Abstract
Pool testing has been proposed as an alternative for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 screening. However, dilution factors proportional to the number of pooled samples have been a source of major concern regarding its diagnostic performance. Further, sample pooling can lead to increased laboratory workload and operational complexity. Therefore, pooling strategies that minimize sample dilution, loss of sensitivity, and laboratory overload are needed to allow reliable and large-scale screenings of SARS-CoV-2. Here, we describe a pooling procedure in which nasopharyngeal swabs are pooled together at the time of sample collection (swab pooling), decreasing laboratory manipulation and minimizing dilution of the viral RNA present in the samples. Paired analysis of pooled and individual samples from 613 patients revealed 94 positive individual tests. Having individual testing as a reference, no false-positives or false-negatives were observed for swab pooling. A Bayesian model estimated a sensitivity of 99% (Cr.I. 96.9% to 100%) and a specificity of 99.8% (Cr.I. 99.4% to 100%) for the swab pooling procedure. Data from additional 18,922 patients screened with swab pooling were included for further quantitative analysis. Mean Cq differences between individual and corresponding pool samples ranged from 0.1 Cq (Cr.I. –0.98 to 1.17) to 2.09 Cq (Cr.I. 1.24 to 2.94). Overall, 19,535 asymptomatic and presymptomatic patients were screened using 4,400 RT-qPCR assays, resulting in 246 positive patients (positivity rate 1.26%). This corresponds to an increase of 4.4 times in laboratory capacity and a reduction of 77% in required tests. Finally, these data demonstrate that swab pooling can significantly minimize sample dilution and sensitivity issues commonly seen in its traditional counterpart. Therefore, swab pooling represents a major alternative for reliable and large-scale screening of SARS-CoV-2 in low prevalence populations.
Competing Interest Statement
Conflict of interest disclosures: all authors from BiomeHub are currently full-time employees of this research and consulting company specialized in microbiome biotechnologies.
Funding Statement
BiomeHub funded the study design, analysis and data submission for publication.
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 the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein Ethics Committee (number 36371220.6.0000.0071).The patient informed consent was waived off by the ethics committee as the research was performed on de-identified, anonymised samples.
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
Data are available upon request
