RESULTS: A set of SREHP gene specific LAMP primers were designed for the specific detection of Entamoeba histolytica. This set of primers recorded 100% specificity when it was evaluated against 3 medically important Entamoeba species and 75 other pathogenic microorganisms. These primers were later modified for conventional PCR, nPCR and qPCR applications. Besides, 3 different post-LAMP analyses including agarose gel electrophoresis, nucleic acid lateral flow immunoassay and calcein-manganese dye techniques were used to compare their limit of detection (LoD). One E. histolytica trophozoite was recorded as the LoD for all the 3 post-LAMP analysis methods when tested with E. histolytica DNA extracted from spiked stool samples. In contrast, none of the PCR method outperformed LAMP as both qPCR and nPCR recorded LoD of 100 trophozoites while the LoD of conventional PCR was 1000 trophozoites.
CONCLUSIONS: The analytical sensitivity comparison among the conventional PCR, nPCR, qPCR and LAMP reveals that the LAMP outperformed the others in terms of LoD and amplification time. Hence, LAMP is a relevant alternative DNA-based amplification platform for sensitive and specific detection of pathogens.
METHODS: This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) guideline. Relevant studies in the health-related electronic databases were searched. According to the criteria set for this study, eligible studies were identified. The quality of included studies was evaluated with the use of a quality assessment checklist. A summary performance estimates such as pooled sensitivity and specificity were stratified by type of LAMP. Bivariate model for data analyses was applied. Summary receiver operating characteristics plots were created to display the results of individual studies in a receiver operating characteristics space. Meta-regression analysis was performed to investigate the sources of heterogeneity among individual studies.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies across 17 endemic countries were identified. The vast majority of studies were with unclear risk of bias in the selection of index test. Overall, the pooled test performances were high for Pan LAMP (sensitivity: 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.97; specificity: 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99), Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) LAMP (sensitivity: 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98; specificity: 0.99, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.00) or for Plasmodium vivax (Pv) LAMP from 6 studies (sensitivity: 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99; specificity: 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00). The area under the curve for Pan LAMP (0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.00), Pf LAMP (0.99, 95% CI 0.97-0.99) and Pv LAMP was (1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.00) indicated that the diagnostic performance of these tests were within the excellent accuracy range. Meta-regression analysis showed that sample size had the greatest impact on test performance, among other factors.
CONCLUSIONS: The current findings suggest that LAMP-based assays are appropriate for detecting low-level malaria parasite infections in the field and would become valuable tools for malaria control and elimination programmes. Future well-designed larger sample studies on LAMP assessment in passive and active malaria surveillances that use PCR as the reference standard and provide sufficient data to construct 2 × 2 diagnostic table are needed.
METHODS: This was a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Relevant studies that assessed the diagnostic performance of LAMP for the detection of malaria in pregnancy were searched in health-related electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Google Scholar. The methodological quality of the studies included was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool.
RESULTS: Of the 372 studies identified, eight studies involving 2999 pregnant women in five endemic countries that assessed the accuracy of LAMP were identified. With three types of PCR as reference tests, the pooled sensitivity of LAMP was 91% (95%CI 67-98%) and pooled specificity was 99% (95%CI 83-100%, 4 studies), and the negative likelihood ratio was 9% (2-40%). Caution is needed in the interpretation as there was substantial between-study heterogeneity (I2: 80%), and a low probability that a person without infection is tested negative. With microscopy as a reference, the pooled sensitivity of LAMP was 95% (95%CI 26-100%) and pooled specificity was 100% (95%CI 94-100%, 4 studies). There was a wide range of sensitivity and substantial between-study heterogeneity (I2: 83.5-98.4%). To investigate the source of heterogeneity, a meta-regression analysis was performed with covariates. Of these potential confounding factors, reference test (p: 0.03) and study design (p:0.03) had affected the diagnostic accuracy of LAMP in malaria in pregnancy. Overall, there was a low certainty of the evidence in accuracy estimates.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that LAMP is more sensitive than traditional tests used at facilities, but the utility of detecting and treating these low-density infections is not well understood. Due to the limited number of studies with bias in their methodological quality, variation in the study design, and different types of reference tests further research is likely to change the estimate. Well-conceived large prospective studies with blinding of the index test results are recommenced.
