Cargando…

Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT‐PCR method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in the United Kingdom—A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) emerged in Wuhan, China. Rapid global spread led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) pandemic. Accurate detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 has become a vitally important tool in controlling the spread of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Taylor, Andrew, Calvez, Ronan, Atkins, Mark, Fink, Colin G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9475223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36177402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.811
_version_ 1784789866023747584
author Taylor, Andrew
Calvez, Ronan
Atkins, Mark
Fink, Colin G.
author_facet Taylor, Andrew
Calvez, Ronan
Atkins, Mark
Fink, Colin G.
author_sort Taylor, Andrew
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) emerged in Wuhan, China. Rapid global spread led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) pandemic. 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 reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) has been questioned. METHODS: We compared the sensitivity of the Innova LFD, used widely in the United Kingdom, with our rapid RT‐PCR method using stored positive samples. Samples with a range of viral loads (original Ct values 18.9–36.5) were tested. RESULTS: The Innova LFD was found to be 6000–10,000 times less sensitive than RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection. Overall, the LFD detected 46.2% of the positives detected by RT‐PCR, with 50% of these observed to be weak LFD positives. 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. CONCLUSION: The argument for use of LFD kits is that they detect infectious virus and hence contagious individuals. However, there is a lack of conclusive evidence supporting this claim. The Innova LFD has been subject to a Class I recall by the US Food and Drug Administration, but is still approved and widely used in the United Kingdom.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9475223
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94752232022-09-28 Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT‐PCR method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in the United Kingdom—A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study Taylor, Andrew Calvez, Ronan Atkins, Mark Fink, Colin G. Health Sci Rep Original Research BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) emerged in Wuhan, China. Rapid global spread led to the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) pandemic. 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 reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) has been questioned. METHODS: We compared the sensitivity of the Innova LFD, used widely in the United Kingdom, with our rapid RT‐PCR method using stored positive samples. Samples with a range of viral loads (original Ct values 18.9–36.5) were tested. RESULTS: The Innova LFD was found to be 6000–10,000 times less sensitive than RT‐PCR for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection. Overall, the LFD detected 46.2% of the positives detected by RT‐PCR, with 50% of these observed to be weak LFD positives. 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. CONCLUSION: The argument for use of LFD kits is that they detect infectious virus and hence contagious individuals. However, there is a lack of conclusive evidence supporting this claim. The Innova LFD has been subject to a Class I recall by the US Food and Drug Administration, but is still approved and widely used in the United Kingdom. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9475223/ /pubmed/36177402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.811 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Taylor, Andrew
Calvez, Ronan
Atkins, Mark
Fink, Colin G.
Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT‐PCR method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in the United Kingdom—A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study
title Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT‐PCR method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in the United Kingdom—A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study
title_full Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT‐PCR method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in the United Kingdom—A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study
title_fullStr Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT‐PCR method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in the United Kingdom—A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study
title_full_unstemmed Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT‐PCR method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in the United Kingdom—A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study
title_short Comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid RT‐PCR method for SARS‐CoV‐2 detection in the United Kingdom—A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study
title_sort comparing lateral flow testing with a rapid rt‐pcr method for sars‐cov‐2 detection in the united kingdom—a retrospective diagnostic accuracy study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9475223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36177402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.811
work_keys_str_mv AT taylorandrew comparinglateralflowtestingwitharapidrtpcrmethodforsarscov2detectionintheunitedkingdomaretrospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy
AT calvezronan comparinglateralflowtestingwitharapidrtpcrmethodforsarscov2detectionintheunitedkingdomaretrospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy
AT atkinsmark comparinglateralflowtestingwitharapidrtpcrmethodforsarscov2detectionintheunitedkingdomaretrospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy
AT finkcoling comparinglateralflowtestingwitharapidrtpcrmethodforsarscov2detectionintheunitedkingdomaretrospectivediagnosticaccuracystudy