Abstract
Background The need for a fast and reliable test for COVID-19 is paramount in managing the current pandemic. A cost effective and efficient diagnostic tool as near to the point of care (PoC) as possible would be a game changer in current testing. We tested reverse transcription loop mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), a method which can produce results in under 30 minutes, alongside standard methods in a real-life clinical setting.
Methods This service improvement project piloted a research RT-LAMP method on nasal and pharyngeal swabs on 21 residents in a high dependency care home, with two index COVID-19 cases, and compared it to multiplex tandem reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of a single RT-LAMP swab compared to RT-PCR, as per STARD guidelines. We also recorded vital signs of patients to correlate clinical and laboratory information.
Findings The novel method accurately detected 8/10 PCR positive cases and identified a further 3 positive cases. Eight further cases were negative using both methods. Using repeated RT-PCR as a “gold standard”, the sensitivity and specificity of the novel test were 80% and 73% respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 73% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 83%. We also observed hypothermia to be a significant early clinical sign in a number of COVID-19 patients in this setting.
Interpretation RT-LAMP testing for SARS-CoV-2 was found to be promising, fast, easy to use and to work equivalently to RT-PCR methods. Definitive studies to evaluate this method in larger cohorts are underway. RT-LAMP has the potential to transform COVID-19 detection, bringing rapid and accurate testing to the point of care. This method could be deployed in mobile testing units in the community, care homes and hospitals to detect disease early and prevent spread.
Competing Interest Statement
CJS is supported by HEFCE funding. CS and SW are employees of MicrosensDX Ltd. Testing was provided free of charge by MicrosensDx. PCR tests were performed as part of routine clinical care. No other funding was sought for this study. Other authors report no conflict of interest.
Clinical Trial
This was a service improvement project
Funding Statement
CJS is supported by HEFCE funding. CS and SW are employees of MicrosensDX Ltd. Testing was provided free of charge by MicrosensDx. PCR tests were performed as part of routine clinical care. No other funding was sought for this study.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
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
Footnotes
↵* Joint First Author
Data Availability
Data used in this paper will be published in supplementary files in the peer-reviewed publication.
