Abstract
Previous studies have described RT-LAMP methodology for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab and saliva samples. This study describes the validation of an improved sample preparation method for extraction free RT-LAMP and defines the clinical performance of four different RT-LAMP assay formats for detection of SARS-CoV-2 within a multisite clinical evaluation. Direct RT-LAMP was performed on 559 swabs and 86,760 saliva samples and RNA RT-LAMP on extracted RNA from 12,619 swabs and 12,521 saliva from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals across healthcare and community settings. For Direct RT-LAMP, overall diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) of 70.35% (95% CI 63.48-76.60%) on swabs and 84.62% (79.50-88.88%) on saliva was observed, with diagnostic specificity (DSp) of 100% (98.98-100.00%) on swabs and 100% (99.72-100.00%) on saliva when compared to RT-qPCR; analysing samples with RT-qPCR ORF1ab CT values of ≤25 and ≤33, DSe of 100% (96.34-100%) and 77.78% (70.99-83.62%) for swabs were observed, and 99.01% (94.61-99.97%) and 87.61% (82.69-91.54%) for saliva, respectively. For RNA RT-LAMP, overall DSe and DSp were 96.06% (92.88-98.12%) and 99.99% (99.95-100%) for swabs, and 80.65% (73.54-86.54%) and 99.99% (99.95-100%) for saliva, respectively. These findings demonstrate that RT-LAMP is applicable to a variety of use-cases, including frequent, interval-based testing of saliva with Direct RT-LAMP from asymptomatic individuals that may otherwise be missed using symptomatic testing alone.
Introduction
Rapid diagnostic testing to identify and isolate symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals potentially transmitting infectious viral pathogens is an essential requirement of any pandemic response. The novel betacoronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, initially identified after an outbreak of viral pneumonia in Wuhan, China in December 20191, has rapidly spread throughout the world, causing over 223 million confirmed cases and over 4.6 million deaths (https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/ -September 10,2021).
Conventional diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 consist of RNA enrichment followed by reverse-transcriptase quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) against one or more viral gene targets2. However, this methodology requires sample inactivation, RNA extraction and RT-qPCR thermal cycling, meaning that the time from sample-to-result can often be several hours, and requires centralised equipment and personnel trained in Good Laboratory Practice to perform testing.
The utility of reverse-transcriptase loop mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 both from extracted RNA (RNA RT-LAMP) and directly from NP/OP swabs (Direct RT-LAMP)3 has previously been shown. RT-LAMP utilises a rapid and stable DNA polymerase that amplifies target nucleic acids at a constant temperature. This removes the requirement for conventional thermal cycling allowing RT-LAMP reactions to be performed in shorter reaction times using less sophisticated platforms.
In a study of 196 clinical samples3, testing of RNA extracted from NP/OP swabs collected into viral transport media (VTM) using RNA RT-LAMP demonstrated a diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) of 97% and a diagnostic specificity (DSp) of 99% in comparison to RT-qPCR of the ORF1ab region of SARS-CoV-2. For Direct RT-LAMP on crude swab samples, the DSe and DSp were 67% and 97%, respectively. When a cycle threshold (CT) cut-off for RT-qPCR of < 25 was considered, reflecting the increased likelihood of detecting viral RNA from active viral replication, the DSe of Direct RT-LAMP increased to 100% 3.
However, the collection of a swab sample is invasive and during the time of the pandemic there have been considerable shortages in swab supplies. Exploring the use of alternative sample types that are both easy to collect and more comfortable from a sampling perspective 4,5,6 is desirable particularly when repeat sampling is performed7,8,9. Saliva presents an ideal bio-fluid that fulfils both these objectives and previous studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 is readily detectable in such a sample type10,11,12–18. To improve the diagnostic sensitivity of previously described saliva Direct RT-LAMP3, optimisation of saliva preparation for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 was undertaken utilising a cohort of 3100 saliva samples from an asymptomatic population19 of healthcare workers; where saliva was diluted 1:1 in Mucolyse™, followed by a 1 in 10 dilution in 10% (w/v) Chelex© 100 Resin ending with a 98°C heat step prior to RT-LAMP which resulted in optimal sensitivity and specificity.
Despite the benefits of this optimisation, the protocol added additional steps and reagents which increased chance for user error and made the automation of the process more challenging. This study therefore aimed to investigate a simpler process using a novel reagent, RapiLyze (OptiGene Ltd, Camberley, UK), which is a sample dilution buffer, followed by a two-minute heat-step. This novel sample preparation method was evaluated in combination with Direct RT-LAMP using samples collected from symptomatic National Health Service (NHS) patients and symptomatic and asymptomatic healthcare staff.
Methods
Ethical statement
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. National Research Ethics Service Committee West Midlands - South Birmingham 2002/201 Amendment Number 4. All necessary written participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Testing sites
The OptiGene Ltd. SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP assay was evaluated in nine sites, comprising Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital & Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; University Hospital Southampton; Animal and Plant Health Agency/MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit (University of Southampton); Public Health Lab Manchester/CMFT; Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust; University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB) NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer & Genomic Science University of Birmingham; High Containment Microbiology, National Infection Service, Public Health England, Porton Down and Public Health University Laboratory, Gibraltar Health Authority, Gibraltar, UK.
