Cycle Threshold Values in the Context of Multiple RT-PCR Testing for SARS-CoV-2.
COVID-19
RT-PCR
SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus
cycle thresholds
diagnosis
pandemic
Journal
Risk management and healthcare policy
ISSN: 1179-1594
Titre abrégé: Risk Manag Healthc Policy
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101566264
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
20
09
2020
accepted:
28
12
2020
entrez:
7
4
2021
pubmed:
8
4
2021
medline:
8
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Discharge or follow up of confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases depend on accurate interpretation of RT-PCR. Currently, positive/negative interpretations are based on amplification instead of quantification of cycle threshold (Ct) values, which could be used as proxies of patient infectiousness. Here, we measured Ct values in hospitalized confirmed COVID-19 patients at different times and its implications in diagnosis and follow up. Observational study between March 17th-May 12th, 2020 using multiple RT-PCR testing. A cohort of 118 Hispanic hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis in a reference hospital in Quito, Ecuador. Multiple RT-PCR tests were performed using deep nasal swab samples and the assessment of SARS-CoV-2 genes N, RdRP, and E. Patients' median age was of 49 years (range: 24-91) with a male majority (62.7%). We found increasing levels of Ct values in time, with a mean Ct value of 29.13 (n = 61, standard deviation (sd) = 5.55) for the first test and 34.38 (n = 60, sd = 4), 35.52 (n = 20, sd = 2.85), and 36.12 (n = 6, sd = 3.28), for the second, third, and fourth tests, respectively. Time to RT-PCR lack of amplification for all tests was of 34 days while time to RT-PCR Ct values >33 was of 30 days. Cycle thresholds can potentially be used to improve diagnosis, management and control. We found that turnover time for negativity can be large for hospitalized patients and that 11% cases persisted with infectious Ct values for more time than the current isolation recommendations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33824608
doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S282962
pii: 282962
pmc: PMC8018360
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1311-1317Informations de copyright
© 2021 Romero-Alvarez et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Apr 05;10(4):
pubmed: 32260471
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):465-469
pubmed: 32235945
Science. 2020 May 1;368(6490):489-493
pubmed: 32179701
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2252-2254
pubmed: 32435816
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):799-806
pubmed: 32271376
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;98(1):115109
pubmed: 32593875
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;39(6):1059-1061
pubmed: 32342252
Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2020 Apr 4;8(1):e43
pubmed: 32259132
J Clin Virol. 2017 May;90:1-6
pubmed: 28259567
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jun;26(6):1059-1066
pubmed: 32187007
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jun 20;:
pubmed: 32562539
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Sep 15;:
pubmed: 32929464
Infect Dis Ther. 2020 Sep;9(3):573-586
pubmed: 32725536
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):793-798
pubmed: 32221523
J Med Virol. 2020 Oct;92(10):1755-1756
pubmed: 32270882
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Jul;5(7):
pubmed: 32641286
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 17;71(10):2663-2666
pubmed: 32442256
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2020 May;20(5):453-454
pubmed: 32297805
Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Nov;21(11):2029-35
pubmed: 26488195
Pharmacol Res. 2020 Oct;160:105063
pubmed: 32663611
J Infect. 2020 Sep;81(3):452-482
pubmed: 32562790
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):533-534
pubmed: 32087114
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Nov;98(3):115130
pubmed: 32711184
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019 Apr;38(4):667-673
pubmed: 30820840
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104477
pubmed: 32505778
Lancet Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;21(2):165
pubmed: 32445709