RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of pooling of samples for testing SARS-COV- 2 for mass screening of COVID-19
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.15.21253567
DO 10.1101/2021.03.15.21253567
A1 Mahmoud, Sally
A1 Ibrahim, Esra
A1 Thakre, Bhagyashree
A1 Teddy, Juliet
A1 Raheja, Preety
A1 Ganesan, Subhashini
A1 Zaher, Walid
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/24/2021.03.15.21253567.abstract
AB Background The current pandemic of SARS- COV- 2 virus, widely known as COVID-19 has affected millions of people around the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended vigorous testing to differentiate SARS-CoV-2 from other respiratory infections to aid in guiding appropriate care and management. Situations like this have demanded robust testing strategies and pooled testing of samples for SARS- COV- 2 virus has provided the solution to mass screening of people. The pooled testing strategy can be very effective in testing with limited resources, yet it comes with its own limitations. These limitations need critical consideration when it comes to testing of highly infectious disease like COVID −19.Methods The study evaluated the pooled testing of nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS- COV- 2 by comparing sensitivity of individual sample testing with 4 and 8 pool sample testing. Median cycle threshold (Ct) values were compared. The precision of pooled testing was assessed by doing an inter and intra assay of pooled samples. Coefficient of variance was calculated for inter and intra assay variability.Results The sensitivity becomes considerably low when the samples are pooled, there is a higher percentage of false negatives with higher pool size and when the patient viral load is low or weak positive samples. High variability was seen in the intra and inter assay, especially in weak positive samples and larger pool size.Conclusion As COVID - 19 numbers are still high and testing capacity needs to be high, we have to meticulously evaluate the testing strategy for each country depending on its testing capacity, infrastructure, economic strength, and need to make a serious call on cost effective strategy of resource saving and risk/ cost of missing positive patients.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was not funded by any funding body, it was done in Biogenix lab as a part of researchAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Ethics approval was obtained from Department of Health (DOH) Institutional review board (IRB), Abu Dhabi All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The Department Of Health (DOH) Institutional review board (IRB), Abu Dhabi has waived off the consent as it does not use any participant data/ information, the lab data on the viral samples were only used for this study All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesThe data is available with the corresponding author, Dr. Sally, Director of Biogenix G42 lab and will be produced on request