Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the importance of rapid, accurate diagnostic testing for the effective triaging and cohorting of patients and timely tracking and tracing of cases. However, a surge in diagnostic testing quickly resulted in worldwide competition for the same sample preparation and real-time RT-PCR diagnostic reagents (rRT-PCR). Consequently, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK sought to diversify their diagnostic portfolio by exploring alternative amplification chemistries including those that permit direct testing without RNA extraction. This study describes the validation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP assay, which is an isothermal, autocycling, strand-displacement nucleic acid amplification technique which can be performed on extracted RNA, “RNA RT-LAMP” or directly from swab “Direct RT-LAMP”. Analytical specificity (ASp) of this new RT-LAMP assay was 100% and analytical sensitivity (ASe) was between 1×101 and 1×102 copies when using a synthetic DNA target. The overall diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) and specificity (DSp) of RNA RT-LAMP was 97% and 99% respectively, relative to the standard of care (SoC) rRT-PCR. When a CT cut-off of 33 was employed, above which increasingly, evidence suggests there is a very low risk of patients shedding infectious virus, the diagnostic sensitivity was 100%. The DSe and DSp of Direct-RT-LAMP was 67% and 97%, respectively. When setting CT cut-offs of ≤33 and ≤25, the DSe increased to 75% and 100%, respectively. Time from swab-to-result for a strong positive sample (CT < 25) was < 15 minutes. We propose that RNA RT-LAMP could replace rRT-PCR where there is a need for increase in throughput, whereas Direct RT-LAMP could be used as a screening tool for triaging patients into appropriate hospitals wards, at GP surgeries and in care homes, or for population screening to identify highly contagious individuals (“super shedders”). Direct RT-LAMP could also be used during times of high prevalence to save critical extraction and rRT-PCR reagents by “screening” out those strong positives from diagnostic pipelines.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Initial reagents were provided free of charge from Optigene then further study work was funded by the Microbiology Department at Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
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:
Hospital ethics committee declared exemption for this service improvement study.
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 is available as required at the end of the document.
