Head-to-head comparison of direct-input RT-PCR and RT-LAMP against RTqPCR on extracted RNA for rapid SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics

Kellner, M. J.; Matl, M.; Ross, J. J.; Schnabl, J.; Handler, D.; Heinen, R.; Schaeffer, J.; Hufnagl, P.; Indra, A.; Dekens, M.; Fritsche-Polanz, R.; Foedinger, M.; Zuber, J.; Allerberger, F.; Pauli, A.; Brennecke, J.

Viral pandemics, such as Covid-19, pose serious threats to human societies. To control the spread of highly contagious viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, effective test-trace-isolate strategies require population-wide, systematic testing. Currently, RT-qPCR on extracted RNA is the only broadly accepted test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, which bears the risk of supply chain bottlenecks, often exaggerated by dependencies on proprietary reagents. Here, we directly compare the performance of gold standard diagnostic RT-qPCR on extracted RNA to direct input RT-PCR, RT-LAMP and bead-LAMP on 384 primary patient samples collected from individuals with suspected Covid-19 infection. With a simple five minute crude sample inactivation step and one hour of total reaction time, we achieve assay sensitivities of 98% (direct RT-PCR), 93% (bead-LAMP) and 82% (RTLAMP) for clinically relevant samples (diagnostic RT-qPCR Ct <35) and a specificity of >98%. For direct RT-PCR, our data further demonstrate a perfect agreement between real-time and end-point measurements, which allow a simple binary classification similar to the powerful visual readout of colorimetric LAMP assays. Our study provides highly sensitive and specific, easy to implement, rapid and cost-effective alternatives to diagnostic RT-qPCR tests.