RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Extreme differences in SARS-CoV-2 viral loads among respiratory specimen types during presumed pre-infectious and infectious periods
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 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/12/2022.07.13.22277113.abstract
AB SARS-CoV-2 viral load measurements from a single specimen type are used to establish diagnostic strategies, interpret clinical-trial results for vaccines and therapeutics, model viral transmission, and understand virus-host interactions. However, measurements from a single specimen type are implicitly assumed to be representative of other specimen types. We quantified viral-load timecourses from individuals who began daily self-sampling of saliva, anterior nares (nasal), and oropharyngeal (throat) swabs before or at the incidence of infection with the Omicron variant. Viral loads in different specimen types from the same person at the same timepoint exhibited extreme differences, up to 109 copies/mL. These differences were not due to variation in sample self-collection, which was consistent. For most individuals, longitudinal viral-load timecourses in different specimen types did not correlate. Throat-swab and saliva viral loads began to rise up to 7 days earlier than nasal-swab viral loads in most individuals, leading to very low clinical sensitivity of nasal swabs during the first days of infection. Individuals frequently exhibited presumably infectious viral loads in one specimen type while viral loads were low or undetectable in other specimen types. Therefore, defining an individual as infectious based on assessment of a single specimen type underestimates the infectious period, and overestimates the ability of that specimen type to detect infectious individuals. For diagnostic COVID-19 testing, these three single specimen types have low clinical sensitivity, whereas a combined throat-nasal swab, and assays with high analytical sensitivity, were inferred to have significantly better clinical sensitivity to detect presumed pre-infectious and infectious individuals.Significance Statement In a longitudinal study of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron viral loads in three paired specimen types (saliva, anterior-nares swabs, and oropharyngeal swabs), we found extreme differences among paired specimen types collected from a person at the same timepoint, and that viral loads in different specimen types from the same person often do not correlate throughout infection. Individuals often exhibited high, presumably infectious viral loads in oral specimen types before nasal viral loads remained low or even undetectable. Combination oropharyngeal-nasal swabs were inferred to have superior clinical sensitivity to detect infected and infectious individuals. This demonstrates that single specimen type reference standard tests for SARS-CoV-2, such as in clinical trials or diagnostics evaluations may miss infected and even infectious individuals.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.