tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Sci Transl Med
. 2021 Feb 22;eabf1568.
doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abf1568. Online ahead of print.
Using viral load and epidemic dynamics to optimize pooled testing in resource-constrained settings
Brian Cleary[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], James A Hay[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 2 3 [/SUP], Brendan Blumenstiel[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Maegan Harden[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Michelle Cipicchio[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Jon Bezney[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Brooke Simonton[SUP] 4 [/SUP], David Hong[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Madikay Senghore[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Abdul K Sesay[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Stacey Gabriel[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Aviv Regev[SUP] 8 9 10 11 [/SUP], Michael J Mina[SUP] 1 6 3 12 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Virological testing is central to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) containment, but many settings face severe limitations on testing. Group testing offers a way to increase throughput by testing pools of combined samples; however, most proposed designs have not yet addressed key concerns over sensitivity loss and implementation feasibility. Here, we combined a mathematical model of epidemic spread and empirically derived viral kinetics for SARS-CoV-2 infections to identify pooling designs that are robust to changes in prevalence, and to ratify sensitivity losses against the time course of individual infections. We show that prevalence can be accurately estimated across a broad range, from 0.02% to 20%, using only a few dozen pooled tests, and using up to 400 times fewer tests than would be needed for individual identification. We then exhaustively evaluated the ability of different pooling designs to maximize the number of detected infections under various resource constraints, finding that simple pooling designs can identify up to 20 times as many true positives as individual testing with a given budget. We illustrate how pooling affects sensitivity and overall detection capacity during an epidemic and on each day post infection, finding that only 3% of false negative tests occurred when individuals are sampled during the first week of infection following peak viral load, and that sensitivity loss is mainly attributable to individuals sampled at the end of infection when detection for limiting transmission has minimal benefit. Crucially, we confirmed that our theoretical results can be translated into practice using pooled human nasopharyngeal specimens by accurately estimating a 1% prevalence among 2,304 samples using only 48 tests, and through pooled sample identification in a panel of 960 samples. Our results show that accounting for variation in sampled viral loads provides a nuanced picture of how pooling affects sensitivity to detect infections. Using simple, practical group testing designs can vastly increase surveillance capabilities in resource-limited settings.
. 2021 Feb 22;eabf1568.
doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abf1568. Online ahead of print.
Using viral load and epidemic dynamics to optimize pooled testing in resource-constrained settings
Brian Cleary[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 [/SUP], James A Hay[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 2 3 [/SUP], Brendan Blumenstiel[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Maegan Harden[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Michelle Cipicchio[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Jon Bezney[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Brooke Simonton[SUP] 4 [/SUP], David Hong[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Madikay Senghore[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Abdul K Sesay[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Stacey Gabriel[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Aviv Regev[SUP] 8 9 10 11 [/SUP], Michael J Mina[SUP] 1 6 3 12 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 33619080
- DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abf1568
Abstract
Virological testing is central to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) containment, but many settings face severe limitations on testing. Group testing offers a way to increase throughput by testing pools of combined samples; however, most proposed designs have not yet addressed key concerns over sensitivity loss and implementation feasibility. Here, we combined a mathematical model of epidemic spread and empirically derived viral kinetics for SARS-CoV-2 infections to identify pooling designs that are robust to changes in prevalence, and to ratify sensitivity losses against the time course of individual infections. We show that prevalence can be accurately estimated across a broad range, from 0.02% to 20%, using only a few dozen pooled tests, and using up to 400 times fewer tests than would be needed for individual identification. We then exhaustively evaluated the ability of different pooling designs to maximize the number of detected infections under various resource constraints, finding that simple pooling designs can identify up to 20 times as many true positives as individual testing with a given budget. We illustrate how pooling affects sensitivity and overall detection capacity during an epidemic and on each day post infection, finding that only 3% of false negative tests occurred when individuals are sampled during the first week of infection following peak viral load, and that sensitivity loss is mainly attributable to individuals sampled at the end of infection when detection for limiting transmission has minimal benefit. Crucially, we confirmed that our theoretical results can be translated into practice using pooled human nasopharyngeal specimens by accurately estimating a 1% prevalence among 2,304 samples using only 48 tests, and through pooled sample identification in a panel of 960 samples. Our results show that accounting for variation in sampled viral loads provides a nuanced picture of how pooling affects sensitivity to detect infections. Using simple, practical group testing designs can vastly increase surveillance capabilities in resource-limited settings.