Arvind Khodare1, Abhishek Padhi1, Ekta Gupta1, Reshu Agarwal1, Shantanu Dubey2, Shiv Kumar Sarin3. 1. Department of Clinical Virology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India. 2. Department of Hospital Administration, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India. 3. Department of Hepatology, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Timely diagnosis is essential for the containment of the disease and breaks in the chain of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The present situation demands the countries to scale up their testing and design innovative strategies to conserve diagnostic kits and reagents. The pooling of samples saves time, workforce and most importantly diagnostic kits and reagents. In the present study, we tried to define the pool size that could be applied with acceptable confidence for testing. Materials and Methods: We used repeatedly tested positive clinical sample elutes having different levels of SARS CoV 2 RNA and negative sample elutes to prepare seven series of 11 pools each, having pool sizes ranging from 2 to 48 samples to estimate the optimal pool size. Each pool had one positive sample elute in different compositions. All the pools were tested by SARS CoV 2 reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Results: Out of the 77 pools, only 53 (68.8%) were found positive. The sensitivity of pools of 2-48 samples was decreased from 100% (95% confidence interval [CL]; 98.4-100) to 41.41% (95% CL; 34.9-48.1). The maximum size of the pool with acceptable sensitivity (>95%) was found to be of six samples. For the pool size of six samples, the sensitivity was 97.8% and the efficiency of pooling was 0.38. Conclusions: The pooling of samples is a practical way for scaling up testing and ultimately containing the further spread of the CoV disease 2019 pandemic.
Background and Objectives: Timely diagnosis is essential for the containment of the disease and breaks in the chain of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). The present situation demands the countries to scale up their testing and design innovative strategies to conserve diagnostic kits and reagents. The pooling of samples saves time, workforce and most importantly diagnostic kits and reagents. In the present study, we tried to define the pool size that could be applied with acceptable confidence for testing. Materials and Methods: We used repeatedly tested positive clinical sample elutes having different levels of SARS CoV 2 RNA and negative sample elutes to prepare seven series of 11 pools each, having pool sizes ranging from 2 to 48 samples to estimate the optimal pool size. Each pool had one positive sample elute in different compositions. All the pools were tested by SARS CoV 2 reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Results: Out of the 77 pools, only 53 (68.8%) were found positive. The sensitivity of pools of 2-48 samples was decreased from 100% (95% confidence interval [CL]; 98.4-100) to 41.41% (95% CL; 34.9-48.1). The maximum size of the pool with acceptable sensitivity (>95%) was found to be of six samples. For the pool size of six samples, the sensitivity was 97.8% and the efficiency of pooling was 0.38. Conclusions: The pooling of samples is a practical way for scaling up testing and ultimately containing the further spread of the CoV disease 2019 pandemic.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coronavirus disease 2019; optimal pooling; pool testing; real-time polymerase chain reaction; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2
Authors: Melissa M Arons; Kelly M Hatfield; Sujan C Reddy; Anne Kimball; Allison James; Jesica R Jacobs; Joanne Taylor; Kevin Spicer; Ana C Bardossy; Lisa P Oakley; Sukarma Tanwar; Jonathan W Dyal; Josh Harney; Zeshan Chisty; Jeneita M Bell; Mark Methner; Prabasaj Paul; Christina M Carlson; Heather P McLaughlin; Natalie Thornburg; Suxiang Tong; Azaibi Tamin; Ying Tao; Anna Uehara; Jennifer Harcourt; Shauna Clark; Claire Brostrom-Smith; Libby C Page; Meagan Kay; James Lewis; Patty Montgomery; Nimalie D Stone; Thomas A Clark; Margaret A Honein; Jeffrey S Duchin; John A Jernigan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Victor M Corman; Olfert Landt; Marco Kaiser; Richard Molenkamp; Adam Meijer; Daniel Kw Chu; Tobias Bleicker; Sebastian Brünink; Julia Schneider; Marie Luisa Schmidt; Daphne Gjc Mulders; Bart L Haagmans; Bas van der Veer; Sharon van den Brink; Lisa Wijsman; Gabriel Goderski; Jean-Louis Romette; Joanna Ellis; Maria Zambon; Malik Peiris; Herman Goossens; Chantal Reusken; Marion Pg Koopmans; Christian Drosten Journal: Euro Surveill Date: 2020-01
Authors: Reem Y Aljindan; Amani M Alnimr; Reem A Al Dossary; Ali J Al Haddad; Fatimah A Alturki; Nouf Mohammed Al-Romihi; Bashayer Hussain Aldossary; Khaled R Alkharsah Journal: Malays J Med Sci Date: 2021-12-22