Clinical samples
Nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs were collected from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals and placed in viral transport media (VTM).
Drooled saliva samples were collected at the start of the day; prior to eating, drinking, teeth brushing, or using a mouthwash. Saliva was transferred into the specimen pot directly or via a clean teaspoon, according to a standardised protocol. Samples from UHB deposited saliva straight into the collection pot.
Log reduction of SARS-CoV-2 for the heat and lysis steps used independently and sequentially
We determined the viral inactivation kinetics of the best sample preparation condition(s), evaluating the effect of the heat and lysis steps on the viral inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 as determined by infectivity assays. All inactivation experiments were conducted under Containment Level 3 Containment and as such were undertaken at APHA. Heat inactivation experiments were conducted utilising high titre live SARS-CoV-2 virus spiked into pools of saliva collected from APHA staff or in tissue culture supernatant (TCSN). Early experiments demonstrated that saliva had a high toxicity for tissue culture cells, even after heat inactivation demonstrating that toxicity was likely not enzymatic. As such further inactivation was undertaken on live virus TSCN. Comparison was also undertaken of Betapropiolactone (BPL) inactivated virus and live virus.
RNA extraction
RNA was extracted using a range of different methods available at each participating site
Maxwell® RSC Viral Total Nucleic Acid Purification Kit
In a class 1 microbiological safety cabinet (MSC) within a containment level 3 laboratory, 200 µl of sample was added to 223 µl of prepared lysis solution (including 5 µl per reaction of Genesig® Easy RNA Internal extraction control, Primerdesign Ltd, Chandler’s Ford, UK). Samples were then inactivated for 10 minutes at room temperature within the MSC and 10 minutes at 56°C on a heat block before automated RNA extraction using a Maxwell® RSC48 Instrument (Promega UK Ltd., Southampton, UK). RNA was eluted in 50 µl of nuclease-free water (NFW).
MagMAX™CORE Nucleic acid 140 purification kit
10 µl of sample (diluted in 190µl DEPC treated water) was added to 700 µl of prepared lysis solution. Samples were then inactivated for 10 minutes at room temperature within the safety cabinet before automated RNA extraction using a Kingfisher Flex (Thermo Fisher, Basingstoke, UK). RNA was eluted in 90 µl of NFW.
Roche FLOW system
RNA extraction was carried out on a MagNA Pure 96 (MP96) extraction robot using the MagNA Pure 96 DNA and Viral Nucleic Acid Small Volume kit (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) and the Pathogen 200 universal protocol v4.0.
Qiagen QIAsymphony
RNA extraction was carried out using the QIASymphony Virus/Bacteria Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) by the CellFree200 Default IC protocol with a 60 µl extract elution volume.
SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time RT-qPCR
RNA was analysed using a range of different methods available at each site:
CerTest VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 real time qPCR assay
Single step RT-qPCR against the ORF1ab region and N1 gene target of SARS-CoV-2 was carried out using the CerTest VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 real time PCR kit (CerTest Biotech SL, Zaragoza, Spain) according to manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) on either the Thermo Fisher QuantStudio 5 or BioMolecular Systems (Queensland, Australia) MIC instruments, using 5 µl of extracted RNA per reaction. RNA extracted using the Maxwell® RSC Viral Total Nucleic Acid Purification Kit was analysed using this assay.
COVID-19 genesig® Real-Time qPCR assay
Single step RT-qPCR against the ORF1ab region of SARS-CoV-2 was carried out using the COVID-19 genesig® Real-Time PCR assay real time PCR assay (Primerdesign Ltd, Chandler’s Ford, UK) according to manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) on BioMolecular Systems MIC instruments, using 5 µl of extracted RNA per reaction. RNA extracted using the Maxwell® RSC Viral Total Nucleic Acid Purification Kit was analysed using this assay.
Corman et al. Real-Time qPCR assay
Single step RT-qPCR against the E gene target of SARS-CoV-2 was carried out with the Corman et al.2 primers using the AgPath-ID™ PCR kit (Thermo Fisher) according to manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) on an Aria qPCR Cycler (Agilent, Cheadle, UK) and results analysed using the Agilent AriaMX 1.5 software, using 5 µl of extracted RNA per reaction. RNA extracted using the MagMAX™CORE Nucleic acid purification kit were analysed using this assay.
RT-qPCR was carried out on an Applied Biosystems Fast 7500 PCR thermocycler in standard run mode using the SARS-CoV-2 E gene Sarbeco assay using MS2 as an internal extraction control and aliquots of SARS-CoV-2/England/2/2020 as a positive control. The master mix comprised E-gene F and R primers and TM-P (400 nM, 400 nM and 200 nM final concentration respectively), MS2 primers and TM probe (20 nM, 20 nM and 40 nM final concentration respectively), 4 x TaqMan® Fast Virus 1-Step Master Mix made up with molecular-grade nuclease free water (Ambion) to a final volume of 15 μl. 5 μl of AVE buffer extract was used at a template and added to the 15 μl mastermix. Cycling conditions were 55°C for 10 min, followed by 94°C for 3 min and 45 cycles of 95°C for 15 s and 58°C for 30 s.
