Skip to content
Publicly Available Published by De Gruyter January 22, 2021

Very high SARS-CoV-2 load at the emergency department presentation strongly predicts the risk of admission to the intensive care unit and death

  • Nicasio Mancini EMAIL logo , Nicola Clementi , Roberto Ferrarese , Alessandro Ambrosi , Marco Tonelli , Alberto Zangrillo , Giovanni Landoni and Massimo Clementi

To the Editor,

During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, the high number of deaths was mostly due to an uncontrolled viral spread and to a limited knowledge of the clinical and laboratory factors leading to the worst complications [1], [2], [3]. A better risk stratification may be of help in facing the increase in patients requiring hospitalization during the ongoing second wave of the pandemic in Europe. The possible importance of viral load as predictive marker for the clinical outcome was recently supported by its evaluation on different clinical samples, even if the evidence is still conflicting [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Several clinical scores were described to date in order to be used in the stratification of COVID-19 patients. However, none of them includes the possible role played by the amount of virus detected at clinical presentation [9], [10]. Therefore, further studies are certainly needed the evaluate the possible prognostic role of the viral load, together with other clinical parameters collected at the emergency department (ED) presentation, in order to provide possible additional patients’ stratification tools to physicians.

We evaluated complete clinical and laboratory data of 121 patients presenting to the ED of San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy from March 23rd to May 23rd, 2020. Median age was 60.3 years (IQR = 25), with 89 patients under 70 years and 32 over 70 years. Sixty-three patients were male (52.1%): 46 (73%) under 70 years and 17 (27%) over 70 years. Viral load was inferred on nasopharyngeal swabs through cycle threshold (Ct) determination with Cobas® SARS-CoV-2 Test (Roche), which detects ORF-1a/b and E gene regions on SARS-CoV-2 genome. Non-infectious plasmid DNA containing a specific SARS-CoV-2 sequence and a pan-Sarbecovirus sequence were used in the test as positive control. A non-Sarbecovirus related RNA construct was used as internal control. The test was designed to be used on the automated Cobas® 6800 Systems under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). To avoid possible bias in the study related to different amount of material collected, we examined 30 representative nasopharyngeal swabs for cellular target gene (β-globin): we evaluated the coefficient of variation (CV) of the obtained Ct values and observed that β-globin had a CV of 5% (Ct mean: 38.1; standard deviation: 1.9), ORF-1a/b had a CV of 17.2% (Ct mean: 27.9; standard deviation: 4.8) and E gene had a CV of 20% (Ct mean: 30; standard deviation: 6.0). For the sake of brevity, only Ct values for ORF-1a/b (the SARS-CoV-2 specific target) will be discussed, but no substantial differences were observed in the final analyses when using E gene results. The overall median Ct value was 29.5 (IQR = 8.3): significantly lower in >70 [27.5 (IQR = 8.6)] than in ≤70 patients [30.2 (IQR = 6.8)]. All other clinical and laboratory parameters considered in our study are reported in Table 1. All parameters were used in univariate Cox models and were correlated to the risk of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and death. Subsequently, we identified the best multivariate Cox model according to Akaike Information Criterion by the Best Subset Selection method, using all the variables tested in univariate analyses. The adequacy of the chosen model was confirmed by testing the proportional hazards assumption for the Cox regression model. The study was reviewed and approved by San Raffaele Hospital IRB in the COVID‐19 Biobanking project “COVID‐BioB” N° CE: 34/int/2020 19/March/2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04318366 and the patients gave their informed consent at hospital admission.

Table 1:

Clinical, laboratory and virological parameters.

