RESUMEN
Background. International recommendations for the control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic emphasize the central role of laboratory testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the etiological agent, at scale. The availability of testing reagents, laboratory equipment and qualified staff are important bottlenecks to achieving this. Elsewhere, pooled testing (i.e. combining multiple samples in the same reaction) has been suggested to increase testing capacities in the pandemic period. Methods. We discuss our experience with SARS-CoV-2 pooled testing using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on the Kenyan Coast. Results. In mid-May, 2020, our RT-PCR testing capacity for SARS-CoV-2 was improved by ~100% as a result of adoption of a six-sample pooled testing strategy. This was accompanied with a concomitant saving of ~50% of SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test kits at both the RNA extraction and RT-PCR stages. However, pooled testing came with a slight decline of test sensitivity. The RT-PCR cycle threshold value (ΔCt) was ~1.59 higher for samples tested in pools compared to samples tested singly. Conclusions. Pooled testing is a useful strategy to increase SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing capacity especially in low-income settings.
RESUMEN
Background: The global COVID-19 outbreak relies on a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), to facilitate the roll-out of patient care and infection control measures. There are several qRT-PCR assays with little evidence on their comparability. We report alterations to the developers' recommendations to sustain the testing capability in our setting, where the supply of testing reagents is limited. Methods: Standards generated from a serially-diluted positive control and previously identified positive/negative samples were used to determine the optimal volumes of the qRT-PCR reagents and to evaluate the validity and performance of four assays: Charité Berlin and European Virus Archive - GLOBAL (EVAg) primer-probe sets, and DAAN and Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) premixed commercial kits. A multiplex and singleplex RT-PCR kit was used with the two primer-probe sets and the recommended assay volumes of the two premixed kits were altered. Results: In comparison to the multiplex RT-PCR kit, the singleplex RT-PCR kit combined with the primer-probe sets yielded consistent cycle threshold (Ct) values across the different titrations tested. The DAAN premixed kit produced comparable Ct values across the titrations, while the BGI kit showed incomparable Ct values and inconsistent results between batches using the manufacturer's recommended volumes. Conclusion: We achieved a 2.5-fold and 4-fold increase in the number of tests/kit for the premixed kits and the primer-probe sets, respectively. The primer-probe set assays were reliable and consistent, and we preferred a combination of an EVAg and a Berlin target. Any inconclusive result was repeated by different individuals following the same protocol. DAAN was a consistent and reliable assay even at lower concentrations from the stated recommendations. BGI in contrast, required dilution to improve its performance and was hence an assay that was used in combination with EVAg or Berlin targets.