Cargando…

Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples

The current scale of public and private testing cannot be expected to meet the emerging need for higher levels of community-level and repeated screening of asymptomatic Canadians for SARS-CoV-2. Rapid point-of-care techniques are increasingly being offered to fill the gap in screening levels require...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schellenberg, John J., Ormond, Margaret, Keynan, Yoav
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier B.V. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33636553
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104764
_version_ 1783651643693203456
author Schellenberg, John J.
Ormond, Margaret
Keynan, Yoav
author_facet Schellenberg, John J.
Ormond, Margaret
Keynan, Yoav
author_sort Schellenberg, John J.
collection PubMed
description The current scale of public and private testing cannot be expected to meet the emerging need for higher levels of community-level and repeated screening of asymptomatic Canadians for SARS-CoV-2. Rapid point-of-care techniques are increasingly being offered to fill the gap in screening levels required to identify undiagnosed individuals with high viral loads. However, rapid, point-of-care tests often have lower sensitivity in practice. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) for SARS-CoV-2 has proven sensitive and specific and provides visual results in minutes. Using a commercially available kit for RT-LAMP and primer set targetting nucleocapsid (N), we tested a blinded set of 101 archived nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples with known RT-PCR results. RT-LAMP reactions were incubated at 65 °C for 30 min, using heat-inactivated nasopharyngeal swab sample in viral transport medium, diluted tenfold in water, as input. RT-LAMP agreed with all RT-PCR defined negatives (N = 51), and all positives with cycle threshold (Ct) less than 20 (N = 24), 65% of positives with Ct between 20−30 (N = 17), and no positives with Ct greater than 30 (N = 9). RT-LAMP requires fewer and different core components, so may not compete directly with the mainline testing workflow, preserving precious central laboratory resources for those with the greatest need. Careful messaging must be provided when using less-sensitive tests, so that people are not falsely reassured by negative results, but this caveat must be weighed against the clear benefits of reliably identifying those with high levels of virus in prioritized samples at the point of care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7885624
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier B.V.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78856242021-02-16 Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples Schellenberg, John J. Ormond, Margaret Keynan, Yoav J Clin Virol Article The current scale of public and private testing cannot be expected to meet the emerging need for higher levels of community-level and repeated screening of asymptomatic Canadians for SARS-CoV-2. Rapid point-of-care techniques are increasingly being offered to fill the gap in screening levels required to identify undiagnosed individuals with high viral loads. However, rapid, point-of-care tests often have lower sensitivity in practice. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) for SARS-CoV-2 has proven sensitive and specific and provides visual results in minutes. Using a commercially available kit for RT-LAMP and primer set targetting nucleocapsid (N), we tested a blinded set of 101 archived nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples with known RT-PCR results. RT-LAMP reactions were incubated at 65 °C for 30 min, using heat-inactivated nasopharyngeal swab sample in viral transport medium, diluted tenfold in water, as input. RT-LAMP agreed with all RT-PCR defined negatives (N = 51), and all positives with cycle threshold (Ct) less than 20 (N = 24), 65% of positives with Ct between 20−30 (N = 17), and no positives with Ct greater than 30 (N = 9). RT-LAMP requires fewer and different core components, so may not compete directly with the mainline testing workflow, preserving precious central laboratory resources for those with the greatest need. Careful messaging must be provided when using less-sensitive tests, so that people are not falsely reassured by negative results, but this caveat must be weighed against the clear benefits of reliably identifying those with high levels of virus in prioritized samples at the point of care. Elsevier B.V. 2021-03 2021-02-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7885624/ /pubmed/33636553 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104764 Text en © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
spellingShingle Article
Schellenberg, John J.
Ormond, Margaret
Keynan, Yoav
Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples
title Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples
title_full Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples
title_fullStr Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples
title_full_unstemmed Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples
title_short Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples
title_sort extraction-free rt-lamp to detect sars-cov-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard rt-pcr in 101 samples
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33636553
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcv.2021.104764
work_keys_str_mv AT schellenbergjohnj extractionfreertlamptodetectsarscov2islesssensitivebuthighlyspecificcomparedtostandardrtpcrin101samples
AT ormondmargaret extractionfreertlamptodetectsarscov2islesssensitivebuthighlyspecificcomparedtostandardrtpcrin101samples
AT keynanyoav extractionfreertlamptodetectsarscov2islesssensitivebuthighlyspecificcomparedtostandardrtpcrin101samples