Damir Vukičević1, Ozren Polašek2. 1. Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, University of Split, Split, Croatia. 2. Department of Public Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Abstract
AIM: To compare different pooling methods in an attempt to improve the COVID-19 PCR diagnostic capacities. METHOD: We developed a novel information-dependent pooling protocol (indept), based on transmission of less informative sequential pools on to the next pooling cycle to maximize savings. We then compared it to the halving, generalized halving, splitting and hypercube protocols in a simulation study, across variety of scenarios. RESULTS: All five methods yielded various amount of test savings, which mostly depended on the virus prevalence in the population. In situations of low prevalence (up to 5%), indept had the best performance, requiring on average 20% of tests needed for singular testing across scenarios that were analyzed. Nevertheless, this comes at the expense of speed, with the worst-case scenario of indept protocol requiring up to twice the time needed to test the same number of samples in comparison to the hypercube protocol. In order to offset this, we developed a faster version of the protocol (indeptSp), which minimizes the number of terminal pools and manages to retain savings compared to other protocols, despite marginally longer processing times. CONCLUSION: The increasing demand for more testing globally can benefit from application of pooling, especially in resource-restrained situations of the low- and middle-income countries or situations of high testing demand. Singular testing in situations of low prevalence should be systematically discouraged.
AIM: To compare different pooling methods in an attempt to improve the COVID-19 PCR diagnostic capacities. METHOD: We developed a novel information-dependent pooling protocol (indept), based on transmission of less informative sequential pools on to the next pooling cycle to maximize savings. We then compared it to the halving, generalized halving, splitting and hypercube protocols in a simulation study, across variety of scenarios. RESULTS: All five methods yielded various amount of test savings, which mostly depended on the virus prevalence in the population. In situations of low prevalence (up to 5%), indept had the best performance, requiring on average 20% of tests needed for singular testing across scenarios that were analyzed. Nevertheless, this comes at the expense of speed, with the worst-case scenario of indept protocol requiring up to twice the time needed to test the same number of samples in comparison to the hypercube protocol. In order to offset this, we developed a faster version of the protocol (indeptSp), which minimizes the number of terminal pools and manages to retain savings compared to other protocols, despite marginally longer processing times. CONCLUSION: The increasing demand for more testing globally can benefit from application of pooling, especially in resource-restrained situations of the low- and middle-income countries or situations of high testing demand. Singular testing in situations of low prevalence should be systematically discouraged.
Authors: Leon Mutesa; Pacifique Ndishimye; Yvan Butera; Jacob Souopgui; Annette Uwineza; Robert Rutayisire; Ella Larissa Ndoricimpaye; Emile Musoni; Nadine Rujeni; Thierry Nyatanyi; Edouard Ntagwabira; Muhammed Semakula; Clarisse Musanabaganwa; Daniel Nyamwasa; Maurice Ndashimye; Eva Ujeneza; Ivan Emile Mwikarago; Claude Mambo Muvunyi; Jean Baptiste Mazarati; Sabin Nsanzimana; Neil Turok; Wilfred Ndifon Journal: Nature Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Julia Alcoba-Florez; Helena Gil-Campesino; Diego García-Martínez de Artola; Oscar Díez-Gil; Agustín Valenzuela-Fernández; Rafaela González-Montelongo; Laura Ciuffreda; Carlos Flores Journal: Int J Infect Dis Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Fausto Baldanti; Nirmal K Ganguly; Guiqiang Wang; Martin Möckel; Luke A O'Neill; Harald Renz; Carlos Eduardo Dos Santos Ferreira; Kazuhiro Tateda; Barbara Van Der Pol Journal: Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 6.250