Defining and Risk-Stratifying Immunosuppression (the DESTINIES Study): Protocol for an Electronic Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Globally, there are marked inconsistencies in how immunosuppression is characterized and subdivided into clinical risk groups. This is detrimental to the precision and comparability of disease surveillance efforts-which has negative implications for the care of those who are immunosuppressed and their health outcomes. This was particularly apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic; despite collective motivation to protect these patients, conflicting clinical definitions created international rifts in how those who were immunosuppressed were monitored and managed during this period. We propose that international clinical consensus be built around the conditions that lead to immunosuppression and their gradations of severity concerning COVID-19. Such information can then be formalized into a digital phenotype to enhance disease surveillance and provide much-needed intelligence on risk-prioritizing these patients. OBJECTIVE: We aim to demonstrate how electronic Delphi objectives, methodology, and statistical approaches will help address this lack of consensus internationally and deliver a COVID-19 risk-stratified phenotype for "adult immunosuppression." METHODS: Leveraging existing evidence for heterogeneous COVID-19 outcomes in adults who are immunosuppressed, this work will recruit over 50 world-leading clinical, research, or policy experts in the area of immunology or clinical risk prioritization. After 2 rounds of clinical consensus building and 1 round of concluding debate, these panelists will confirm the medical conditions that should be classed as immunosuppressed and their differential vulnerability to COVID-19. Consensus statements on the time and dose dependencies of these risks will also be presented. This work will be conducted iteratively, with opportunities for panelists to ask clarifying questions between rounds and provide ongoing feedback to improve questionnaire items. Statistical analysis will focus on levels of agreement between responses. RESULTS: This protocol outlines a robust method for improving consensus on the definition and meaningful subdivision of adult immunosuppression concerning COVID-19. Panelist recruitment took place between April and May of 2024; the target set for over 50 panelists was achieved. The study launched at the end of May and data collection is projected to end in July 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol, if fully implemented, will deliver a universally acceptable, clinically relevant, and electronic health record-compatible phenotype for adult immunosuppression. As well as having immediate value for COVID-19 resource prioritization, this exercise and its output hold prospective value for clinical decision-making across all diseases that disproportionately affect those who are immunosuppressed. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/56271.

Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection, hospitalization, and death in the post-vaccination era: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Immunocompromised individuals have been shown to mount a reduced response to vaccination, resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness in this cohort. Therefore, in the postvaccination era, immunocompromised individuals remain at high risk of breakthrough infection and COVID-19 related hospitalization and death, which persist despite vaccination efforts. There has been a marked paucity of systematic reviews evaluating existing data describing the clinical measures of efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, specifically in immunocompromised populations. In particular, there is a scarcity of comprehensive evaluations exploring breakthrough infections and severe COVID-19 in this patient population. METHODS: To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review which aimed to provide a summary of current clinical evidence of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in the immunocompromised population. Using PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a literature search on PubMed and the Cochrane database published between January 1, 2021 to September 1, 2022. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrated that despite vaccination, immunocompromised patients remained at high risk of new breakthrough COVID-19 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes compared to the general population. We found increased average relative risk (RR) of breakthrough infections in the immunocompromised population, including patients with cancer (RR = 1.4), HIV (RR = 1.92), chronic kidney disease (RR = 2.26), immunodeficiency (RR = 2.55), and organ transplant recipients (RR = 6.94). These patients are also at greater risk for hospitalizations and death following COVID-19 breakthrough infection. We found that the RR of hospitalization and death in Cancer patients was 1.08 and 2.82, respectively. CONCLUSION: This demonstrated that vaccination does not offer an adequate level of protection in these groups, necessitating further measures such as Evusheld and further boosters.

Impact of screening participation on modelled mortality benefits of a multi-cancer early detection test by socioeconomic group in England.

