Abstract
Background Quantitative LAMP (qLAMP) assay is one of the recent and emerging diagnostic tests for infectious diseases. Only a few studies exist comparing this assay with quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) for the diagnosis of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). The present study was performed to compare the diagnostic performance of qLAMP assay with qPCR targeting autolysin gene for the diagnosis of invasive pneumococcal disease.
Methodology/Principal Findings Ninety six blood samples and 73 CSF samples from patients clinically suspected with community acquired pneumonia and acute meningitis were tested by qPCR and qLAMP assays using previously published primers and protocols. The qPCR was considered as the gold standard test and the diagnostic performance was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and kappa coefficient for the level of agreement between the tests. Chi-squared/Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables (positive/negative). Thirty two blood samples and 22 CSF samples were positive by qPCR while 24 and 20 samples were positive by qLAMP assay respectively. The sensitivity of qLAMP assay was only 86.4% and 75% when tested on CSF and blood samples respectively. However, the qLAMP assay was in substantial to almost perfect agreement when compared with qPCR. The results were statistically significant in both sample types (P<0.001).
Conclusions The performance of qLAMP assay can vary based on the specimen type. It has very high specificity and had substantial to almost perfect agreement, and thus may be an alternative to qPCR for the diagnosis of IPD.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
JIPMER Intramural Research Fund - JIP/RES/INTRA-PHD/PHS1/01/2016-17
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 study has been approved by the Institute Ethics Committee for Human Studies (JIP/IEC/2015/15/744)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
The data is presented in supplementary material. Full data can be available upon requesting the corresponding author