RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 RT-LAMP has high accuracy for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and naso/oropharyngeal swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.28.21259398
DO 10.1101/2021.06.28.21259398
A1 Kidd, Stephen P.
A1 Burns, Daniel
A1 Armson, Bryony
A1 Beggs, Andrew D.
A1 Howson, Emma L. A.
A1 Williams, Anthony
A1 Snell, Gemma
A1 Wise, Emma L.
A1 Goring, Alice
A1 Vincent-Mistiaen, Zoe
A1 Grippon, Seden
A1 Sawyer, Jason
A1 Cassar, Claire
A1 Cross, David
A1 Lewis, Tom
A1 Reid, Scott M.
A1 Rivers, Samantha
A1 James, Joe
A1 Skinner, Paul
A1 Banyard, Ashley
A1 Davies, Kerrie
A1 Ptasinska, Anetta
A1 Whalley, Celina
A1 Ferguson, Jack
A1 Bryer, Claire
A1 Poxon, Charlie
A1 Bosworth, Andrew
A1 Kidd, Michael
A1 Richter, Alex
A1 Burton, Jane
A1 Love, Hannah
A1 Fouch, Sarah
A1 Tillyer, Claire
A1 Sowood, Amy
A1 Patrick, Helen
A1 Moore, Nathan
A1 Andreou, Michael
A1 Morant, Nick
A1 Houghton, Rebecca
A1 Parker, Joe
A1 Slater-Jefferies, Joanne
A1 Brown, Ian
A1 Gretton, Cosima
A1 Deans, Zandra
A1 Porter, Deborah
A1 Cortes, Nicholas J.
A1 Douglas, Angela
A1 Hill, Sue L.
A1 Godfrey, Keith M.
A1 Fowler, Veronica L.
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/20/2021.06.28.21259398.abstract
AB Previous studies have described RT-LAMP methodology for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab and saliva samples. Here we describe the validation of an improved sample preparation method for extraction free Direct RT-LAMP and define the clinical performance of four different RT-LAMP assay formats for detection of SARS-CoV-2 within a large-scale multisite clinical evaluation.We describe Direct RT-LAMP on 559 swabs and 86,760 saliva samples and RNA RT-LAMP on extracted RNA from 12,619 swabs and 12,521 saliva samples collected from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals across multiple healthcare and community settings.For Direct RT-LAMP, we found a diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) of 70.35% (95% CI 63.48-76.60%) on swabs and 84.62% (79.50-88.88%) on saliva, 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 (high and medium-high viral copy number, respectively), we found DSe of 100% (96.34-100%) and 77.78% (70.99-83.62%) for swabs, and 99.01% (94.61-99.97%) and 87.32% (80.71-92.31%) for saliva. For RNA RT-LAMP DSe and DSp were 95.98% (92.74-98.06%) and 99.99% (99.95-100%) for swabs, and 80.65% (73.54-86.54%) and 99.99% (99.95-100%) for saliva, respectively.The findings from these evaluations demonstrate that RT-LAMP testing of swabs and saliva is applicable to a variety of different use-cases, including frequent, interval-based testing of saliva from asymptomatic individuals via Direct RT-LAMP that may otherwise be missed using symptomatic testing alone.Author Summary 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, leading us to undertake a multi-site evaluation of an improved simple sample preparation method for Direct SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP. Our 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was partially funded by a 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 317 (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 319 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). Veronica Fowler, Stephen Kidd, Bryony Armson and Zandra Deans 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.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:National Research Ethics Service Committee West Midlands - South Birmingham 2002/201 Amendment Number 4.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.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.