SARS-CoV-2 (2019-nCoV) CDC qPCR Probe Assay
Single step RT-qPCR against the N1 and N2 gene targets of SARS-CoV-2 was carried out using integrated design technologies kit (IDT; Catalogue number: 10006606) according to manufacturer’s instructions for use (IFU) on either a LC480 II or ABI 7500 FAST instrument. RNA extracted on Qiagen QIAsymphony and the Roche FLOW system were analysed using this RT-qPCR assay.
RT-LAMP
RT-LAMP assays were performed using OptiGene Ltd. COVID-19_RT-LAMP kits, as described previously3, with the following modifications. The COVID-19_RNA RT-LAMP KIT-500 kit was used for RNA RT-LAMP and the COVID-19_Direct PLUS RT-LAMP KIT-500 was used for Direct RT-LAMP directly on oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swabs or saliva samples. The COVID-19_Direct PLUS RT-LAMP KIT-500 kit also includes a sample preparation buffer, RapiLyze. For RNA RT-LAMP 5 μl of extracted RNA was added to the reaction. For the Direct PLUS RT-LAMP, 50 µl sample (swab VTM or neat saliva) was added to 50 µl RapiLyze, vortexed and placed in a dry heat block pre-heated to 98°C for 2 mins. 5 μl of the treated sample was added to each reaction.
The anneal temperature (Ta) that confirmed a positive result for Direct RT-LAMP was modified to 81.5°C and 85.99°C because of the effect of RapiLyze buffer on the reaction.
SARS-CoV-2 viral culture of clinical samples across a CT range
For culture, 100 µl and 100 µl of a 1 in 10 dilution of samples 1-6 (predicted lower CT values) and 100 µl samples 7-26 (with higher predicted CT values) were added to a 25 cm2 flasks containing 80% confluent Vero E6 cells and allowed to adsorb for 1 hour. Five ml of Minimum Essential Medium (MEM) (Gibco) + HEPES (Gibco, Thermo Fisher, Basingstoke, UK) + 4% foetal calf serum FCS (Sigma) + 1 x antibiotic-antimycotic (Gibco) was added to each flask and incubated for 1 week at 37°C. Two negative control flasks to which 100 µl MEM + 4% FCS was added in place of sample, were set up in parallel. Cultures were checked visually for cytopathic effect (CPE). Where CPE was not observed after 1 week, 500 µl of supernatant was passed into a fresh flask containing Vero E6 cells for a further two passages. At the beginning and end of each passage 140 µl of supernatant was collected for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR as described before.
To determine the sensitivity of the isolation method for SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples, a virus stock titred by plaque assay (HCM/V/53), a passage 3 working bank grown from SARS-CoV-2 Strain England 2, from Public Health England, was diluted in MEM to give virus dilutions containing 1000, 100, 10, 1, 0.1 and 0.01 PFU. The virus was added to duplicate flasks containing Vero E6 cells and AVL. After 72 hours of incubation flasks were checked for CPE, and for those where CPE was observed the supernatant was collected for RT-qPCR. Any flasks not showing CPE after 7 days were passed on to fresh cells and resampled as described above.
Data analysis
Overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity (including 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals) were calculated by the aggregation of individual site data for each method (RNA and Direct RT-LAMP) for each sample type (swabs and saliva). To demonstrate the effectiveness of detecting samples with higher viral load, confusion matrices are quoted where the threshold for positive sample inclusion varies, i.e., for CT ≤25, only positive samples with CT ≤25 are included.
To account for site heterogeneity, a bivariate meta-analysis model is additionally applied at the site level to produce a summary of sensitivity and specificity for each method and sample type20. Within-study variability for sensitivity ρse,i and specificity ρse,i are assumed to follow independent binomial distributions where xse,i,xsp,i represent the number testing positive for site i respectively, and nse,i,nsp,i represent the number testing positive and negative by RT-qPCR for site i respectively. The between-study heterogeneity is represented by a bivariate normal distribution for the logit-transformed sensitivity µse,i and specificity µsp.i where µse,µsp represent the expected logit sensitivity and specificity, represent the between-study variance in the logit sensitivity and specificity, and σse,sp represents the covariance between the logit sensitivity and specificity. For Direct RT-LAMP, we fit a univariate normal distribution for the logit-transformed sensitivity only, due to the absence of false positives across all sites.
In addition, the sensitivity as a function of viral load was assessed for RNA RT-LAMP and Direct RT-LAMP on both swab and saliva samples. This was performed through the conversion of each sample CT value to viral load in gene copies/ml for all sample sets. As the relationship between CT value and viral load varied according to the RT-qPCR method used; a dilution series was utilised for each method to standardise these values for two of the four aforementioned RT-qPCR methods (CerTest VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 real time PCR kit, and Corman et al RT-qPCR assay E gene), which was used for testing 100% of the swab samples, 90% of the saliva samples used for Direct RT-LAMP, and 83% of the saliva samples used for RNA RT-LAMP. The logarithm of the viral load was then fitted to the CT values for both methods using linear regression followed by converting the CT values to viral load based on which method had been used to evaluate the samples. For the remaining samples (n= 56) that utilised one of the other two RT-qPCR methods for which viral load was not standardised against a CT value, the conversion derived from the CerTest VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 real time PCR kit dilution series was applied, the assumption that the N gene CT values are the most similar21–23.
