Abstract
Lateral flow devices are quickly being implemented for use in large scale population surveillance programs for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the United Kingdom. These programs have been piloted in city wide screening in the city of Liverpool, and are now being rolled out to support care home visits and the return home of University students for the Christmas break. Very little data exists comparing the performance of the UK lateral flow tests with gold standard PCR diagnostics, especially against comparable test populations such as the national Pillar 2 testing program in the United Kingdom. Here we utilise thousands of pillar 2 test data from our University of Birmingham test lab, and by extrapolation against the validate limit-of-detection of the lateral flow assay, provide a potential sensitivity for the test in a comparable low prevalence population captured in the pillar 2 program. Our data suggests the lateral flow assay should successfully capture around 85% of all PCR positive tests performed in our pillar 2 laboratory, and that a fully designed comparative study of lateral flow versus PCR testing is merited in a real life testing environment
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The testing work in this project is funded by the UK Department of Health and Social Care
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:
The use of sample result data in this study was reviewed by the Ethics review committee of the College of Medical and Dental Sciences at the University of Birmingham. A waiver was granted allowing samples to be used under ethics gained to aid assay development (NRES Committee West Midlands - South Birmingham 2002/201 Amendment Number 4, 24 April 2013)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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 in the supplementary file