RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Implications in the quantitation of SARS-CoV2 copies in concurrent nasopharyngeal swabs, whole mouth fluid and respiratory droplets
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.01.03.21249157
DO 10.1101/2021.01.03.21249157
A1 Priya Kannian
A1 Bagavad Gita Jayaraman
A1 Swarna Alamelu
A1 Chandra Lavanya
A1 Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy
A1 Gunaseelan Rajan
A1 Kannan Ranganathan
A1 Pasuvaraj Mahanathi
A1 Veeraraghavan Ashwini
A1 Stephen J. Challacombe
A1 Jennifer Webster-Cyriaque
A1 Newell W. Johnson
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/04/2021.01.03.21249157.abstract
AB Importance The nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is considered the ideal diagnostic specimen for Covid-19, while WMF is recently promoted due to collection simplicity and importance in disease transmission. There is limited knowledge on the relative viral load in these samples – NPS, whole mouth fluid (WMF) and respiratory droplets (RD; another important source in transmission), on how the loads vary with disease severity and on how much virus is shed.Objective To quantify and compare SARS-CoV2 copies in the NPS, WMF and RD samples, and correlate with disease severity.Design Cross sectional study.Setting Tertiary care multi-speciality hospital with limited resources in a low-to-middle income country.Participants Eighty suspected COVID-19 patients were recruited from the COVID-19 out-patient clinic and hospital isolation wards.Intervention Concurrent NPS, WMF and RD samples were collected from all the recruited patients and tested for SARS-CoV2 copies by quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).Main outcomes and measures The main outcome was COVID-19 measured by SARS-CoV2 quantitative RT-PCR in NPS samples. COVID-19 disease severity was determined according to NIH criteria. Virus shedding was defined as the presence of SARS-CoV2 copies in the WMF and RD samples.Results SARS-CoV2 was detected in 55/80 (69%) of the NPS samples. Of these 55, WMF and RD samples were positive in 44 (80%) and 17 (31%), respectively. The concordance of WMF with NPS was 84% (p=0.02). SARS-CoV2 copy numbers were comparable in the NPS (median: 8.74×10^5) and WMF (median: 3.07×10^4), but lower in RD samples (median: 3.60×10^2). Patients with mild disease had higher copies in the NPS (median: 3.46×10^6), while patients with severe disease had higher copies in the WMF (median: 1.34×10^6) and RD samples (median: 4.29×10^4). The 25-75% interquartile range of NPS SARS-CoV2 copies was significantly higher in the WMF (p=0.0001) and RD (p=0.01) positive patients.Conclusion and relevance SARS-CoV2 copies are highest in NPS samples. WMF is a reliable surrogate sample for diagnosis. High copy numbers in the NPS imply initial virological phase and higher risk of virus shedding via WMF and RD.Question How the numbers of SARS-CoV2 copies in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) samples might reflectvirus shedding from the whole upper aerodigestive tract and indicatedisease severity?Findings In this cross-sectional study involving 80 suspected COVID-19 patients, the data indicate higher SARS-CoV2 copies in NPS samples of patients with mild disease,and in the whole mouth fluid (WMF) and respiratory droplet (RD) samples of patients with severe disease. Patients with higher SARS-CoV2 copies in the NPS shed the virus in the WMF and RD samples at statistically higher levels.Meaning High SARS-CoV2 copies in NPS samples imply initial virological phase withhigh levels of shedding through both WMF and RD.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by intramural research funds of Chennai Dental Research Foundation, Chennai, India.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 study was approved by the VHS-Institutional Ethics Committee (proposal #: VHS-IEC/60-2020).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.YesThe data will not be available as a data link.