Age, years
Number, n (%) 121 (100)
<70 89 (73.6)
>70 32 (26.4)
Median (IQR) 60.3 (25.0)
<70 52.5 (17.0)
>70 82.2 (8.2)
Sex
Male 63 (52.1)
<70 46 (73.0)
>70 17 (27.0)
Female 58 (47.9)
<70 43 (74.1)
>70 15 (25.9)
p=1.00
Comorbidities 54 (44.6)
<70 27 (30.3)
>70 27 (84.4)
p<0.001
HTN 40 (33.0)
<70 20 (22.5)
>70 20 (62.5)
p<0.001
CAD 13 (10.7)
<70 3 (3.4)
>70 10 (31.3)
p<0.001
DM 22 (18.2)
<70 12 (13.5)
>70 10 (31.3)
p=0.049
COPD 9 (7.4)
<70 1 (1.1)
>70 8 (25.0)
p<0.001
CKD 9 (7.4)
<70 2 (2.2)
>70 7 (21.9)
p=0.001
NPL 3 (2.5)
<70 1 (1.1)
>70 2 (6.3)
p=0.348
Respiratory parameters median (IQR)
SaO2 (fraction) 0.9 (0.1)
<70 0.9 (0.1)
>70 0.8 (0.1)
p<0.001
PaO2, kPa 9.6 (2.9)
<70 9.9 (2.8)
>70 8.7 (3.5)
p=0.006
PF 294.5 (142.8)
<70 315.1 (109.5)
>70 237.3 (166.6)
p=0.001
Laboratory parameters median (IQR)
Hb, mmol/L 8.4 (1.7)
<70 8.6 (1.4)
>70 7.8 (1.6)
p=0.001
BG, mmol/L 7.0 (2.5)
<70 6.7 (1.5)
>70 8.0 (4.3)
p=0.039
AST, μkat/L 0.8 (0.5)
<70 0.8 (0.5)
>70 0.9 (0.6)
p=0.54
ALT, μkat/L 0.7 (0.4)
<70 0.7 (0.4)
>70 0.5 (0.3)
p=0.038
LDH, μkat/L 6.2 (3.2)
<70 6.0 (3.2)
>70 6.6 (3.7)
p=0.255
CRP, nmol/L 882.8 (934.3)
<70 780.9 (895.2)
>70 1168.6 (684.8)
p=0.023
SCR, μmol/L 106.1 (35.4)
<70 780.9 (895.2)
>70 141.5 (61.9)
p=0.015
Lymph (n×109/L) 1.1 (0.7)
<70 1.2 (0.6)
>70 1.0 (1.0)
p=0.11
Ct values median (IQR)
ORF-1a/b 29.5 (8.3)
<70 30.2 (6.8)
>70 27.5 (8.6)
p=0.034
E gene 30.0 (10.2)
<70 30.8 (8.8)
>70 27.9 (9.2)
p=0.021
  1. HTN, hypertension; CAD, coronary artery disease; DM, diabetes mellitus; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CKD, chronic kidney disease; NPL, neoplasm; SaO2, oxygen saturation; PaO2, arterial partial pressure of oxygen; PF, PaO2/FiO2 ratio; Hb, haemoglobin; BG, blood glucose; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; CRP= C-reactive protein; SCR, serum creatinine; Lymph, lymphocyte absolute count; Ct, cycle threshold.

The 121 patients were categorized in three groups according to the viral load: 13 (10.7%) patients were included into the very high (Ct ≤ 21), 56 (46.3%) into the medium-high (Ct 21–31) and 52 (43%) into the low (Ct >31) viral load group. Twenty-seven (22.3%) patients were admitted to the ICU or died, with 6/13 (46.1%) in the very high, 15/56 (26.8%) in the medium-high and 6/52 (11.5%) in the low viral load group. The number of deaths in the same groups were 6/13 (46.1%), 12/56 (21.4%) and 5/52 (9.2%), respectively.

The univariate Cox models analyses revealed a clinical and statistical significantly increased risk of ICU admission or death for age >70 years-old (HR = 2.93; p=0.004), coronary artery disease (HR = 3.02; p=0.008) and chronic kidney disease (HR = 3.14; p=0.0133). Although not correlated with an increased risk, other statistically significant variables were oxygen saturation at ED presentation (HR = 0.91; p<0.0001), PaO2/FiO2 ratio (HR = 1.0; p=0.0059), blood glucose (HR = 1.01; p=0.0047), aspartate aminotransferase (HR = 1.01; p=0.02), lactate dehydrogenase (HR = 1.01; p<0.0001) and C-reactive protein levels (HR = 1.01; p=0.0002). Importantly, viral load was a statistically significant variable correlated with an increased risk of ICU admission or death: in particular, a significantly higher risk was observed in the case of medium-high (HR = 2.78; p=0.0325) and, even most significantly, in the case of very high viral load (HR = 12.5; p< 0.0001) (Figure 1A).

Figure 1: 
Kaplan-Meier survival curves. (A) Kaplan–Meier curves for ICU admission or death as function of viral cycle threshold (Ct) detected for SARS-CoV-2-specific ORF-1a/b at ED admission for all subjects (log-rank test p<0.0001). Plots of the fitted Cox model using median clinical parameters for (B) 70 years and (C) over 70 years patients.
Figure 1:

Kaplan-Meier survival curves. (A) Kaplan–Meier curves for ICU admission or death as function of viral cycle threshold (Ct) detected for SARS-CoV-2-specific ORF-1a/b at ED admission for all subjects (log-rank test p<0.0001). Plots of the fitted Cox model using median clinical parameters for (B) 70 years and (C) over 70 years patients.

