RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT-PCR method for SARS-CoV-2 detection in the UK
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.10.08.21264742
DO 10.1101/2021.10.08.21264742
A1 Andrew Taylor
A1 Ronan Calvez
A1 Mark Atkins
A1 Colin G Fink
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/10/2021.10.08.21264742.abstract
AB In late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the Wuhan province of China. Rapid global spread led to the Covid-19 pandemic. Rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 has become a vitally important tool in controlling the spread of the virus. Lateral flow devices (LFDs) offer the potential advantage of speed and on-site testing. The sensitivity of these devices compared to the gold standard RT-PCR has been questioned. We compared the performance of the Innova lateral flow kit, recommended by the UK government, with our rapid in-house RT-PCR protocol using stored positive patient samples. The LFD device was found to be 6,000-10,000 times less sensitive than RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Overall, the LFD detected 46.2% of the positives detected by RT-PCR. 50% of the LFD results were observed to be weak positives, only visible after careful examination by experienced laboratory staff. At lower viral loads, such as 10,000-100,000 RNA copies/ml, the LFD detected 22.2% of positives. In addition, two strong positives (3 and 1.5 million RNA copies/ml) were not detected by the LFD. The argument for use of LFD kits, despite their lack of sensitivity, is that they detect infectious virus and hence contagious individuals. At present, there is a lack of scientific evidence supporting this claim. The LFD used in the UK fails to identify individuals with considerable viral loads and has been subject to a class I recall by the US FDA but is still approved and recommended for use by the UK government. We believe that using LFD testing for assessing SARS-CoV-2 infection risk is a strategy which has risks that outweigh any benefits.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor 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:Micropathology Ltd Ethics Committee Review BoardI 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.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.YesThe data produced in the present study is present in the manuscript or is available upon reasonable request to the authors.