differ; it was not possible to pool the data to produce a summary cut-off value for infectiousness, due to these variations and due to varying time windows for sampling from patients (see Figure 2 and Table 3).
In response to our second research question (on the likelihood and duration of infectiousness among transplant recipients with SARS-CoV-2 infection) the data indicate that regardless of differences in laboratory practices, observed prolonged shedding of replication-competent virus is associated with alternating increases and decreases of viral burden over time, which in some cases may be up to around 100 days 9,12.
Figure 4 shows the relationship between cycle threshold, symptom onset (in days) and likelihood of shedding replication competent virus. In Benotmane, five results were reported with a CT of 30 or above for a positive culture. [8] However, the cell line used in this study is not demonstrated to support SARS-CoV-2 growth. In the other studies, despite a minimum of 10 different PCR platforms being used and different culture techniques, the culture results are insensitive to cycle thresholds above 30. The viral load estimates are affected by administration of courses of anti-viral treatment including remdesivir. See Figures 3a (Cts/Cqs) and 3b (log copies).
Relationship between cycle threshold, symptom onset (in days) and likelihood of shedding replication competent virus
Responding to our third research question (the influence of age, sex, underlying pathologies and degree of immunosuppression on infectiousness): at present the heterogeneity and limited amount of the available data preclude answering this question.
We are unable to answer our fourth and final research question on the relationship of vaccination status on infectiousness because no study reported on vaccination status for these transplant patients.
Discussion
This review included 10 reports of studies using viral culture and RT-qPCR testing among 38 transplant patients with immunosuppressive treatment who experienced COVID-19 infection. The evidence indicates a relationship between indicators of viral burden (Ct, Cq or RNA log copies) and probable infectiousness as indicated by the presence of replication-competent virus. Gaps in the data remain due to variable methods and reporting and establishing summary estimates of the relationship has not been possible. The data show a long-term rise and fall of viral burden associated with the likelihood of infectiousness that in some transplant patients appears to be a sequential pattern of going in and out of infectiousness. Replication-competent virus was most commonly observed in samples with PCR Ct values under 25; one study was an exception to this by reporting viable virus at Ct>30, but the use of a cell line not typically used for SARS-CoV-2 isolation makes interpretation unclear8. The duration of viral RNA shedding was variable, with the longest duration reported at 105 days12. Our findings suggest a Ct of 30 or greater, regardless of the platform, may be used as a reasonable proxy to rule out infectious SARS-CoV-2 as there is a consistent correlation between a rising Ct value and likelihood of isolating replication-competent virus. Such a value would be useful to guide clinicians managing these difficult patients, particularly if there were repeated values in this range. Below a Ct of 30, clinicians may choose to repeat NP or throat swabs to assess the direction of the Ct values to allow a more dynamic assessment which taken in conjunction with the clinical status may faciltate decision making for isolation or antiviral treatment considerations.
Regarding our third review question on the influence of patient variables on the likelihood of the presence of infectious SARS-CoV-2, the included studies showed substantial heterogeneity; some had missing data or few cultures available, and meta-analysis or pooling was not possible. Variability in the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection among transplant recipients has been reported, including observed prolonged viral shedding18. Antiviral drugs may impact on these observations, especially symptoms and viral burden. 19
Two well-designed studies on immunosuppressed patients, which we were unable to include because disaggregated data solely for transplant patients were not fully available, support our conclusions6, 20. While this review is limited to transplant patients, evidence suggests similar prolonged viral cultures are found in immunosuppressed cancer patients. We plan to perform a further review in this group analysing the type of cancer and the impact of immunotherapies on viral culture findings.
The transplant patient population is of particular importance: clinicians need guidance as to when to release the patient from quarantine or isolation, given the heavy burden of immunosuppression. We have tried to narrow the uncertainty and offer some general guidance as to when patients are unlikely to be shedding replication-competent virus, but clinical assessment of each patient must inform that decision because each patient and setting is different.
The strengths of this review are that we followed our published protocol, entailing rigorous literature searches, double checked data extraction and quality assessment, and a high level of clinical and epidemiological expertise input to deliberate the findings. We were also able to include data from an additional 8 transplant recipients after extensive correspondence with the study authors6. Limitations include the small number of studies with viral culture and serial viral load estimates among transplant patients, high variability in study design and reporting and impossibility to pool results due to the well-known variability in sensitivity across assays21.
Case series are conventionally considered low in the evidence hierarchy, as they may entail inherent bias in the selection of study participants and therefore have limited generalisability; however, here they are essential in providing the detailed reports needed for this unusual patient group. The case reports included here comprise some of the most detailed longitudinal reports of this patient group for whom data are needed. The evidence base is limited, however, by heterogeneous design and reporting within the studies with, for example, different observation windows for reporting of viral burden and culturability or clinical characteristics of patients.
In addition to providing appropriate care for the individual patient, ongoing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is a concern, and immunosuppressed individuals may pose a challenge by experiencing prolonged carriage of the virus that could lead to forward transmission. Based on our findings we would offer the following general guidance to clinicians:
Physicians who are experienced with these immunosuppressed patient populations should work with public health to direct their isolation and quarantine requirements. Infectious patients with immunosuppressive treatment following solid organ or stem cell transplantation should be isolated until at least two consecutive respiratory specimens collected ≥24 hours apart demonstrate a rising RT-PCR Ct (i.e. indicating diminishing viral burden). After discharge, they should be closely followed up for SARS-CoV-2 infection for several weeks to months, depending on the individual clinical scenario.
