Katalog Plus
Bibliothek der Frankfurt UAS
Bald neuer Katalog: sichern Sie sich schon vorab Ihre persönlichen Merklisten im Nutzerkonto: Anleitung.
Dieses Ergebnis aus BASE kann Gästen nicht angezeigt werden.  Login für vollen Zugriff.

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow device sensitivity: a comparison of systematic laboratory assessments with manufacturer-reported sensitivity

Title: Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow device sensitivity: a comparison of systematic laboratory assessments with manufacturer-reported sensitivity
Authors: Kulasegaran-Shylini, Raghavendran; Bown, Abbie; Collinge, Tom; Sienkiewicz, Alex; Eyre, David W; Crook, Derrick; Walker, Sarah; Bell, John; Williamson, Deborah A; Oliver, Isabel; Wilcox, Mark; Hill, Sue; Peto, Tim; Vipond, Richard; Hopkins, Susan; Fowler, Tom
Source: EClinicalMedicine , 87 , Article 103454. (2025)
Publisher Information: Elsevier
Publication Year: 2025
Collection: University College London: UCL Discovery
Subject Terms: SARS-CoV-2; Lateral flow device; COVID-19
Description: BACKGROUND: Self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection using lateral flow devices (LFDs) was a key component of the COVID-19 pandemic response; however, LFD performance has shown a high degree of variability. Between August 2020 and July 2023, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), including predecessor organisations, undertook a three-phase SARS-CoV-2 test development and evaluation programme to independently evaluate commercially available SARS-CoV-2 LFDs, incorporating standardised laboratory assessment of test sensitivity. Here we describe results from a comparison of UKHSA laboratory assessment findings with manufacturer-reported LFD sensitivity data. METHODS: The UKHSA assessed the sensitivity of LFDs, by laboratory testing of surplus clinical samples from a secondary healthcare setting. These data were compared with manufacturer-reported clinical sensitivity data and analytical sensitivity (limit of detection [LOD; 50% tissue culture infectious dose [TCID50]/mL]) from LFD instructions for use (IFU). FINDINGS: UKHSA-determined LFD sensitivity ranged from 32 to 83%. Of 86 LFDs assessed, 73 included device sensitivity data in the manufacturers’ IFU that claimed clinical sensitivity ≥85%, and 49 claimed clinical sensitivity ≥95%. No evidence of correlation was observed between manufacturer-reported test sensitivity and UKHSA determined test sensitivity, and no evidence of correlation was observed between manufacturer-reported test LOD and UKHSA-determined test sensitivity. INTERPRETATION: UKHSA-determined LFD sensitivity ranged from 32 to 83%. Of 86 LFDs assessed, 73 included device sensitivity data in the manufacturers’ IFU that claimed clinical sensitivity ≥85%, and 49 claimed clinical sensitivity ≥95%. No evidence of correlation was observed between manufacturer-reported test sensitivity and UKHSA determined test sensitivity, and no evidence of correlation was observed between manufacturer-reported test LOD and UKHSA-determined test sensitivity. FUNDING: This study was funded by UK Department of Health and ...
Document Type: article in journal/newspaper
File Description: text
Language: English
Relation: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10212527/
Availability: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10212527/7/Walker_Evaluation%20of%20SARS-CoV-2%20lateral%20flow%20device%20sensitivity_VoR.pdf; https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10212527/
Rights: open
Accession Number: edsbas.2EE5C251
Database: BASE