4.7 Review

Viral load: We need a new look at an old problem?

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 95, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.29061

Keywords

C-t values; monkeypox virus; SARS-CoV-2; viral load; viral load methods

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Viral load is crucial for monitoring HIV infection and assessing the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy, and has also gained widespread attention during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, relying solely on Ct values for viral load estimation can be problematic due to variations in PCR assays, sample quality, and assay sensitivity. The lack of standardized methods impedes viral load monitoring in clinical management.
The concept of viral load was introduced in the 1980s to measure the amount of viral genetic material in a person's blood, primarily for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). It has since become crucial for monitoring HIV infection progression and assessing the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy. However, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the term viral load became widely popularized, not only for the scientific community but for the general population. Viral load plays a critical role in both clinical patient management and research, providing valuable insights for antiviral treatment strategies, vaccination efforts, and epidemiological control measures. As measuring viral load is so important, why don't researchers discuss the best way to do it? Is it simply acceptable to use raw Ct values? Relying solely on Ct values for viral load estimation can be problematic due to several reasons. First, Ct values can vary between different quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays, platforms, and laboratories, making it difficult to compare data across studies. Second, Ct values do not directly measure the quantity of viral particles in a sample and they can be influenced by various factors such as initial viral load, sample quality, and assay sensitivity. Moreover, variations in viral RNA extraction and reversetranscription steps can further impact the accuracy of viral load estimation, emphasizing the need for careful interpretation of Ct values in viral load assessment. Interestingly, we did not observe scientific articles addressing different strategies to quantify viral load. The absence of standardized and validated methods impedes the implementation of viral load monitoring in clinical management. The variability in cell quantities within samples and the variation in viral particle numbers within infected cells further challenge accurate viral load measurement and interpretation. To advance the field and improve patient outcomes, there is an urgent need for the development and validation of tailored, standardized methods for precise viral load quantification.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available