Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 27, Number 4—April 2021
Dispatch

Increased SARS-CoV-2 Testing Capacity with Pooled Saliva Samples

Anne E. Watkins, Eli P. FenichelComments to Author , Daniel M. Weinberger, Chantal B.F. Vogels, Doug E. Brackney, Arnau Casanovas-Massana, Melissa Campbell, John Fournier, Santos Bermejo, Rupak Datta, Charles S. Dela Cruz, Shelli F. Farhadian, Akiko Iwasaki, Albert I. Ko, Nathan D. Grubaugh1, Anne L. Wyllie1Comments to Author , and the Yale IMPACT Research Team2
Author affiliations: Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA (A.E. Watkins, D.M. Weinberger, C.B.F. Vogels, A. Casanovas-Massana, A.I. Ko, N.D. Grubaugh, A.L. Wyllie); Yale School of the Environment, New Haven (E.P. Fenichel); Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven (D.E. Brackney); Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven (M. Campbell, J. Fournier, S. Bermejo, R. Datta, C.S. Dela Cruz, S.F. Farhadian, A. Iwasaki, A.I. Ko); Howard Hughes Medical Institute, New Haven (A. Iwasaki)

Main Article

Figure 2

The resource-saving benefit of sample pooling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing, based on size of the pool and expected prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 within the population. A) We modeled the number of tests required to test 10,000 persons (results qualitatively scale with population) when pools contain 5, 10, or 20 samples (and individually retesting samples within positive pools) compared with testing samples individually (pool = 1 sample). As prevalence increases, so does the number of pools positive for SARS-CoV-2, thereby increasing the required number of confirmatory tests of individual samples. Therefore, over a prevalence of 2.6%, pooled samples of 5 result in fewer overall tests required than do larger pool sizes. B) At lower prevalence rates, such as when outbreaks have been controlled but ongoing screening is required, pools of 10 or 20 samples yield substantial cost savings for the same expected level of positive detections, after accounting for sensitivity differences. Values are shown in US$. Insets show the region with <5% prevalence.

Figure 2. The resource-saving benefit of sample pooling for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing, based on size of the pool and expected prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 within the population. A) We modeled the number of tests required to test 10,000 persons (results qualitatively scale with population) when pools contain 5, 10, or 20 samples (and individually retesting samples within positive pools) compared with testing samples individually (pool = 1 sample). As prevalence increases, so does the number of pools positive for SARS-CoV-2, thereby increasing the required number of confirmatory tests of individual samples. Therefore, over a prevalence of 2.6%, pooled samples of 5 result in fewer overall tests required than do larger pool sizes. B) At lower prevalence rates, such as when outbreaks have been controlled but ongoing screening is required, pools of 10 or 20 samples yield substantial cost savings for the same expected level of positive detections, after accounting for sensitivity differences. Values are shown in US$. Insets show the region with <5% prevalence.

Main Article

1These senior authors contributed equally to this article.

2Team members team are listed at the end of this article.

Page created: February 09, 2021
Page updated: March 18, 2021
Page reviewed: March 18, 2021
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external