RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Initial evaluation of a mobile SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP testing strategy
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.07.28.20164038
DO 10.1101/2020.07.28.20164038
A1 Newman, Christina M.
A1 Ramuta, Mitchell D.
A1 McLaughlin, Matthew T.
A1 Wiseman, Roger W.
A1 Karl, Julie A.
A1 Dudley, Dawn M.
A1 Stauss, Miranda R.
A1 Maddox, Robert J.
A1 Weiler, Andrea M.
A1 Bliss, Mason I.
A1 Fauser, Katrina N.
A1 Haddock, Luis A.
A1 Shortreed, Cecilia G.
A1 Haj, Amelia K.
A1 Accola, Molly A.
A1 Heffron, Anna S.
A1 Bussan, Hailey E.
A1 Reynolds, Matthew R.
A1 Harwood, Olivia E.
A1 Moriarty, Ryan V.
A1 Stewart, Laurel M.
A1 Crooks, Chelsea M.
A1 Prall, Trent M.
A1 Neumann, Emma K.
A1 Somsen, Elizabeth D.
A1 Burmeister, Corrie B.
A1 Hall, Kristi L.
A1 Rehrauer, William M.
A1 Friedrich, Thomas C.
A1 O’Connor, Shelby L.
A1 O’Connor, David H.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/28/2020.07.28.20164038.abstract
AB Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) control in the United States remains hampered, in part, by testing limitations. We evaluated a simple, outdoor, mobile, colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay workflow where self-collected saliva is tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. From July 16 to November 19, 2020, 4,704 surveillance samples were collected from volunteers and tested for SARS-CoV-2 at 5 sites. A total of 21 samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-LAMP; 12 were confirmed positive by subsequent quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) testing, while 8 were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 1 could not be confirmed because the donor did not consent to further molecular testing. We estimated the RT-LAMP assay’s false-negative rate from July 16 to September 17, 2020 by pooling residual heat-inactivated saliva that was unambiguously negative by RT-LAMP into groups of 6 or less and testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by qRT-PCR. We observed a 98.8% concordance between the RT-LAMP and qRT-PCR assays, with only 5 of 421 RT-LAMP negative pools (2,493 samples) testing positive in the more sensitive qRT-PCR assay. Overall, we demonstrate a rapid testing method that can be implemented outside the traditional laboratory setting by individuals with basic molecular biology skills and can effectively identify asymptomatic individuals who would not typically meet the criteria for symptom-based testing modalities.Competing Interest StatementC.M.N., D.M.D, and A.M.W. provided consulting services to Salus Discovery LLC.Funding StatementThis work was made possible by financial support through NIH Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (3 U54 EB027690-02S1). Additional funding was provided in part by the office of the director, National Institutes of Health, under award number P51OD011106 to the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC), University of Wisconsin-Madison. This research was conducted in part at a facility constructed with support from Research Facilities Improvement Program grant numbers RR15459-01 and RR020141-01. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Additional funding was provided by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) COVID-19 Challenge. A.S.H. and C.M.C. have been supported by the National Institutes of Health National Research Service Award T32 AI007414.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This work was performed under approved UW-Madison Health Sciences IRB Protocol #2020-0855 and #2020-1142.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesData and protocols are available at https://openresearch.labkey.com/wiki/Coven/page.view?name=field-testing https://openresearch.labkey.com/wiki/Coven/page.view?name=field-testing