METHODS: A high-throughput LAMP assay targeting a P. vivax mitochondrial gene and deploying colorimetric detection in a 96-well plate format was developed and evaluated in the laboratory. Diagnostic accuracy was compared against microscopy, antigen detection tests and PCR and validated in samples from malaria patients and community controls in a district hospital setting in Sabah, Malaysia.
RESULTS: The high throughput LAMP-P. vivax assay (HtLAMP-Pv) performed with an estimated limit of detection of 1.4 parasites/ μL. Assay primers demonstrated cross-reactivity with P. knowlesi but not with other Plasmodium spp. Field testing of HtLAMP-Pv was conducted using 149 samples from symptomatic malaria patients (64 P. vivax, 17 P. falciparum, 56 P. knowlesi, 7 P. malariae, 1 mixed P. knowlesi/P. vivax, with 4 excluded). When compared against multiplex PCR, HtLAMP-Pv demonstrated a sensitivity for P. vivax of 95% (95% CI 87-99%); 61/64), and specificity of 100% (95% CI 86-100%); 25/25) when P. knowlesi samples were excluded. HtLAMP-Pv testing of 112 samples from asymptomatic community controls, 7 of which had submicroscopic P. vivax infections by PCR, showed a sensitivity of 71% (95% CI 29-96%; 5/7) and specificity of 93% (95% CI87-97%; 98/105).
CONCLUSION: This novel HtLAMP-P. vivax assay has the potential to be a useful field applicable molecular diagnostic test for P. vivax infection in elimination settings.
METHODS: The qLAMP assay was optimized targeting the HPV-16 E7 gene. The analytical sensitivity and specificity of the assay were determined using HPV-18 (ATCC® 45152D™), HPV-35 (ATCC® 40330™), HPV-43 (ATCC® 40338™) and HPV-56 (ATCC® 40549™) viral strains and oral bacteria. HPV-16 standard curve was constructed for determination of HPV-16 viral load. The diagnostic performance of the assay was evaluated from 63 OSCC patients comprising 63 tissue, 13 saliva and 49 blood samples, in comparison with p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC), in-house PCR and nested PCR assays.
RESULTS: The detection limit of developed LAMP and PCR assays was 4.68 × 101 and 4.68 × 103 copies/μl, respectively. qLAMP assay enabled detection of positive results as early as 23 min at 67 °C. This assay can detect HPV-16 positivity in 23 % (3/13) saliva and 4.8 % (3/63) tissue samples with the viral load ranging from 4.68 × 101 to 4.68 × 104 copies/μl. HPV-16 positivity was not detected in all the blood samples. The sensitivity and specificity of qLAMP were 100 % in comparison with that of p16 IHC and nested PCR.
CONCLUSION: This study reports for the first time on the use of qLAMP assay for detection of HPV-16 in OSCC in both tissue and saliva as the sample matrix which holds promise in improving the diagnostic application owing to its rapidity, simplicity, high sensitivity and specificity.
GOALS: The goal was to ascertain whether urine testing could be used as screening method to detect C. trachomatis infections in commercial sex workers, patients at sexually transmitted diseases clinic, and asymptomatic patients in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
METHODS: First-void urine specimens from 300 men and 300 women were tested by LCR, as well as by a commercially available enzyme immunoassay. The LCR assay amplifies specific sequences within the chlamydial plasmid with ligand-labeled probes, and the resultant amplicons are detected by an automated immunoassay. Specimens with discrepant results were confirmed by another LCR of the specimen that targeted the gene for the major outer membrane protein (OMP1).
RESULTS: There were 31 LCR-positive male urine and 37 LCR-positive female urine specimens. The resolved sensitivity and specificity for the LCR of the male urine specimens were 100% and 99.6%, respectively, whereas for female urine specimens, the sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 98.5%, respectively. After resolution of discrepant test results by OMP1 LCR, the prevalence was 10% for men and 11% for women. The urine enzyme immunoassay was not useful in diagnosing C. trachomatis infections in either men or women, as the resolved sensitivities were 10% and 15.2%, respectively. The specificities were 99.6% for men and 98.9% for women.
CONCLUSIONS: Testing first-void urine specimens by LCR is a highly sensitive and specific method to diagnose C. trachomatis infections in men and women, providing health care workers and public health officials with a new molecular amplification assay that uses noninvasive urine specimens for population-based screening purposes.