Ct threshold values, a proxy for viral load in community SARS-CoV-2 cases, demonstrate wide variation across populations and over time
- University of Oxford, United Kingdom
- University of Manchester, United Kingdom
- Public Health England, United Kingdom
- Office for National Statistics, United Kingdom
- The Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom
- University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
Abstract
Background: Information on SARS-CoV-2 in representative community surveillance is limited, particularly cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for viral load).
Methods: We included all positive nose and throat swabs 26-April-2020 to 13-March-2021 from the UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey, tested by RT-PCR for the N, S and ORF1ab genes. We investigated predictors of median Ct value using quantile regression.
Results: Of 3,312,159 nose and throat swabs, 27,902(0.83%) were RT-PCR-positive, 10,317(37%), 11,012(40%) and 6,550(23%) for 3, 2 or 1 of the N, S and ORF1ab genes respectively, with median Ct=29.2 (~215 copies/ml; IQR Ct=21.9-32.8, 14-56,400 copies/ml). Independent predictors of lower Cts (i.e. higher viral load) included self-reported symptoms and more genes detected, with at most small effects of sex, ethnicity and age. Single-gene positives almost invariably had Ct>30, but Cts varied widely in triple-gene positives, including without symptoms. Population-level Cts changed over time, with declining Ct preceding increasing SARS-CoV-2 positivity.Of 6,189 participants with IgG S-antibody tests post-first RT-PCR-positive, 4,808(78%) were ever antibody-positive; Cts were significantly higher in those remaining antibody-negative.
Conclusions: Marked variation in community SARS-CoV-2 Ct values suggest that they could be a useful epidemiological early-warning indicator.
Funding: Department of Health and Social Care, National Institutes of Health Research, Huo Family Foundation, Medical Research Council UK; Wellcome Trust.
Data availability
De-identified study data are available for access by accredited researchers in the ONS Secure Research Service (SRS) for accredited research purposes under part 5, chapter 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. Individuals can apply to be an accredited researcher using the short form on https://researchaccreditationservice.ons.gov.uk/ons/ONS_registration.ofml. Accreditation requires completion of a short free course on accessing the SRS. To request access to data in the SRS, researchers must submit a research project application for accreditation in the Research Accreditation Service (RAS). Research project applications are considered by the project team and the Research Accreditation Panel (RAP) established by the UK Statistics Authority. Project application example guidance and an exemplar of a research project application are available. A complete record of accredited researchers and their projects is published on the UK Statistics Authority website to ensure transparency of access to research data. For further information about accreditation, contact Research.Support@ons.gov.uk or visit the SRS website.Data points underlying Figures are provided in Supplementary File 4 and Stata code in Supplementary File 3.
Article and author information
Author details
Philippa C Matthews
Funding
Department of Health and Social Care (-)
- A Sarah Walker
- Emma Pritchard
- Thomas House
- Iain Bell
- Ian Diamond
- Ruth Studley
- Jodie Hay
- Karina-Doris Vihta
- Koen Pouwels
National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR200915)
- A Sarah Walker
- Emma Pritchard
- Julie V Robotham
- Karina-Doris Vihta
- Timothy EA Peto
- Nicole Stoesser
- David W Eyre
- Koen Pouwels
Huo Family Foundation
- Emma Pritchard
- Koen Pouwels
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12023/22)
- A Sarah Walker
Wellcome Trust (110110/Z/15/Z)
- Philippa C Matthews
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Ethics
Human subjects: Written informed consent was obtained from participants aged 16 years and older, and from parents/carers for those aged 2-15 years; those aged 10-15 years provided written assent. The study received ethical approval from the South Central Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee (20/SC/0195).
Copyright
© 2021, Walker et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 75,222
- views
-
- 974
- downloads
-
- 100
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Ct threshold values, a proxy for viral load in community SARS-CoV-2 cases, demonstrate wide variation across populations and over time
eLife 10:e64683.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64683
Further reading
-
- Medicine
- Microbiology and Infectious Disease
- Epidemiology and Global Health
- Immunology and Inflammation
eLife has published articles on a wide range of infectious diseases, including COVID-19, influenza, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, malaria and typhoid fever.
-
- Medicine
Background:
Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe and deadly adverse event following ERCP. The ideal method for predicting PEP risk before ERCP has yet to be identified. We aimed to establish a simple PEP risk score model (SuPER model: Support for PEP Reduction) that can be applied before ERCP.
Methods:
This multicenter study enrolled 2074 patients who underwent ERCP. Among them, 1037 patients each were randomly assigned to the development and validation cohorts. In the development cohort, the risk score model for predicting PEP was established via logistic regression analysis. In the validation cohort, the performance of the model was assessed.
Results:
In the development cohort, five PEP risk factors that could be identified before ERCP were extracted and assigned weights according to their respective regression coefficients: –2 points for pancreatic calcification, 1 point for female sex, and 2 points for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, a native papilla of Vater, or the pancreatic duct procedures (treated as ‘planned pancreatic duct procedures’ for calculating the score before ERCP). The PEP occurrence rate was 0% among low-risk patients (≤0 points), 5.5% among moderate-risk patients (1–3 points), and 20.2% among high-risk patients (4–7 points). In the validation cohort, the C statistic of the risk score model was 0.71 (95% CI 0.64–0.78), which was considered acceptable. The PEP risk classification (low, moderate, and high) was a significant predictive factor for PEP that was independent of intraprocedural PEP risk factors (precut sphincterotomy and inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation) (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.8–6.3; p<0.01).
Conclusions:
The PEP risk score allows an estimation of the risk of PEP prior to ERCP, regardless of whether the patient has undergone pancreatic duct procedures. This simple risk model, consisting of only five items, may aid in predicting and explaining the risk of PEP before ERCP and in preventing PEP by allowing selection of the appropriate expert endoscopist and useful PEP prophylaxes.
Funding:
No external funding was received for this work.
