ABSTRACT
Loop-mediated amplification has been promoted for SARS-CoV-2 screening, however, antigen tests are preferred in low-income countries and remote zones. Poor training in molecular biology, plus the need for RNA purification or reading instruments to overcome issues of sensitivity in colorimetric detection, are some of the reasons limiting the use of this technique. In this study, nasopharyngeal swabs, aspirates and saliva were amplified in an in-house LAMP assay and subject to colorimetric detection, achieved by the naked eye and by image analysis with a mobile application. Accuracy of detection by the naked eye ranged from 61-74% but improved to 75-86% when using the application. Sensitivity of the digital approach was 81% and specificity 83%, with poor positive predictive value, and acceptable negative predictive value. Additionally to the reported effect of some transport media's pH, the presence of mucus and warming up of reagents while setting up the reaction critically affected performance. Accuracy per type of sample was 55, 70 and 80%, for swabs, aspirates and saliva, respectively, suggesting potential to improve the test in saliva. This assay, carried out in a closed tube, reduces contamination, has few pipetting steps and requires minimal equipment. Strategies to improve performance and implications of the use this sort of colorimetric LAMP for massive testing are discussed.
ABSTRACT
Importance: Ivermectin is widely prescribed as a potential treatment for COVID-19 despite uncertainty about its clinical benefit. Objective: To determine whether ivermectin is an efficacious treatment for mild COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, randomized trial conducted at a single site in Cali, Colombia. Potential study participants were identified by simple random sampling from the state's health department electronic database of patients with symptomatic, laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during the study period. A total of 476 adult patients with mild disease and symptoms for 7 days or fewer (at home or hospitalized) were enrolled between July 15 and November 30, 2020, and followed up through December 21, 2020. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive ivermectin, 300 µg/kg of body weight per day for 5 days (n = 200) or placebo (n = 200). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to resolution of symptoms within a 21-day follow-up period. Solicited adverse events and serious adverse events were also collected. Results: Among 400 patients who were randomized in the primary analysis population (median age, 37 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 29-48]; 231 women [58%]), 398 (99.5%) completed the trial. The median time to resolution of symptoms was 10 days (IQR, 9-13) in the ivermectin group compared with 12 days (IQR, 9-13) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.32]; P = .53 by log-rank test). By day 21, 82% in the ivermectin group and 79% in the placebo group had resolved symptoms. The most common solicited adverse event was headache, reported by 104 patients (52%) given ivermectin and 111 (56%) who received placebo. The most common serious adverse event was multiorgan failure, occurring in 4 patients (2 in each group). Conclusion and Relevance: Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04405843.