For the CerTest VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 real time PCR kit, the following relationship between log viral load and CT value was applied: and similarly, for the Corman et al RT-qPCR assay: where V represents the viral load in copies/ml.
Viral load was grouped according to the following categories (in copies/ml): <103, 103-104, 104-105, 105- 106, 106-107 and >107 then the diagnostic sensitivity was calculated according to viral load group with associated Clopper-Pearson 95% confidence intervals.
The site meta-analysis was produced using R 3.5.3. Confusion matrices, sensitivity, specificity, sensitivity as a function of viral load calculations, and the production of scatter graphs showing the relationship between RT-LAMP results and CT were performed using Python 3.8.6.
Results
Optimisation of sample preparation conditions
Heat inactivation experiments demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 was completely inactivated by heating at 60°C (20 min plus) or ≥70°C (after 2, 5 or 10 min) (Supplemental Table S1). Importantly optimised RapiLyze Sample Lysis Buffer did not inactivate live virus on its own without a heat step. Further, inactivation at 56°C was not 100% effective at shorter incubation times, and additionally showed a loss in sensitivity following a 4 × 2-fold dilution (Supplemental Table S2, P07102) at 10 and 30 minutes. Following optimisation of heat inactivation of live virus, pre-treatment of samples was assessed to determine any impact of pre-treatment on assay sensitivity. Interestingly, a pre-treatment 70°C for 5 mins carried out on spiked samples prior to the proposed direct RT-LAMP assay had no effect on subsequent LAMP or PCR results. It recommended that even if a pre-treatment is effective in inactivating the virus that downstream processes are carried out in UV hoods or with effective air-flow management to prevent cross contamination of the direct RT-LAMP assay. Comparison of Betapropiolactone (BPL) inactivated virus and live virus demonstrated that BPL inactivation has resulted in lower sensitivity of detection using direct RT-LAMP. BPL inactivated virus is therefore not an ideal substitute for live virus in spiking experiments. Any conclusions on assay sensitivity or performance have consequently been drawn from experiments on spiking of live virus in TCSN or saliva carried out in containment. Spiking of live virus into pooled saliva has demonstrated that direct detection by RT-LAMP is possible in samples that give a CT below 25/26 with extraction and PCR.
RNA RT-LAMP
VTM from 12,619 NP/OP swabs were assayed. 265 swab samples were from known symptomatic individuals and 2073 swab samples were from known asymptomatic individuals. The clinical status of the remaining samples (n= 10,281) was unknown.
12,521 neat saliva samples were assayed, none of which were from known symptomatic individuals. 12,365 of these samples were from known asymptomatic individuals. The clinical status of the remaining saliva samples (n= 156) was unknown.
Direct RT-LAMP
VTM from 559 NP/OP swabs were assayed. 170 swab samples were from known symptomatic individuals and 310 samples were from known asymptomatic individuals and the clinical status of the remaining swab samples (n= 79) was unknown.
86,760 neat saliva samples were assayed. 93 samples were from known symptomatic individuals and 86,593 samples were from known asymptomatic individuals. The clinical status of the remaining samples (n= 74) was unknown. In addition, 10 separate longitudinal daily saliva samples were provided from one individual as a time course from development of symptoms to three days post resolution of symptoms.
RNA RT-LAMP on NP/OP swabs
A total of 12,619 swab samples were assayed by RNA RT-LAMP, of which 254 were RT-qPCR positive and 12,365 were RT-qPCR negative. RNA RT-LAMP detected 244 of the 254 positives (Figure 1 and Table 1). Only one of the 12,365 samples negative by RT-qPCR was positive by RNA RT-LAMP. 588 samples were tested in duplicate and 12,031 were tested as single replicates. Of those samples tested in duplicate seven were detected by RNA RT-LAMP in only a single replicate (CTs 27.00, 32.66, 33.14, 33.16, 34.07, 35.05, and 37.20 all of these had received at least one freeze thaw before analysis. Overall diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) was 96.06% (95% CI 92.88-98.12) and specificity (DSp) 99.99% (95% CI 99.95-100.00), which is corrected to DSe 95.98% (95% CI 92.70-97.83) and DSp 99.99% (95% CI 99.94-100.00) after site meta-analysis. Diagnostic sensitivity of samples with a CT <25 (n= 123) was 100.00% (95% CI 96.76-100.00) and specificity 99.99% (95% CI 99.95-100.00), and of samples with a CT <33 (n=180) was 98.65% (95% CI 96.10-99.72) and specificity 99.99% (95% CI 99.95-100.00).
