Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the importance of simple, rapid and accurate diagnostic testing. This study describes the validation of a new rapid SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP assay for use on extracted RNA or directly from swab offering an alternative diagnostic pathway that does not rely on traditional reagents that are often in short supply during a pandemic.
Analytical specificity (ASp) of this new RT-LAMP assay was 100% and analytical sensitivity (ASe) was between 1×101 and 1×102 copies per reaction 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 rRT-PCR. When a CT cut-off of 33 was employed, above which increasingly evidence suggests there is a low risk of patients shedding infectious virus, the diagnostic sensitivity was 100%. The DSe and DSp of Direct RT-LAMP (that does not require RNA extraction) 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, CT < 25, was < 15 minutes.
We propose that RNA RT-LAMP could replace rRT-PCR where there is a need for increased sample throughput and Direct RT-LAMP as a near-patient screening tool to rapidly identify highly contagious individuals within emergency departments and a care homes during times of increased disease prevalence; ensuring negative results still get laboratory confirmation.
Highlights
Novel rapid RT-LAMP assay with diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 97% and 99%
Development of an RNA extraction free direct detection method for SARS-CoV-2
Use case modelling for rapid Direct RT-LAMP in near-patient clinical practice
Developing diversity of testing modalities within a diagnostic laboratory during a pandemic.
Competing Interest Statement
Authors MA, NM, SL, and CW are directors/employees of Optisense Limited and GeneSys Biotech Limited. After providing initial reagents free of charge they played no further part in study design, data collection or analysis.
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
Footnotes
↵a Joint first authorship
Title changed, authors updated, some clarity added to the discussion.
Data Availability
All data is available as required at the end of the document.
