RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Pooling of samples to optimize SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by RT-qPCR: comparative analysis of two protocols
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.24.20181008
DO 10.1101/2020.08.24.20181008
A1 Volpato, Fabiana
A1 Lima-Morales, Daiana
A1 Wink, Priscila Lamb
A1 Willig, Julia
A1 Paris, Fernanda
A1 Ashton-Prolla, Patricia
A1 Barth, Afonso Luís
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/26/2020.08.24.20181008.abstract
AB RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 is the main diagnostic test used to identify the novel coronavirus. Several countries have used large scale SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR testing as one of the important strategies for combating the pandemic. In order to process the massive needs for coronavirus testing, the usual throughput of routine clinical laboratories has reached and often surpassed its limits and new approaches to cope with this challenge must be developed. This study has aimed to evaluate the use pool of samples as a strategy to optimize the diagnostic of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR in a general population. A total of 220 naso/orofaryngeal swab samples were collected and tested using two different protocols of sample pooling. In the first protocol (Protocol A); 10 clinical samples were pooled before RNA extraction. The second protocol (Protocol B) consisted of pooling the already extracted RNAs from 10 individual samples. Results from Protocol A were identical (100% agreement) with the individual results. However, for results from Protocol B, reduced agreement (91%) was observed in relation to results obtained by individual testing. Inconsistencies observed were related to RT-qPCR results with higher Cycle Thresholds (Ct > 32.73). Furthermore, in pools containing more than one positive individual, the Ct of the pool was equivalent to the lowest Ct among the individual results. These results provide additional evidence in favor of the clinical use of pooled samples for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis by RT-qPCR and suggest that pooling of samples before RNA extraction is preferrable in terms of diagnostic yield.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study received a grant of Fundacao de Apoio a Pesquisa e Ensino do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS) (#20.2551.000265.9) as well as of Fundo de Incentivo a Pesquisa e Eventos do Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre (FIPE/HCPA) (#2020.0163).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:This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of my institution (Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre) - Approval number: 30767420.2.0000.5327All 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 authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.