ABSTRACT
Molecular diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in developing countries is still a big challenge. The reference standard, RT-qPCR, recommended by WHO, is not widely available, difficulting early identification of cases. Furthermore, the transport logistic between the sample collection point and the laboratory facilities can alter the samples, producing false negative results. RT-LAMP is a cheaper, simpler molecular technique that can be an interesting alternative to be offered in hospital laboratories. We present the evaluation of a RT-LAMP for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in two steps: the laboratory standardization and the clinical validation, comparing it with the standard RT-qPCR. In the standardization phase, limit of detection and robustness values were obtained using RNA from a Peruvian SARS-CoV-2 strain. It presented 100% agreement between triplicates (RT-LAMP agreement with all RT-qPCR reactions that presented Ct ≤ 30) and robustness (RT-LAMP successful reactions with 80% reaction volume and 50% primer concentration). 384 nasal and pharyngeal swabs collected from symptomatic patients and stored in the INS biobank were tested and we obtained 98.75%, 87.41%, 97.65% and 92.96% for specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values respectively. Then, 383 samples from symptomatic patients with less than 15 days of disease, were tested both with the RT-LAMP and with the RT-qPCR, obtaining e 98.8%, 88.1%, 97.7% y 93.3% of specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values respectively. The laboratory standardization and the clinical validation presented the same value by Kappa-Cohen index (0.88) indicating an almost perfect agreement between RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR for molecular detection of SARS-CoV-2. We conclude that this RT-LAMP protocol presented high diagnostic performance values and can be an effective alternative for COVID-19 molecular diagnosis in hospitals, contributing to early diagnosis and reducing the spread of virus transmission in the Peruvian population.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work. The study was made under the Instituto Nacional de Salud, Peru regular activities.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
COMITE INSTITUCIONAL DE ETICA EN INVESTIGACION DEL INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE SALUD. Aproval number MEMORANDO 079-2020-CIEI-INS.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Data Availability
All data are fully available without restriction