Abstract
Importance: The actual demand on SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis is a current challenge for clinical laboratories. Sample pooling may help to ameliorate workload in clinical laboratories. Objective: to evaluate the efficacy of sample pooling compared to the individual analysis for the diagnosis of CoVID-19, by using different commercial platforms for nucleic acid extraction and amplification. Design and settings: observational, prospective, multicentre study across 9 Spanish clinical microbiology laboratories including SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing performed in April 2020, during the first three days after acceptance to participate. Participants and Methods: 3519 naso-oro-pharyngeal samples received at the participating laboratories were processed individually and in pools (351 pools) according to the existing methodology in each of the centres. Results: We found that 253 pools (2519 samples) were negative, and 99 pools (990 samples) were positive; with 241 positive samples (6.85%), our pooling strategy would have saved 2167 PCR tests. For 29 pools (made out of 290 samples) we found discordant results when compared to their correspondent individual samples: in 24/29 pools (30 samples), minor discordances were found; for five pools (5 samples), we found major discordances. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for pooling were 97.93%, 100%, 100% and 99.85% respectively; accuracy was 99.86% and kappa concordant coefficient was 0.988. As a result of the sample dilution effect of pooling, a loss of 2-3 Cts was observed for E, N or RdRP genes. Conclusion: we show a high efficiency of pooling strategies for SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing, across different RNA extraction and amplification platforms, with excellent performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. We believe that our results may help clinical laboratories to respond to the actual demand and clinical need on SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially for the screening of low prevalence populations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No external funding was received for this study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by Comite de Etica de la Investigacion con medicamentos de Galicia (CEIm-G) review board. Given the deidentified nature of testing, individual patient consent was not required for this study.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information
