2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104616
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Use of the variplex™ SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP as a rapid molecular assay to complement RT-PCR for COVID-19 diagnosis

Abstract: Highlights Rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 by variplex™ RT-LAMP from respiratory samples. Homogenization of samples using SL solution for testing without RNA elution. Combination of RT-LAMP and RT-PCR increases diagnostic accuracy.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
56
0
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
2
56
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…If (as suggested in the United Kingdom strategy) a test is used to move people from being isolated back into a situation where they may infect others, then sensitivity is important – and with an estimated test sensitivity around 70% [22] , it appears prima facie that current test sensitivities may make this strategy risky; however, as sensitivity will correlate with degree of viral shedding and therefore infectivity, this theoretical risk is reduced in practice. (Sensitivity estimates in the literature are highly variable [23] , [24] , [25] , measures are sometimes used to detect false negative results caused by inadequate sampling [26] , and new tests with different performance characteristics are being introduced [ 27 , 28 ], meaning the interactions between test sensitivity and public health response need to be re-evaluated for each test whose deployment is considered.) Nevertheless, when a test is being used to identify and isolate asymptomatic infectious individuals who would otherwise have been free to infect others, any sensitivity that results in a clinically significant reduction in disease spread is useful (and a small percentage reduction in disease spread may be sufficient in populations where the virus effective reproduction number R eff is just above 1).…”
Section: Not All Positive Tests Reflect Infectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If (as suggested in the United Kingdom strategy) a test is used to move people from being isolated back into a situation where they may infect others, then sensitivity is important – and with an estimated test sensitivity around 70% [22] , it appears prima facie that current test sensitivities may make this strategy risky; however, as sensitivity will correlate with degree of viral shedding and therefore infectivity, this theoretical risk is reduced in practice. (Sensitivity estimates in the literature are highly variable [23] , [24] , [25] , measures are sometimes used to detect false negative results caused by inadequate sampling [26] , and new tests with different performance characteristics are being introduced [ 27 , 28 ], meaning the interactions between test sensitivity and public health response need to be re-evaluated for each test whose deployment is considered.) Nevertheless, when a test is being used to identify and isolate asymptomatic infectious individuals who would otherwise have been free to infect others, any sensitivity that results in a clinically significant reduction in disease spread is useful (and a small percentage reduction in disease spread may be sufficient in populations where the virus effective reproduction number R eff is just above 1).…”
Section: Not All Positive Tests Reflect Infectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result, some samples might give a positive result to the antibody test but www.nature.com/scientificreports/ provide a negative result to the LAMP test. Buck et al (2020), Thi et al (2020) and Rodel et al (2020) are also studies with sensitivity below 80% 34,39,72 . These studies also reported quantity of viral RNA (as Ct value of RT-qPCR) in purified RNA sample.…”
Section: Sensitivity Specificity and Diagnostic Odd Ratio (Dor) Of Nmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Testing for infection with SARS-CoV-2 followed by contact tracing is instrumental in controlling spread, but is seriously hampered by diagnostic delays inherent to the use of high-throughput RT-PCR [Kretzschmar et al (2020)]. Novel rapid testing technologies, such as antigen-based tests and LAMP, can reduce diagnostic delays to several minutes [Rödel et al (2020)]. Moreover, such tests can identify symptomatic and asymptomatically infected subjects with high Yet, compared to PCR-based testing, test sensitivity of rapid tests ranges from 70% to 90%, with false-negative results reported mainly in samples with low viral loads (i.e., high CT values), that may reflect subjects with low likelihood of being infectious [Gremmels et al (2020)].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%