Implementation of an efficient SARS-CoV-2 specimen pooling strategy for high throughput diagnostic testing.

The rapid identification and isolation of infected individuals remains a key strategy for controlling the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Frequent testing of populations to detect infection early in asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals can be a powerful tool for intercepting transmission, especially when the viral prevalence is low. However, RT-PCR testing-the gold standard of SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis-is expensive, making regular testing of every individual unfeasible. Sample pooling is one approach to lowering costs. By combining samples and testing them in groups the number of tests required is reduced, substantially lowering costs. Here we report on the implementation of pooling strategies using 3-d and 4-d hypercubes to test a professional sports team in South Africa. We have shown that infected samples can be reliably detected in groups of 27 and 81, with minimal loss of assay sensitivity for samples with individual Ct values of up to 32. We report on the automation of sample pooling, using a liquid-handling robot and an automated web interface to identify positive samples. We conclude that hypercube pooling allows for the reliable RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, at significantly lower costs than lateral flow antigen (LFA) tests.

Development of an alternative saliva test for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 using TRIzol: Adapting to countries with lower incomes looking for a large-scale detection program.

The use of saliva for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 has shown to be a good alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS), since it permits self-collection, avoids the exposure of healthy persons to infected patients, reduces waiting times, eliminates the need of personal protective equipment and is non-invasive. Yet current saliva testing is still expensive due to the need of specialized tubes containing buffers to stabilize the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 and inactivate the virus. These tubes are expensive and not always accessible in sufficient quantities. We now developed an alternative saliva testing method, using TRIzol for extraction, viral inactivation, and storage of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, combined with RT-qPCR, which was comparable in its performance to NPS. Paired saliva samples and NPS were taken from 15 asymptomatic healthcare workers and one patient with SARS-CoV-2. Further 13 patients with SARS-CoV-2 were only saliva-tested. All the tests were performed according to CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. Saliva (4 mL) was taken in sterile 50 mL tubes, 1.5 mL TRIzol were added and mixed. Our results show that 5 µL of saliva RNA extracted with TRIzol allow for an adequate detection of the virus in patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 and was equally sensitive to NPS in TRIzol. We conclude that saliva testing using TRIzol is a recommendable method for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 since it has several advantages over currently used saliva tests: it can be done with normal sterile tubes, does not need cold-chain handling, is stable at room temperature, is non-invasive and less costly, making it more accessible for low-income countries. Cheaper saliva testing using TRIzol is especially relevant for low-income countries to optimize diagnosis and help define quarantine durations for families, healthcare workers, schools, and other public workplaces, thus decreasing infections and mortality caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Optimal uses of pooled testing for COVID-19 incorporating imperfect test performance and pool dilution effect: An application to congregate settings in Los Angeles County.

INTRODUCTION: Pooled testing is a potentially efficient alternative strategy for COVID-19 testing in congregate settings. We evaluated the utility and cost-savings of pooled testing based on imperfect test performance and potential dilution effect due to pooling and created a practical calculator for online use. METHODS: We developed a 2-stage pooled testing model accounting for dilution. The model was applied to hypothetical scenarios of 100 specimens collected during a one-week time-horizon cycle for varying levels of COVID-19 prevalence and test sensitivity and specificity, and to 338 skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles) (data collected and analyzed in 2020). RESULTS: Optimal pool sizes ranged from 1 to 12 in instances where there is a least one case in the batch of specimens. 40% of Los Angeles SNFs had more than one case triggering a response-testing strategy. The median number (minimum; maximum) of tests performed per facility were 56 (14; 356) for a pool size of 4, 64 (13; 429) for a pool size of 10, and 52 (11; 352) for an optimal pool size strategy among response-testing facilities. The median costs of tests in response-testing facilities were $8250 ($1100; $46,100), $6000 ($1340; $37,700), $6820 ($1260; $43,540), and $5960 ($1100; $37,380) when adopting individual testing, a pooled testing strategy using pool sizes of 4, 10, and optimal pool size, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled testing is an efficient strategy for congregate settings with a low prevalence of COVID-19. Dilution as a result of pooling can lead to erroneous false-negative results.

Stability of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Nonsupplemented Saliva.

The expense of saliva collection devices designed to stabilize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA is prohibitive to mass testing. However, virus RNA in nonsupplemented saliva is stable for extended periods and at elevated temperatures. Simple plastic tubes for saliva collection will make large-scale testing and continued surveillance easier.

Assessment of Specimen Pooling to Conserve SARS CoV-2 Testing Resources.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the optimal parameters for group testing of pooled specimens for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: The most efficient pool size was determined to be five specimens using a web-based application. From this analysis, 25 experimental pools were created using 50 µL from one SARS-CoV-2 positive nasopharyngeal specimen mixed with 4 negative patient specimens (50 µL each) for a total volume of 250 µL. Viral RNA was subsequently extracted from each pool and tested using the CDC SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay. Positive pools were consequently split into individual specimens and tested by extraction and PCR. This method was also tested on an unselected group of 60 nasopharyngeal specimens grouped into 12 pools. RESULTS: All 25 pools were positive with cycle threshold (Ct) values within 0 and 5.03 Ct of the original individual specimens. The analysis of 60 specimens determined that 2 pools were positive followed by identification of 2 individual specimens among the 60 tested. This testing was accomplished while using 22 extractions/PCR tests, a savings of 38 reactions. CONCLUSIONS: When the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection is 10% or less, group testing will result in the saving of reagents and personnel time with an overall increase in testing capability of at least 69%.