Direct RT-LAMP on NP/OP swabs
559 swab samples were assayed by Direct RT-LAMP of which 199 were RT-qPCR positive and 360 were RT-qPCR negative. Direct RT-LAMP detected 140 of the 199 samples positive by RT-qPCR (Figure 1 and Table 2). 195 samples were tested in duplicate and 364 tested as single replicates. Seven of 195 samples tested in duplicate were positive by Direct RT-LAMP in only one replicate (CT 27.51, 27.95, 28.15, 28.15, 28.87, 28.92, and 28.95) all these samples had received at least one freeze thaw before analysis. Overall diagnostic sensitivity was 70.35% (95% CI 63.48-76.60) and specificity 100% (95% CI 98.98-100). After correction by site meta-analysis, the DSe is corrected to 67.59% (95% CI 53.71-78.94). Diagnostic sensitivity of samples with a CT <25 (n= 113) was 100% (95% CI96.34-100) and specificity 100% (95% CI 98.98-100), and of samples with a CT <33 (n= 182) was 77.78% (95% CI 70.99-83.62) and specificity 100% (95% CI 98.98-100).
RNA RT-LAMP on saliva
Saliva samples numbering 12,521 were assayed by RNA RT-LAMP of which 155 were RT-qPCR positive and 12,366 were RT-qPCR negative. RNA RT-LAMP detected 133 of the 155 samples that were positive by RT-qPCR (Figure 1 and Table 3). Only one of the 12,366 samples negative by RT-qPCR was positive by RNA RT-LAMP. 44 samples were tested in duplicate and 12,477 were tested as single replicates. All samples tested in duplicate were positive in both replicates. Overall diagnostic sensitivity was 80.65% (95% CI 73.54-86.54) and specificity 99.99% (95% CI 99.95-100), which is corrected to DSe 79.05% (95% CI 68.87 – 86.55) and DSp 99.99% (95% CI 99.74-100) after site meta-analysis. Diagnostic sensitivity of samples with a CT <25 (n= 74) was 100% (95% CI 93.73-100) and specificity 99.99% (95% CI 99.95-100), and of samples with a CT <33 (n= 150) was 87.32% (95% CI 80.71-92.31) and specificity 99.95 (95% CI 99.95-100.00).
Direct RT-LAMP on saliva
86,760 saliva samples were tested by Direct RT-LAMP of which 247 were RT-qPCR positive and 7,195 were RT-qPCR negative (79,318 were negative on RT-LAMP but were not tested by RT-qPCR) (Figure 1 and Table 4). Direct RT-LAMP detected 209 of the 247 samples positive by RT-qPCR. 83 samples were tested in duplicate and 86,677 were tested as single replicates. Nine of the 83 samples tested in duplicate were negative in one of the duplicates and all these samples had received at least one freeze thaw before analysis (CT 20.27, 21.28, 22.01, 24.42, 25.85, 27.35, 28.52, and 30.37). Overall diagnostic sensitivity was 84.62% (95% CI 79.50-88.88) and specificity 100% (95% CI 99.72-100). After correction by site meta-analysis, DSe is corrected to 84.24% (95% CI 55.03-95.89). Diagnostic specificity was calculated using only the confirmed RT-qPCR negative samples. Diagnostic sensitivity of samples with a CT <25 (n= 126) was 99.01% (95% CI 94.61-99.97) and specificity 100.00% (95% CI 99.72-100), and of samples with a CT <33 (n= 237) was 87.61% (95% CI 82.69-91.54) and specificity 100% (95% CI 99.72-100).
Relationship between cycle threshold (CT) value and time to positivity (Tp)
The relationship between CT value and Tp was explored with the results shown in Figure 1. Whilst there is a weak linear relationship between CT value and Tp across all methods and sample types, a stronger linear relationship was observed in swab samples with R2 = 0.431 for RNA RT-LAMP and R2 = 0.462 for Direct RT-LAMP. There was a notably weaker linear relationship in saliva samples R2 = 0.201 for RNA RT-LAMP and R2 = 0.204 for Direct RT-LAMP. For RNA RT-LAMP, there was a notable increase in Tp variance, , after CT = 20 across both sample types. On saliva samples, for CT≤20, and for CT >20; on swabs samples, and CT <20, and for CT >20. Given the relationship between CT value and viral load, this indicates that Tp is not a reliable indicator for viral load beyond the CT = 20 threshold.
SARS-CoV-2 viral culture of clinical samples across a CT range
Although not a large sample size; a negative result via Direct RT-LAMP indicates that the presence of culturable virus is less probable and for samples with a CT >25 (RDRP/ORF1ab target) recoverable virus is less likely (Table 5). The sensitivity of 1 PFU/ml of the viral culture assay is presented in Supplemental Table S3. No CPE was observed in the flasks inoculated with 0.1 or 0.01 PFU after the two passes. AVL samples were taken from the flasks at the beginning and end of each passage and the CT values of the extracted nucleic acids shown in Supplemental Table S3.
Individual time course
In the time course experiment SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected from day 5 (at the onset of symptoms) up to day 12 post suspected initial exposure using Direct RT-LAMP and up to day 13 by RNA RT-LAMP, encompassing the full six days where symptoms were recorded, Supplemental Table S4.
