TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of LAMP versus PCR over the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection
AU - Inaba, Masato
AU - Higashimoto, Yuki
AU - Toyama, Yoko
AU - Horiguchi, Tomoya
AU - Hibino, Masaya
AU - Iwata, Mitsunaga
AU - Imaizumi, Kazuyoshi
AU - Doi, Yohei
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s)
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - Objective: Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) has been validated to diagnose several viral infections. However, its diagnostic accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of RT-LAMP compared to reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) over the disease course of COVID-19. Methods: A total of 124 nasopharyngeal swab samples obtained from 24 COVID-19 patients were tested by RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR. Sensitivities and specificities of RT-LAMP compared with RT-qPCR were analyzed as a function of time from onset. Results: Up to the 9th day after onset, the RT-LAMP had a positivity of 92.8%, and the sensitivity and specificity compared with RT-qPCR was 100%. However, after the 10th day after onset, the positivity of RT-LAMP decreased to less than 25%, and the concordance of positivity between the two methods was below 60%. The limit of detection of RT-LAMP was 6.7 copies/reaction. Conclusions: Until the 9th day after the onset of symptoms, RT-LAMP had the same diagnostic accuracy as RT-qPCR. These findings suggest that RT-LAMP can be used as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19 as an alternative to RT-qPCR in the acute symptomatic phase of COVID-19.
AB - Objective: Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) has been validated to diagnose several viral infections. However, its diagnostic accuracy in detecting SARS-CoV-2 in real-life clinical settings remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of RT-LAMP compared to reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) over the disease course of COVID-19. Methods: A total of 124 nasopharyngeal swab samples obtained from 24 COVID-19 patients were tested by RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR. Sensitivities and specificities of RT-LAMP compared with RT-qPCR were analyzed as a function of time from onset. Results: Up to the 9th day after onset, the RT-LAMP had a positivity of 92.8%, and the sensitivity and specificity compared with RT-qPCR was 100%. However, after the 10th day after onset, the positivity of RT-LAMP decreased to less than 25%, and the concordance of positivity between the two methods was below 60%. The limit of detection of RT-LAMP was 6.7 copies/reaction. Conclusions: Until the 9th day after the onset of symptoms, RT-LAMP had the same diagnostic accuracy as RT-qPCR. These findings suggest that RT-LAMP can be used as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19 as an alternative to RT-qPCR in the acute symptomatic phase of COVID-19.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105818782&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85105818782&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.018
DO - 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.04.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 33862213
AN - SCOPUS:85105818782
SN - 1201-9712
VL - 107
SP - 195
EP - 200
JO - International Journal of Infectious Diseases
JF - International Journal of Infectious Diseases
ER -
