PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Watkins, Anne E.
AU  - Fenichel, Eli P.
AU  - Weinberger, Daniel M.
AU  - Vogels, Chantal B.F.
AU  - Brackney, Doug E.
AU  - Casanovas-Massana, Arnau
AU  - Campbell, Melissa
AU  - Fournier, John
AU  - Bermejo, Santos
AU  - Datta, Rupak
AU  - ,
AU  - Dela Cruz, Charles S.
AU  - Farhadian, Shelli F.
AU  - Iwasaki, Akiko
AU  - Ko, Albert I.
AU  - Grubaugh, Nathan D.
AU  - Wyllie, Anne L.
TI  - Pooling saliva to increase SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity
AID  - 10.1101/2020.09.02.20183830
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.09.02.20183830
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/03/2020.09.02.20183830.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/03/2020.09.02.20183830.full
AB  - Expanding testing capabilities is integral to managing the further spread of SARS-CoV-2 and developing reopening strategies, particularly in regards to identifying and isolating asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals. Central to meeting testing demands are specimens that can be easily and reliably collected and laboratory capacity to rapidly ramp up to scale. We and others have demonstrated that high and consistent levels of SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be detected in saliva from COVID-19 inpatients, outpatients, and asymptomatic individuals. As saliva collection is non-invasive, extending this strategy to test pooled saliva samples from multiple individuals could thus provide a simple method to expand testing capacity.However, hesitation towards pooled sample testing arises due to the dilution of positive samples, potentially shifting weakly positive samples below the detection limit for SARS-CoV-2 and thereby decreasing the sensitivity. Here, we investigated the potential of pooling saliva samples by 5, 10, and 20 samples prior to RNA extraction and RT-qPCR detection of SARS-CoV-2. Based on samples tested, we conservatively estimated a reduction of 7.41%, 11.11%, and 14.81% sensitivity, for each of the pool sizes, respectively. Using these estimates we modeled anticipated changes in RT-qPCR cycle threshold to show the practical impact of pooling on results of SARS-CoV-2 testing. In tested populations with greater than 3% prevalence, testing samples in pools of 5 requires the least overall number of tests. Below 1% however, pools of 10 or 20 are more beneficial and likely more supportive of ongoing surveillance strategies.Competing Interest StatementALW has received research funding through grants from Pfizer to Yale and has received consulting fees for participation in advisory boards for Pfizer and PPS Health. DMW has received consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, GSK, and Affinivax and has received research funding through grants from Pfizer to Yale.Funding StatementThis study was funded by the Huffman Family Donor Advised Fund, Fast Grant funding support from the Emergent Ventures at the Mercatus Center, George Mason University, the Yale Institute for Global Health, Yale School of Medicine, NIAID U19 AI08992 and the Beatrice Kleinberg Neuwirth Fund. CBFV is supported by NWO Rubicon 019.181EN.004.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:All study participants were enrolled and sampled in accordance to the Yale University HIC-approved protocol #2000027690. Demographics, clinical data and samples were collected after the study participant had acknowledged that they had understood the study protocol and signed the informed consent. All participant information and samples were collected in association with non-individually identifiable study identifiers. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.All 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 data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [ALW] upon reasonable request.