For obtaining data, standardisation of methods is needed: each laboratory should use consistently applied platforms with suitable internal standards to calibrate the relationship between Ct and genome copy in these patient populations.
Publication of results of case series or other longitudinal study should be reported in a standardised format to avoid loss of data. We suggest observation windows should be within a short range of 3 to 7 days during the acute periods post-transplantation and during periods of rejection when higher doses of immunosuppressants are employed, depending on clinical circumstances. Each observation window should include a summary of symptoms and interventions, the reporting of PCR cycle threshold and, for samples with Ct below 30, attempts at viral culture if available. Description of patients should include past medical histories and details of treatments received. Observed drug interactions should be highlighted. Reasons for admission, discharge and changes in isolation should be clearly reported. To investigate the duration of viral shedding, studies should report the time between the first positive and the first negative viral cultures.
With additional data gathering and standardisation of methods, it will be possible for transplant physicians to develop evidence-based approaches to dealing with these patients for the benefit of the patients and their families and the community at large.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.
Funding
This work is supported by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research [Project 569] and by the University of Calgary.
Author contributions
TJ, CH and JC designed the study. JB performed the literature searches. JB, TJ, SM, ER and ES, screened the studies for eligibility and performed data extraction. Additional expertise on clinical and laboratory issues was given by DE, JC, SM and ER. CH generated the data figures. All authors contributed to interpreting and writing up the results and conclusions.
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate:
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Therefore, ethical approval is not applicable. Consent for publication:
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
Competing Interests
TJ’s competing interests are accessible at: https://restoringtrials.org/competing-interests-tom-jefferson
CJH holds grant funding from the NIHR, the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR BRC Oxford and the World Health Organization for a series of Living rapid review on the modes of transmission of SARs-CoV-2 reference WHO registration No2020/1077093. He has received financial remuneration from an asbestos case and given legal advice on mesh and hormone pregnancy tests cases. He has received expenses and fees for his media work including occasional payments from BBC Radio 4 Inside Health and The Spectator. He receives expenses for teaching EBM and is also paid for his GP work in NHS out of hours (contract Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust). He has also received income from the publication of a series of toolkit books and for appraising treatment recommendations in non-NHS settings. He is Director of CEBM and is an NIHR Senior Investigator.
DE holds grant funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and Li Ka Shing Institute of Virology relating to the development of Covid-19 vaccines as well as the Canadian Natural Science and Engineering Research Council concerning Covid-19 aerosol transmission. He is a recipient of World Health Organization and Province of Alberta funding which supports the provision of BSL3-based SARS-CoV-2 culture services to regional investigators. He also holds public and private sector contract funding relating to the development of poxvirus-based Covid-19 vaccines, SARS-CoV-2-inactivation technologies, and serum neutralization testing.
JMC holds grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research on acute and primary care preparedness for COVID-19 in Alberta, Canada and was the primary local Investigator for a Staphylococcus aureus vaccine study funded by Pfizer for which all funding was provided only to the University of Calgary. He is co-investigator on a WHO funded study using integrated human factors and ethnography approaches to identify and scale innovative IPC guidance implementation supports in primary care with a focus on low-resource settings and using drone aerial systems to deliver medical supplies and PPE to remote First Nations communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also received support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to attend an Infection Control Think Tank Meeting. He is a member and Chair of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Research and Development Expert Group for COVID-19 and a member of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme (WHE) Ad-hoc COVID-19 IPC Guidance Development Group, both of which provide multidisciplinary advice to the WHO and for which no funding is received and from which no funding recommendations are made for any WHO contracts or grants. He is also a member of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Working Group.
JB is a major shareholder in the Trip Database search engine (www.tripdatabase.com) as well as being an employee. In relation to this work Trip has worked with a large number of organisations over the years, none have any links with this work. The main current projects are with AXA and SARS-CoV-2 (WHO Registration 2020/1077093-0) and is part of the review group carrying out rapid reviews for Collateral Global. He worked on Living rapid literature review on the modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and a scoping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions designed to improve vaccination uptake (WHO Registration 2021/1138353-0).
ECR was a member of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS) / European Academy of Neurology (EAN) Scientist Panel, Subcommittee of Infectious Diseases (2013 to 2017). Since 2021, she is a member of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Multiple System Atrophy Study Group, the Mild Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson Disease Study Group, and the Infection Related Movement Disorders Study Group. She was an External Expert and sometimes Rapporteur for COST proposals (2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) for Neurology projects. She is a Scientific Officer for the Romanian National Council for Scientific Research.
AP holds grants from the NIHR School for Primary Care Research.
IJO and EAS have no interests to disclose.
SM is a pharmacist working for the Italian National Health System since 2002 and a member of one of the three Institutional Review Boards of Emilia-Romagna Region (Comitato Etico Area Vasta Emilia Centro) since 2018.
List of supplementary files
Supplementary file. Literature search strategy.
Supplementary file. List of excluded studies, with reasons.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Drs Mini Kamboj and Jeroen van Kampen who provided additional data from their studies and helped us to progress this work.
Footnotes
New data has been included for 8 additional transplant patients, having obtained further data from the corresponding author to the included Aydillo et al letter (Aydillo et al 2020). A new figure has been introduced (Figure 4) illustrating the close relationship between symptom onset, culturability and cycle thresholds.
References