In the multivariate analysis, only age >70 (HR = 1.86; p=0.18), coronary artery disease (HR = 1.84; p=0.23), PaO2 (HR = 1.02; p=0.06), lactate dehydrogenase (HR = 1.01; p<0.0001), serum creatinine (HR = 1.27; p=0.04) and viral load (p<0.0001) were retained in the chosen model. Regarding the viral load, a higher risk of ICU admission or death was observed in the medium-high (HR = 3.9; p=0.0176) and, also in this case most significantly, in the very high group (HR = 26.54, p<0.0001). The importance of viral load in influencing the risk of ICU admission and death in our cohort was made even clearer when the fitted Cox model was applied to patients with different risk profiles. In other words, the effect of different viral loads was evaluated in simulated patients featuring different risk profiles according to the other parameters included in the model. As shown in Figure 1B, C, the effect of higher viral loads is evident in plots of the fitted model performed using the median values of all other clinical parameters in our cohort. This is appreciable both in younger (≤70 years) patients (no coronary artery disease; PaO2 9.9 kPa; lactate dehydrogenase 5.7 μkat/L; serum creatinine 75.2 μmol/L) and in older patients (no coronary artery disease; PaO2 8.5 kPa; lactate dehydrogenase 6.1 μkat/L; serum creatinine 100.8 μmol/L). The effect of viral load is also evident in the two age groups when using the worst and the best values for each of the parameters included in our model, further confirming its role as independent prognostic factor (Supplementary Figure 1; descriptive statistics for younger and older patients in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2).

The lack of virological markers associated to the clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects contribute to hinder the prompt stratification of COVID-19 patients presenting at the ED. Under this perspective, our results suggest that nasopharyngeal viral load is a strong prognostic predictor for ICU admission or death, when determined in symptomatic subjects at ED presentation. This is evident especially when its effect is considered in combination with other established risk factors, such as older age, presence of comorbidities, impaired respiratory function and high values of systemic inflammatory markers. In other words, as further suggested by fitting our model to patients with different risk profiles, SARS-CoV-2 viral load has not an absolute prognostic value per se in all infected individuals. It should be evaluated in the context of the general clinical presentation and of the clinical history of each patient. We are aware that larger studies are certainly needed to confirm its role in helping identify patients at higher risks for serious COVID-19 complications, but our data further support the opportunity of including viral load in clinical scores to be used for a more rational stratification of patients during the ongoing second phase of the pandemic.


Corresponding author: Nicasio Mancini, MD, Laboratory of Medical Microbiology and Virology, University “Vita-Salute” San Raffaele, Via Olgettina, 58, 20132, Milan, Italy; and Laboratory of Medical Microbiology and Virology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy, Phone: +39-0226436209, Fax: +39-0226434288, E-mail:
Nicasio Mancini and Nicola Clementi contributed equally to this work.

Funding source: San Raffaele Hospital

  1. Research funding: San Raffaele Hospital.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: The study was reviewed and approved by San Raffaele Hospital IRB in the COVID‐19 Biobanking project “COVID‐BioB” N° CE: 34/int/2020 19/March/2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04318366.

References

1. Remuzzi, A, Remuzzi, G. COVID-19 and Italy: what next? Lancet 2020;395:1225–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30627-9.Search in Google Scholar

2. Knight, SR, Ho, A, Pius, R, Buchan, I, Carson, G, Drake, TM, et al.. Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO clinical characterisation protocol: development and validation of the 4C mortality score. BMJ 2020;370:m3339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3339.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

3. Clementi, N, Ferrarese, R, Tonelli, M, Amato, V, Racca, S, Locatelli, M, et al.. Lower nasopharyngeal viral load during the latest phase of COVID-19 pandemic in a Northern Italy University Hospital. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020;58:1573–7. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0815.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Zheng, S, Fan, J, Yu, F, Feng, B, Lou, B, Zou, Q, et al.. Viral load dynamics and disease severity in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Zhejiang province, China, January-March 2020: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2020;369:m1443. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1443.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

5. Pujadas, E, Chaudhry, F, McBride, R, Richter, F, Zhao, S, Wajnberg, A, et al.. SARS-CoV-2 viral load predicts COVID-19 mortality. Lancet Respir Med 2020;8:e70. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2213-2600(20)30354-4.Search in Google Scholar

6. Kelleni, MT. SARS CoV-2 viral load might not be the right predictor of COVID-19 mortality. J Infect 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.08.018.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

7. Fajnzylber, J, Regan, J, Coxen, K, Corry, H, Wong, C, Rosenthal, A, et al.. SARS-CoV-2 viral load is associated with increased disease severity and mortality. Nat Commun 2020;11:5493. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19057-5.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

8. Dahdouh, E, Lazaro-Perona, F, Romero-Gomez, MP, Mingorance, J, Garcia-Rodriguez, J. Ct values from SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic PCR assays should not be used as direct estimates of viral load. J Infect 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.10.017.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

9. Sun, Y, Koh, V, Marimuthu, K, Ng, OT, Young, B, Vasoo, S, et al.. Epidemiological and clinical predictors of COVID-19. Clin Infect Dis 2020;71:786–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa322.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

10. Liang, W, Liang, H, Ou, L, Chen, B, Chen, A, Li, C, et al.. Development and validation of a clinical risk score to predict the occurrence of critical illness in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:1081–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2033.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central


Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-1709).


Received: 2020-11-13
Accepted: 2020-12-22
Published Online: 2021-01-22
Published in Print: 2021-05-26

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 29.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2020-1709/html
Scroll to top button