BACKGROUND: Cancer burden is higher and cancer screening participation is lower among individuals living in more socioeconomically deprived areas of England, contributing to worse health outcomes and shorter life expectancy. Owing to higher multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test sensitivity for poor-prognosis cancers and greater cancer burden in groups experiencing greater deprivation, MCED screening programmes may have greater relative benefits in these groups. We modelled potential differential benefits of MCED screening between deprivation groups in England at different levels of screening participation. METHODS: We applied the interception multi-cancer screening model to cancer incidence and survival data made available by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to estimate reductions in late-stage diagnoses and cancer mortality from an MCED screening programme by deprivation group across 24 cancer types. We assessed the impact of varying the proportion of people who participated in annual screening in each deprivation group on these estimates. RESULTS: The modelled benefits of an MCED screening programme were substantial: reductions in late-stage diagnoses were 160 and 274 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Reductions in cancer mortality were 60 and 99 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Benefits were greatest in the most deprived group at every participation level and were attenuated with lower screening participation. CONCLUSIONS: For the greatest possible population benefit and to decrease health inequalities, an MCED implementation strategy should focus on enhancing equitable, informed participation, enabling equal participation across all socioeconomic deprivation groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05611632.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab for prophylaxis of COVID-19 in immunocompromised patients.

Immunocompromised patients, such as those with a haematological malignancy, are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, severe outcomes and mortality. Tixagevimab/cilgavimab is a monoclonal antibody combination which binds to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The PROVENT phase III clinical trial reported that tixagevimab/cilgavimab prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised participants. However, the trial was conducted before the Omicron variant became prevalent. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide an up-to-date summary of the real-world effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab in immunocompromised patients, including patients with haematological malignancies. Clinical studies from 1 January 2021 to 1 October 2022, which reported breakthrough COVID-19 infections after tixagevimab/cilgavimab, were included. COVID-19-related hospitalisations, intensive care admissions and mortality were also assessed. A meta-analysis was performed to ascertain overall clinical effectiveness. Eighteen studies, with 25 345 immunocompromised participants, including 5438 patients with haematological pathologies, were included in the review. The overall clinical effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab against COVID-19 breakthrough infection, hospitalisation, intensive care admission and COVID-19-specific mortality was 40.54%, 66.19%, 82.13% and 92.39%, respectively. This review highlights the clinical effectiveness of tixagevimab/cilgavimab at reducing COVID-19 infection and severe outcomes for immunosuppressed individuals, including patients with a haematological malignancy, during the Omicron-predominant era. Real-world studies are important to provide ongoing certainty of the clinical benefit for immunocompromised patients against new SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey: a hyper-accelerated study proof of principle for cancer research.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a range of novel and adaptive research designs. In this perspective, we use our experience coordinating the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey to demonstrate how a balance between speed and integrity can be achieved within a hyper-accelerated study design. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example, we show this approach is necessary in the face of uncertain and evolving situations wherein reliable information is needed in a timely fashion to guide policy. We identify streamlined participant involvement, healthcare systems integration, data architecture and real-world real-time analytics as key areas that differentiate this design from traditional cancer trials, and enable rapid results. Caution needs to be taken to avoid the exclusion of patient subgroups without digital access or literacy. We summarise the merits and defining features of hyper-accelerated cancer studies.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Antibody Vaccine Response With Infection Severity in Patients With Cancer: A National COVID Cancer Cross-sectional Evaluation.

Importance: Accurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer. Objective: To evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK's third-dose vaccination booster program. Interventions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche). Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization. Results: The evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P < .001). Patients with leukemia or lymphoma had the lowest antibody titers. In the cancer cohort, following multivariable correction, patients who had an undetectable antibody response were at much greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 1.96-4.72; P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 3.31-12.67; P < .001) than individuals who had a positive antibody response. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

Antibody response to a third booster dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in adults with haematological and solid cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients living with cancer are at a significantly increased risk of morbidity and mortality after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This systematic review aims to investigate the current available evidence about the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccines in patients living with cancer. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken for studies published until March 1, 2022. A systematic narrative review was undertaken to include all studies that evaluated the efficacy of booster vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with cancer. RESULTS: Fifteen studies encompassing 1205 patients with cancer were included. We found that a booster vaccine dose induced a higher response in patients with solid cancer as compared to haematological malignancies. Recent systemic anticancer therapy does not appear to affect seroconversion in solid organ malignancies, however, there is an association between B-cell depleting therapies and poor seroconversion in haematological patients. CONCLUSIONS: Third booster vaccination induces an improved antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in adults with haematological and solid cancer, relative to patients who only receive two doses. Access to vaccination boosters should be made available to patients at risk of poor immunological responses, and the provision of fourth doses may be of benefit to this vulnerable population. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42021270420.