Performance of RT-LAMP across viral load groups
The sensitivity of the RNA and Direct RT-LAMP assays across viral load groups is shown in Figure 2. For RNA RT-LAMP, samples which were positive by RT-qPCR containing >105 copies/ml were consistently identified as positive with no samples returning a negative result. Below this copy number, sensitivity is reduced for both saliva and NP/OP swab samples, reaching ∼60% in NP/OP swab samples exclusively with viral loads <103 copies/ml, and an approximately linear drop in sensitivity from 100% to 0% between viral loads of 105 and 103 copies/ml respectively in saliva samples. For Direct RT-LAMP, all but one saliva sample were detected above 106 copies/ml. On swab samples, sensitivity is reduced on samples containing below <105 copies/ml, dropping from 85% at viral loads of 105–106 copies/ml, to 30% in the 104–105range. On saliva samples, sensitivity is reduced in the 104–105 range to a sensitivity of 80% but then reduces further within the 103–104 range, to 30%.
Site meta-analysis
Site-level confusion matrices, sensitivity, and specificity per method and sample type are shown in Figures 3 and 4. For specificity, heterogeneity between sites was minimal for all combinations of method and sample type, with the random effects model matching the overall aggregated sample calculation. For sensitivity, heterogeneity was minimal between sites for RNA RT-LAMP. However, for Direct RT-LAMP, sensitivity showed significant overall heterogeneity (bivariate model variance: on saliva samples; on swab samples). Between-site variations in the viral load of the samples tested contributed a minority of the heterogeneity, but sensitivity was consistently high in samples with higher viral loads (i.e., >106 copies/ml, as shown in Figure 2), while being more heterogeneous between sites in samples with lower viral loads. Sensitivity at lower viral loads was highest in the sites with the most established testing programmes.
Discussion
Testing of human populations for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid has been hampered by both logistical (e.g., swab availability) and physical (e.g., discomfort from repeat swab testing) constraints. The aim of this study was to evaluate an optimised sample preparation method, building upon previously published methods for the extraction-free detection of SARS-CoV-2 by RT-LAMP primarily from saliva3,19. The salivary glands are reported to be early targets of SARS-CoV-2 infection24, and studies have demonstrated the detection of high viral loads of SARS-CoV-2 from saliva, similar to those observed from nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs15,25–27. Collection of saliva is non-invasive and does not require a trained individual or specialist consumables for collection of a quality sample. Utilising a non-invasive sampling method should open testing to more individuals who dislike or are unable to tolerate having a nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab taken28. Additionally, several studies have demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could be detected from saliva for a similar duration post onset of clinical signs when compared to combined NP/OP swabs29–31, highlighting saliva as a valuable tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection.
Direct detection negates the requirement for RNA extraction32,33, for which there has previously been competition for reagents and often requires expensive extraction equipment including liquid handling automation. This extraction-free method decreases turnaround time from sample collection to result. The Direct RT-LAMP method is straight forward and rapid, allowing the test to be performed in a wide range of settings, including near-patient hospital laboratories and pop-up or mobile laboratories. However, previously evaluated extraction-free sample preparation methods using RT-LAMP from saliva samples have demonstrated reduced sensitivity3,19, likely due to the inhibitory factors found within saliva that may affect molecular tests such as RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR34,35. The simple sample preparation method evaluated in the study aimed to improve upon these methods by utilising the addition of a novel proprietary reagent, RapiLyze©, designed to neutralize common sample inhibitors. A subsequent heat step of 98°C for two minutes prior to addition to the RT-LAMP master mix renders SARS-CoV-2 inactive as confirmed by infectivity analysis using live virus inactivation studies (Supplemental Tables S1 and S2). Downstream steps are then able to proceed outside of traditional containment level laboratory settings broadening its clinical utility.
This study utilised high numbers of combined naso/oropharyngeal swabs (n= 559) and saliva samples (n = 86,760) for the evaluation of this novel sample preparation method in combination with the Direct RT-LAMP assay. RNA RT-LAMP was also performed on >25,000 samples for comparison, providing updated values for the performance of the assay reported previously3,19,36. Correlation between CT value and sample viral copy number has been demonstrated within this and other studies, with lower CT values (CT <25 and <33) indicating a higher probability that the sample contains recoverable active virus, and consequently the likelihood that the individual may be infectious to others4,25,37–40. As a result, the RNA and Direct RT-LAMP assays were compared with RT-qPCR results in groups with three different CT cut-off values: <45, <33 and <25. This was completed so that the performance of the assays in different clinical scenarios (use case) could be determined: (i) CT <45: does the RT-LAMP assay (either RNA or Direct) compare with RT-qPCR for all reportable CT values?; (ii) CT <33: can the RT-LAMP assay detect those individuals that have a medium-high levels of viral RNA in their specimens, with an ORF1ab target being analogous with viral copy number because it is exclusively a genomic target22; and (iii) CT <25: can the RT-LAMP assay detect those individuals that have a high level of viral RNA in their specimens?