Evaluation of sample pooling for screening of SARS CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has revealed the global public health importance of robust diagnostic testing. To overcome the challenge of nucleic acid (NA) extraction and testing kit availability, an efficient method is urgently needed. OBJECTIVES: To establish an efficient, time and resource-saving and cost-effective methods, and to propose an ad hoc pooling approach for mass screening of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We evaluated pooling approach on both direct clinical and NA samples. The standard reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test of the SARS CoV-2 was employed targeting the nucleocapsid (N) and open reading frame (ORF1ab) genomic region of the virus. The experimental pools were created using SARS CoV-2 positive clinical samples and extracted RNA spiked with up to 9 negative samples. For the direct clinical samples viral NA was extracted from each pool to a final extraction volume of 200µL, and subsequently both samples tested using the SARS CoV-2 RT-PCR assay. RESULTS: We found that a single positive sample can be amplified and detected in pools of up to 7 samples depending on the cycle threshold (Ct) value of the original sample, corresponding to high, and low SARS CoV-2 viral copies per reaction. However, to minimize false negativity of the assay with pooling strategies and with unknown false negativity rate of the assay under validation, we recommend pooling of 4/5 in 1 using the standard protocols of the assay, reagents and equipment. The predictive algorithm indicated a pooling ratio of 5 in 1 was expected to retain accuracy of the test irrespective of the Ct value samples spiked, and result in a 137% increase in testing efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: The approaches showed its concept in easily customized and resource-saving manner and would allow expanding of current screening capacities and enable the expansion of detection in the community. We recommend clinical sample pooling of 4 or 5 in 1. However, we don't advise pooling of clinical samples when disease prevalence is greater than 7%; particularly when sample size is large.

Low-Cost Polyester-Tipped Three-Dimensionally Printed Nasopharyngeal Swab for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Related Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Case identification, isolation, and contact tracing are fundamental strategies used to control the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This has led to widespread testing that interrupted the supply chain for testing materials around the world. A prospective study was conducted to compare inexpensive and easily sourced 3-dimensionally (3D)-printed polylactic acid and polyester nasopharyngeal swabs to commercially manufactured swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). During the study period, 287 laboratory-confirmed hospitalized COVID-19 patients, at multiple stages of their illness, were enrolled. The median age for the study population was 47.6 years (interquartile range [IQR], 34.4 to 56.6 years), and two-thirds (67.6%) of the subjects were male. The median duration of hospitalization, at the time of sampling, was 13 days (IQR, 10 to 16 days). Overall concordance between the prototype and control swabs was 80.8% (Cohen's kappa coefficient, 0.61). Most discrepant results were due to prototype-positive control-negative results. When considering all positive results to be true positives, the prototype swab had a higher sensitivity (90.6% versus 80.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 85.7% to 94.0% and 74.7% to 85.7%, respectively; P < 0.015). The cost to produce the prototype swab was estimated to be $0.05 per swab. Polylactic acid 3D-printed polyester-tipped swabs were shown to be effective for nasopharyngeal sample collection. We believe that this design can easily be adopted in countries where commercial swabs are not readily available and can play a vital role in public health efforts for disease control in low-income countries.

Evaluating the efficiency of specimen pooling for PCR-based detection of COVID-19.

In the age of a pandemic, such as the ongoing one caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the world faces a limited supply of tests, personal protective equipment, and factories and supply chains are struggling to meet the growing demands. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of specimen pooling for testing of SARS-CoV-2 virus, to determine whether costs and resource savings could be achieved without impacting the sensitivity of the testing. Ten previously tested nasopharyngeal and throat swab specimens by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), were pooled for testing, containing either one or two known positive specimens of varying viral concentrations. Specimen pooling did not affect the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 when the PCR cycle threshold (Ct) of original specimen was lower than 35. In specimens with low viral load (Ct > 35), 2 of 15 pools (13.3%) were false negative. Pooling specimens to test for Coronavirus Disease 2019 infection in low prevalence (≤1%) areas or in low risk populations can dramatically decrease the resource burden on laboratory operations by up to 80%. This paves the way for large-scale population screening, allowing for assured policy decisions by governmental bodies to ease lockdown restrictions in areas with a low incidence of infection, or with lower-risk populations.

Potential preanalytical and analytical vulnerabilities in the laboratory diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

A novel zoonotic coronavirus outbreak is spreading all over the world. This pandemic disease has now been defined as novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and is sustained by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As the current gold standard for the etiological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is (real time) reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) on respiratory tract specimens, the diagnostic accuracy of this technique shall be considered a foremost prerequisite. Overall, potential RT-PCR vulnerabilities include general preanalytical issues such as identification problems, inadequate procedures for collection, handling, transport and storage of the swabs, collection of inappropriate or inadequate material (for quality or volume), presence of interfering substances, manual errors, as well as specific aspects such as sample contamination and testing patients receiving antiretroviral therapy. Some analytical problems may also contribute to jeopardize the diagnostic accuracy, including testing outside the diagnostic window, active viral recombination, use of inadequately validated assays, insufficient harmonization, instrument malfunctioning, along with other specific technical issues. Some practical indications can hence be identified for minimizing the risk of diagnostic errors, encompassing the improvement of diagnostic accuracy by combining clinical evidence with results of chest computed tomography (CT) and RT-PCR, interpretation of RT-PCR results according to epidemiologic, clinical and radiological factors, recollection and testing of upper (or lower) respiratory specimens in patients with negative RT-PCR test results and high suspicion or probability of infection, dissemination of clear instructions for specimen (especially swab) collection, management and storage, together with refinement of molecular target(s) and thorough compliance with analytical procedures, including quality assurance.