TY - JOUR T1 - Pooled RNA: extraction free testing of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2022.01.16.22269390 SP - 2022.01.16.22269390 AU - Orchid M. Allicock AU - Devyn Yolda-Carr AU - John A. Todd AU - Anne L. Wyllie Y1 - 2022/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/17/2022.01.16.22269390.abstract N2 - The key to limiting SARS-CoV-2 spread is to identify virus-infected individuals (both symptomatic and asymptomatic) and isolate them from the general population. Hence, routine weekly testing for SARS-CoV-2 in all asymptomatic (capturing both infected and non-infected) individuals is considered critical in situations where a large number of individuals congregate such as schools, prisons, aged care facilities and industrial workplaces. Such testing is hampered by operational issues such as cost, test availability, access to healthcare workers and throughput. We developed the SalivaDirect RT-qPCR assay to increase access to SARS-CoV-2 testing via a low-cost, streamlined protocol using self-collected saliva. To expand the single sample testing protocol, we explored multiple extraction-free pooled saliva testing workflows prior to testing with the SalivaDirect assay. A pool size of five, with or without heat inactivation at 65°C for 15 minutes prior to testing resulted in a positive agreement of 98% and 89%, respectively, and an increased Ct value shift of 1.37 and 1.99 as compared to individual testing of the positive clinical saliva specimens. Applying this shift in Ct value to 316 individual, sequentially collected, SARS-CoV-2 positive saliva specimen results reported from six clinical laboratories using the original SalivaDirect assay, 100% of the samples would have been detected (Ct value >45) had they been tested in the 1:5 pool strategy. The availability of multiple pooled testing workflows for laboratories can increase test turnaround time, permitting results in a more actionable time frame while minimizing testing costs and changes to laboratory operational flow.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by Flambeau Dx (A.L.W) and Fast Grant from Emergent Ventures at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University (A.L.W).Author 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:Institutional Review Board of the Yale Human Research Protection Program gave ethical approval for this work (Protocol IDs. 2000028394, 2000028599).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript ER -