Unknown

Dataset Information

0

Diagnostic accuracy of LAMP versus PCR over the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection.


ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Inaba M 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8056478 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Similar Datasets

| S-EPMC8448437 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9159600 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8857239 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC7323671 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC9055515 | biostudies-literature
| S-SCDT-10_1038-S44318-024-00061-0 | biostudies-other
| S-EPMC8079700 | biostudies-literature
| S-EPMC8006266 | biostudies-literature
2021-04-22 | GSE173086 | GEO
| 12454 | ecrin-mdr-crc