TY - JOUR T1 - RT-LAMP has high accuracy for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and naso/oropharyngeal swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.06.28.21259398 SP - 2021.06.28.21259398 AU - Stephen P. Kidd AU - Daniel Burns AU - Bryony Armson AU - Andrew D. Beggs AU - Emma L. A. Howson AU - Anthony Williams AU - Gemma Snell AU - Emma L. Wise AU - Alice Goring AU - Zoe Vincent-Mistiaen AU - Seden Grippon AU - Jason Sawyer AU - Claire Cassar AU - David Cross AU - Tom Lewis AU - Scott M. Reid AU - Samantha Rivers AU - Joe James AU - Paul Skinner AU - Ashley Banyard AU - Kerrie Davies AU - Anetta Ptasinska AU - Celina Whalley AU - Jack Ferguson AU - Claire Bryer AU - Charlie Poxon AU - Andrew Bosworth AU - Michael Kidd AU - Alex Richter AU - Jane Burton AU - Hannah Love AU - Sarah Fouch AU - Claire Tillyer AU - Amy Sowood AU - Helen Patrick AU - Nathan Moore AU - Michael Andreou AU - Nick Morant AU - Rebecca Houghton AU - Joe Parker AU - Joanne Slater-Jefferies AU - Ian Brown AU - Cosima Gretton AU - Zandra Deans AU - Deborah Porter AU - Nicholas J. Cortes AU - Angela Douglas AU - Sue L. Hill AU - Keith M. Godfrey AU - Veronica L. Fowler Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/08/20/2021.06.28.21259398.abstract N2 - 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. ER -