Pooling of Nasopharyngeal (NP) Swab Samples to Overcome Global Shortage of rRT-PCR COVID-19 Test Kits

More, Sunil S.; Narayanan, Sai; Patil, Girish V.; Ghosh, Parna; Pushparaj, Samuel; Cooper, Emily A.; Ritchey, Jerry W.; Cheruvu, Vinay K.; Kaul, Anil; Ramachandran, Akhilesh

doi:10.31219/osf.io/4bwtv

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pooling of specimens to reduce cost and expand the capacity of COVID‐19 testing has been well described in the literature 9–14 . Pooled sample testing was also encouraged by FDA for the screening of asymptomatic individuals for COVID‐19 15 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of automated molecular tests for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in pooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens

Al-Hail

Mirza

Hashemi

et al. 2021

Clinical Laboratory Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Pooling of samples for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing in low‐prevalence settings has been used as an effective strategy to expand testing capacity and mitigate challenges with the shortage of supplies. We evaluated two automated molecular test systems for the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA in pooled specimens. Methods Pooled nasopharyngeal and saliva specimens were tested by Qiagen QIAstat‐Dx Respiratory SARS‐CoV‐2 Panel (QIAstat) or Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS‐CoV‐2 (Xpert), and the results were compared to that of standard RT‐qPCR tests without pooling. Results In nasopharyngeal specimens, the sensitivity/specificity of the pool testing approach, with 5 and 10 specimens per pool, were 77%/100% (n = 105) and 74.1%/100% (n = 260) by QIAstat, and 97.1%/100% (n = 250) and 100%/99.5% (n = 200) by Xpert, respectively. Pool testing of saliva (10 specimens per pool; n = 150) by Xpert resulted in 87.5% sensitivity and 99.3% specificity compared to individual tests. Pool size of 5 or 10 specimens did not significantly affect the difference of RT‐qPCR cycle threshold (CT) from standard testing. RT‐qPCR CT values obtained with pool testing by both QIAstat and Xpert were positively correlated with that of individual testing (Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.85 to 0.99, p < 0.05). However, the CT values from Xpert were significantly stronger (p < 0.01, paired t test) than that of QIAstat in a subset of SARS‐CoV‐2 positive specimens, with mean differences of −4.3 ± 2.43 and −4.6 ± 2 for individual and pooled tests, respectively. Conclusion Our results suggest that Xpert SARS‐CoV‐2 can be utilized for pooled sample testing for COVID‐19 screening in low‐prevalence settings providing significant cost savings and improving throughput without affecting test quality.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%