Back

Cycle threshold values in symptomatic COVID-19 cases in England

Funk, S.; Abbott, S.

2022-06-16 epidemiology
10.1101/2022.06.13.22276321 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionSince the start of the pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infection has most commonly been confirmed using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), with results translated into a binary positive/negative outcomes. Previous studies have found that there is additional useful information in the level of the Cycle threshold (Ct value) of positive cases. Here we characterise variation in Ct values as a proxy for viral loads in more than 3 million test-positive COVID-19 cases in England with the aim of better quantifying the utility of such data. MethodsWe used individual N gene Ct values from symptomatic PCR positive (with Ct value less than 30) Pillar 2 cases in England who self-reported the date of symptom onset, and for whom age, reinfection status, variant status, and the number of vaccines received was available. Those with a positive test result more than 6 days after their reported symptom onset were excluded to mitigate the potential impact of recall bias. We used a generalised additive model, to estimate Ct values empirical mean Ct values for each strata of interest independently as well as to predict Ct values using a model that adjusted for a range of demographic and epidemiological covariates jointly. We present empirical Ct values and compare them to predicted mean Ct values. ResultsWe found that mean Ct values varied by vaccine status, and reinfection status with the number of vaccine doses having little apparent effect. Modelling Ct values as a smooth function of time since onset and other variables struggled to reproduce the individual variation in the data but did match the population-level variation over time relatively well with this being apparently dominated by large differences between variants. Other variation over time was also captured to some degree though their remained several periods where the model could not capture the empirical means with a potential explanation being epidemic phase bias. ConclusionsAnalysing a large dataset of routine Ct values from symptomatic COVID-19 cases in England we found variation based on time since symptom onset, vaccine status, age, and variant. Ct values were highest 1-3 days after symptom onset and differed most due to variant status. We found no clear correlation between previously estimated differences in intrinsic transmissibility and Ct values indicating that this is potentially mediated at least partly by factors other than viral load as estimated using Ct values. We found evidence that a model adjusting for a range of covariates could explain some of the population-level variation over time but systematically underestimated Ct values when incidence was increasing, and overestimated them when incidence was decreasing. This indicates the utility of Ct values from this data source as a tool for surveillance, potentially avoiding some of the biases of aggregated positive counts.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.2%
2
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
3
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.1%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.6%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.6%
7
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 11%
3.1%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
9
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
10
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 45%
1.5%
12
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
13
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
14
Epidemics
104 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
15
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
16
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.9%
17
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
18
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
20
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
21
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.6%
22
Infectious Disease Modelling
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
23
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.5%