RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 SARS-CoV-2 exhibits extreme differences in early viral loads among specimen types suggesting improved detection of pre-infectious and infectious individuals using combination specimen types
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.07.13.22277113
DO 10.1101/2022.07.13.22277113
A1 Winnett, Alexander Viloria
A1 Akana, Reid
A1 Shelby, Natasha
A1 Davich, Hannah
A1 Caldera, Saharai
A1 Yamada, Taikun
A1 Reyna, John Raymond B.
A1 Romano, Anna E.
A1 Carter, Alyssa M.
A1 Kim, Mi Kyung
A1 Thomson, Matt
A1 Tognazzini, Colten
A1 Feaster, Matthew
A1 Goh, Ying-Ying
A1 Chew, Yap Ching
A1 Ismagilov, Rustem F.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/15/2022.07.13.22277113.abstract
AB Background Screening testing, often via self-collected specimens, remains a key strategy to detect infections early and prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and to enable earlier initiation of treatment. However, which specimen type best detects the earliest days of infection remains controversial. Further, the analytical sensitivity of diagnostic tests must also be considered, as viral loads below a test’s limit of detection (LOD) are likely to yield false-negative results. Comparisons of quantitative, longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 viral-load timecourses in multiple specimen types can determine the best specimen type and test analytical sensitivity for earliest detection of infection.Methods We conducted a COVID-19 household transmission study between November 2021 and February 2022 that enrolled 228 participants and analyzed 6,825 samples using RT-qPCR to quantify viral-load timecourses in three specimen types (saliva [SA], anterior-nares swab [ANS], and oropharyngeal swab [OPS]). From this study population, 14 participants enrolled before or at the incidence of infection with the Omicron variant. We compared the viral loads in specimens collected from each person at the same timepoint, and the longitudinal viral-load timecourses from each participant. Using these viral loads, we inferred the clinical sensitivity of each specimen type to detect infected, pre-infectious, and infectious individuals (based on presumably infectious viral-load levels) using assays with a range of analytical sensitivities. We also inferred the clinical sensitivity of computationally-contrived specimen types representing combinations of single specimen types.Results We found extreme differences (up to 109 copies/mL) in viral loads between paired specimen types in the same person at the same timepoint, and that longitudinal viral-load timecourses across specimen types did not correlate. Because of this lack of correlation, infectious viral loads were often observed in different specimen types asynchronously throughout the course of the infection. In the first 4 days of infection, no single specimen type was inferred to achieve >95% detection of infected or infectious individuals, even with the highest analytical sensitivity assays. In nearly all participants (11/14), a rise in ANS viral loads was delayed (as many as 7 days) relative to SA and OPS. We also observed that ANS and OPS had the most complementary viral-load timecourses, resulting in optimal inferred performance with a computationally-contrived combined anterior-nares–oropharyngeal (AN–OP) swab specimen type. The combination AN–OP swab had superior inferred clinical sensitivity the first 8 days of infection with both high- and low-analytical-sensitivity assays. This AN–OP swab was also inferred to significantly improve detection of pre-infectious and infectious individuals over any single specimen type.Conclusion Our work demonstrates that the viral load in one specimen type cannot reliably predict the viral load in another specimen type. Combination specimen types may offer a more robust approach for earliest detection of new variants and respiratory viruses when viral kinetics are still unknown.Competing Interest StatementRFI is a co-founder, consultant, and a director and has stock ownership of Talis Biomedical Corp.Funding StatementThis work was funded by the Ronald and Maxine Linde Center for New Initiatives at the California Institute of Technology and the Jacobs Institute for Molecular Engineering for Medicine at the California Institute of Technology. AVW is supported by a UCLA DGSOM Geffen Fellowship.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:IRB of the California Institute of Technology gave ethical approval for this work under IRB protocol #20-1026.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.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.YesThe data underlying the results presented in the study can be accessed at CaltechDATA: https://data.caltech.edu/records/20223. https://data.caltech.edu/records/20223