Diagnostic sensitivity for RNA RT-LAMP on swab and saliva samples was improved when compared to a previous report utilising this method3, with values of >96% and >80%, respectively when considering all CT values, and 100% for both sample types when considering CT <25 with these samples having a high probability of containing replicating virus for over 24,000 samples tested. Direct RT-LAMP sensitivity on swab samples was also improved from the previous method with 100% sensitivity for CT <25, 77.78% for CT <33 and 70.35% for CT <45 across 559 samples used for this evaluation. In contrast, sensitivity for Direct RT-LAMP on saliva was in general higher than that determined for swabs (CT <33 = 87.61%, CT <45 = 84.62%), apart from the group with CT values below <25, which had a reported sensitivity of 99.01%. These results support previous reports which demonstrate comparable performance when comparing paired swabs and saliva samples41,42, and that one sample type is not superior to the other. Interestingly, the diagnostic sensitivity for RNA and Direct RT-LAMP for saliva samples was almost equivalent (80.65% and 84.62%, respectively) suggesting that RNA extraction may not even be required when performing testing on saliva samples. Direct RT-LAMP also demonstrates a higher sensitivity than a wide variety of lateral flow tests (LFTs) in the CT < 25, CT ≥ 25 and overall categories, with the overall sensitivity of Direct RT-LAMP on saliva samples achieving a higher overall sensitivity than 94 out of 96 LFTs previously evaluated43. We found that the correlation between PCR CT value and the Direct RT-LAMP Tp was weaker for saliva than for swabs, which may reflect the PCR CT value being from a naso-pharyngeal swab and recognised time course differences between initial viral infection of the salivary glands and later infection of the respiratory tract26,30.
Previous studies have described the importance of identifying asymptomatic individuals, particularly those with high viral loads28,44–48. The ability of the Direct RT-LAMP assay to reliably detect individuals with medium-high viral loads in a simple to collect, non-invasive sampling process highlights the suitability of this assay for both symptomatic and asymptomatic population screening. This is particularly important in healthcare and care home staff where the use of asymptomatic COVID-19 screening would reduce the risk of onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2, consequently maintaining NHS capacity and Social Care capacity and more importantly, reducing the risk to vulnerable individuals present within those environments36.
It is important to note that when designing surveillance strategies for asymptomatic infection testing as an intervention to reduce transmission, frequency of testing and result turnaround time may be considered more significant than diagnostic sensitivity49. ‘Gold standard’ tests with high sensitivity such as RT-qPCR generally need to be performed in centralised testing facilities, often resulting in increased reporting times, leading to a less effective control of viral transmission49. In contrast, point of care tests such as Lateral flow tests (LFT)50,43 or those requiring only a basic/mobile laboratory set-up such as Direct RT-LAMP, which have the ability to produce rapid results, can be performed frequently e.g., daily or multiple times per week. Consequently, the likelihood of sampling an individual when their viral load is highest as seen in the early, often pre-symptomatic stages of infection increases, maximising the probability of rapidly detecting infectious cases, allowing prompt isolation. In this use case sampling and testing frequency using a rapid assay with suitable accuracy in detection of medium-high viral loads, but not necessarily optimal sensitivity over the whole range including low to very low viral loads, is desirable or necessary49,51. Frequent on-site testing of asymptomatic NHS healthcare workers using Direct RT-LAMP has been successfully implemented in the pilot study described here; and continues to be utilised. Direct-RT-LAMP has also been used in a mass community based pilot in school and higher education settings36, to identify those individuals who may have been missed when surveillance relies only on symptomatic individuals coming forward for testing. With the use of mobile or pop-up laboratories, Direct RT-LAMP could also be used for risk-based mass testing, for example, targeting specific geographical areas or vulnerable groups. The potential also exists for lyophilisation of the Direct RT-LAMP reagents reported in other studies52,53, which would minimise the necessity for trained personnel by reducing pipetting steps and the requirement for a cold chain, allowing greater capacity of the assay in multi-use case scenarios including point-of-care and in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Several experiments typical of a diagnostic performance evaluation were not performed as part of this study, as they had been performed and reported previously. This included both analytical specificity, which when tested against a panel of respiratory pathogens causing indistinguishable clinical signs to COVID-19, demonstrated a high level of analytical specificity (100% in this case)3 and analytical sensitivity of the Direct RT-LAMP, which is reported to detect 1000 cp/ml3,36,41. Additionally, the RNA and Direct RT-LAMP assays evaluated as part of this study have been shown to reliably detect the emerging variants of concern (VOC) including the B.1.1.7 alpha variant, the 501Y.V2 beta variant, the P1 gamma variant and the new rapidly spreading B.1.617.2 delta variant54,55 (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/new-sars-cov-2-variant (accessed June, 2021). The emergence of further VOC could lead to a criticism of the RT-LAMP assay due its reliance on a single target, ORF1ab, where mutations in the target region in a sample could lead to false negatives. For RT-qPCR this has been observed during the current pandemic 56– 58 where at least a dual target assay is recommended59. However, this is less likely to occur for the RT-LAMP assay used in this pilot evaluation. Firstly, due to the multiple sets of primer pairs utilised, three pairs, with two pairs within the target region. This builds in redundancy to mutation not unlike a duplex RT-qPCR. Secondly, the ORF1ab region is highly conserved and crucial for viral replication and fitness in SARS-CoV-2. As a result, these regions are well maintained using a proofreading system via the nsp14 protein60 resulting in a more stable genome compared to many other RNA viruses.
