RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Misinterpretation of viral load in COVID-19 JF medRxiv FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press SP 2020.10.06.20208009 DO 10.1101/2020.10.06.20208009 A1 Renan Lyra Miranda A1 Alexandro Guterres A1 Carlos Henrique de Azeredo Lima A1 Paulo Niemeyer Filho A1 Mônica R. Gadelha YR 2020 UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/08/2020.10.06.20208009.abstract AB Knowledge of viral load is essential for formulating strategies for antiviral treatment, vaccination, and epidemiological control of COVID-19. Moreover, patients identification with high viral load could also be useful to understand risk factors such as age, comorbidities, severity of symptoms and hypoxia to decide the need for hospitalization. Several studies are evaluating the importance of analyzing viral load in different types of samples, clinical outcomes and viral transmission pathways. However, in a great number of emerging studies cycle threshold (Ct) values by itself is often used as a viral load indicator, which may be a mistake. In this study, we compared tracheal aspirate with nasopharyngeal samples obtained from critically ill COVID-19 patients and demonstrate how the raw Ct could lead to misinterpretation of results. Further, we analyzed nasopharyngeal swabs positive samples and propose a method to reduce evaluation error that could occur from using raw Ct. Based on these findings, we show the impact that normalization of Ct values has on interpretation of viral load data from different biological samples from patients with COVID-19, transmission and lastly in relations with clinical outcomes.Importance In a pandemic, prevention of disease transmission is key. Reliable data for profiles of viral load are needed and important to guide antiviral treatment, infection control and vaccination. The differential expression of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA among patient groups is a current topic of interest and viral load has been associated with a diversity of outcomes. However, in a great number of emerging studies cycle threshold (Ct) values by itself is often used as a viral load indicator, which may be a mistake. In this study, we compared tracheal aspirate with nasopharyngeal samples obtained from critically ill COVID-19 patients and demonstrate how the raw Ct could lead to misinterpretation of results. Based on these findings, we show the impact that normalization of Ct values has on interpretation of viral load data from different biological samples from patients with COVID-19, transmission and lastly in relations with clinical outcomes.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by grants from Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ).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:The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the ethical committee of Instituto Estadual do Cerebro Paulo Niemeyer (file number 3.997.619).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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.YesAll information is contained in the manuscript.