4.6 Article

Is the Alpha Variant of SARS-CoV-2 Associated with a Higher Viral Load than the Historical Strain in Saliva Samples in Patients with Mild to Moderate Symptoms?

Journal

LIFE-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life12020163

Keywords

COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; variant; primary care; viral load

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared the evolution of viral load between patients infected with the Alpha variant and those infected with historical SARS-CoV-2 strains, finding no significant difference in viral load evolution in saliva samples when controlling for the time interval between symptom onset and sampling.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, several generic variants emerged, including the Alpha variant, with increased transmissibility compared to historical strains. We aimed to compare the evolution of the viral load between patients infected with the Alpha variant and those infected with the historical SARS-CoV-2 strains, while taking into account the time interval between the onset of symptoms and samples. We used data collected from patients with an acute respiratory infection (mild to moderate symptoms) and seen in consultation in primary care, included in a prospective longitudinal study, COVID-A. Patients performed four salivary samples during the follow-up. All patients who had at least one of the saliva samples test positive for SARS-CoV-2 were included in the analysis. Overall, 118 patients were included: 89 infected by the historical strain and 29 infected by the Alpha variant. Even though we tended to observe a higher viral load in the Alpha variant group, we found no significant difference in the evolution of the viral load in saliva samples between patients infected with the Alpha variant of the SARS-CoV-2 and those infected by historical strains when controlling for the time interval between the onset of symptoms and sampling.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available