The authors highlight the importance of incorporating an inhibition control into the next iteration of the RT-LAMP assays. Although the paired RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR data from this study show a good correlation and any false negative results were likely due to the analytical sensitivity of the RT-LAMP assay, not sample driven inhibition. To this end, a control primer set by OptiGene Ltd was evaluated (PS-0010), targeting the human ribosomal protein LO gene. Preliminary analysis of the inhibition control primers showed consistent detection across 279 saliva and 381 combined naso/oropharyngeal swab samples using both RNA and Direct RT-LAMP (manuscript in preparation). Incorporation of this inhibition control into the RT-LAMP assays would alleviate a potential limitation of the current assays and further support quality assurance for use within a clinical diagnostic setting. One further limitation to LAMP assays is the potential for contamination from assay product which can be significant. LAMP assays produce vast amounts which can persist in the environment not only causing potential false positive results in subsequent testing but also anomalous results in laboratory workers who are part of a SARS-CoV-2 testing programme61. Therefore, it is crucial that appropriate waste streams are in place to mitigate this risk.
This study demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for a novel sample preparation method used for SARS-CoV-2 Direct RT-LAMP, particularly in samples from which the individual would likely be considered infectious, highlighting the usefulness of saliva as a simple to collect, non-invasive sample type. The highly sensitive RNA RT-LAMP assay provides a rapid alternative with a reliance on differing reagents and equipment to RT-qPCR testing, thus providing additional diagnostic capacity and redundancy through diversity. Direct RT-LAMP may complement existing surveillance tools for SARS-CoV-2 testing including other point-of-care and laboratory-based diagnostics and is applicable to a variety of clinical scenarios, such as frequent, interval-based testing of asymptomatic individuals that may be missed when reliance is on symptomatic testing alone. However, care should be taken when considering frequency of testing, messaging around the role and interpretation of asymptomatic rapid tests, integration of data storage and access, and the challenges faced when scaling up surveillance to large populations.
The role out of a new testing strategy can often throw up interesting and unexpected experiences. These collective experiences and lessons learnt from setting up an NHS asymptomatic staff testing programme using Direct RT-LAMP will be shared in a future publication.
Conclusions
Rapid diagnostic testing at scale to identify and isolate symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals potentially transmitting infectious SARS-CoV-2 is an essential part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. RT-LAMP on both extracted RNA and directly on crude samples potentially provides faster turnaround times than reverse-transcriptase quantitative real-time PCR testing, with a higher sensitivity and specificity than antigen lateral flow devices. Increasing evidence points to potential benefits of SARS-CoV-2 testing using saliva rather than nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs, therefore a multi-site evaluation of an improved simple sample preparation method for Direct SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP was undertaken. This study demonstrated that the RNA RT-LAMP assay has high sensitivity and specificity, providing a rapid alternative to RT-qPCR testing with a reliance on differing reagents and equipment. The simple SARS-CoV-2 Direct RT-LAMP preparation method also demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and naso/oropharyngeal swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals, notably in saliva samples from which the individual would likely be considered infectious. The findings highlight the usefulness of saliva as a simple to collect, non-invasive sample type, potentially applicable for interval-based testing of asymptomatic individuals.
Data Availability
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.
Supplemental Information
Individual time course
Footnotes
↵† Denotes co-first authorship
↵+ Senior author
↵π Supplied reagents free of charge but did not assist in study design or data analysis.
Grant numbers and sources of support: OptiGene Ltd. suppled reagents free of charge for this study. This work was partially funded by a UK Department of Health and Social Care award to the University of Southampton (Grant Reference Number 2020/032 (Feasibility study for city-wide testing using saliva 315 based LAMP testing)). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health and Social Care. KMG is supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12011/4), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR Senior Investigator (NF-SI-0515- 318 10042) and NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215-20004)) and the British Heart Foundation (RG/15/17/3174). For part of this project, Emma Howson was on secondment at GeneSys Biotech Ltd., which was part funded by The Pirbright Institute Flexible Talent Mobility Account (FTMA) under BBSRC grant BB/S507945/1. ADB is currently supported by a Cancer Research UK Advanced Clinician Scientist award (C31641/A23923) and his laboratory is supported by CRUK Centre Birmingham (C17422/A25154) and the Birmingham Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (C11497/A25127). VLF, SPK, BA and ZD were on secondment to the Department of Health and Social Care for a period during this study. APHA laboratory activities and expertise was supported by both the Safe and Certain project APHACSKL0085 and Defra project APHANSOM0416.
Disclosures: MA is an employee of OptiSense Limited, and NM an employee of GeneSys Biotech Limited; neither had any role in study design or data analysis. KMG is part of an academic consortium that has received research funding from Abbott Nutrition, Nestec, BenevolentAI Bio Ltd. and Danone.
Rewritten parts and improved format.