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. METHODS: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. RESULTS: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 breakthrough infections in patients with cancer (UKCCEP): a population-based test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level. METHODS: In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3-6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population. FINDINGS: The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8-69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1-65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3-6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3-47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4-61·5). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer. FUNDING: University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK.

Mortality Among Adults With Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy or Immunotherapy and Infected With COVID-19.

Importance: Large cohorts of patients with active cancers and COVID-19 infection are needed to provide evidence of the association of recent cancer treatment and cancer type with COVID-19 mortality. Objective: To evaluate whether systemic anticancer treatments (SACTs), tumor subtypes, patient demographic characteristics (age and sex), and comorbidities are associated with COVID-19 mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: The UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project (UKCCMP) is a prospective cohort study conducted at 69 UK cancer hospitals among adult patients (≥18 years) with an active cancer and a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Patients registered from March 18 to August 1, 2020, were included in this analysis. Exposures: SACT, tumor subtype, patient demographic characteristics (eg, age, sex, body mass index, race and ethnicity, smoking history), and comorbidities were investigated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality within the primary hospitalization. Results: Overall, 2515 of 2786 patients registered during the study period were included; 1464 (58%) were men; and the median (IQR) age was 72 (62-80) years. The mortality rate was 38% (966 patients). The data suggest an association between higher mortality in patients with hematological malignant neoplasms irrespective of recent SACT, particularly in those with acute leukemias or myelodysplastic syndrome (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.30-3.60) and myeloma or plasmacytoma (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04-2.26). Lung cancer was also significantly associated with higher COVID-19-related mortality (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.11-2.25). No association between higher mortality and receiving chemotherapy in the 4 weeks before COVID-19 diagnosis was observed after correcting for the crucial confounders of age, sex, and comorbidities. An association between lower mortality and receiving immunotherapy in the 4 weeks before COVID-19 diagnosis was observed (immunotherapy vs no cancer therapy: OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31-0.86). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study of patients with active cancer suggest that recent SACT is not associated with inferior outcomes from COVID-19 infection. This has relevance for the care of patients with cancer requiring treatment, particularly in countries experiencing an increase in COVID-19 case numbers. Important differences in outcomes among patients with hematological and lung cancers were observed.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infectivity by Viral Load, S Gene Variants and Demographic Factors, and the Utility of Lateral Flow Devices to Prevent Transmission.

BACKGROUND: How severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infectivity varies with viral load is incompletely understood. Whether rapid point-of-care antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) detect most potential transmission sources despite imperfect clinical sensitivity is unknown. METHODS: We combined SARS-CoV-2 testing and contact tracing data from England between 1 September 2020 and 28 February 2021. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate relationships between polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed infection in contacts of community-diagnosed cases and index case viral load, S gene target failure (proxy for B.1.1.7 infection), demographics, SARS-CoV-2 incidence, social deprivation, and contact event type. We used LFD performance to simulate the proportion of cases with a PCR-positive contact expected to be detected using 1 of 4 LFDs. RESULTS: In total, 231 498/2 474 066 (9%) contacts of 1 064 004 index cases tested PCR-positive. PCR-positive results in contacts independently increased with higher case viral loads (lower cycle threshold [Ct] values), for example, 11.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.5-12.0%) at Ct = 15 and 4.5% (95% CI 4.4-4.6%) at Ct = 30. B.1.1.7 infection increased PCR-positive results by ~50%, (eg, 1.55-fold, 95% CI 1.49-1.61, at Ct = 20). PCR-positive results were most common in household contacts (at Ct = 20.1, 8.7% [95% CI 8.6-8.9%]), followed by household visitors (7.1% [95% CI 6.8-7.3%]), contacts at events/activities (5.2% [95% CI 4.9-5.4%]), work/education (4.6% [95% CI 4.4-4.8%]), and least common after outdoor contact (2.9% [95% CI 2.3-3.8%]). Contacts of children were the least likely to test positive, particularly following contact outdoors or at work/education. The most and least sensitive LFDs would detect 89.5% (95% CI 89.4-89.6%) and 83.0% (95% CI 82.8-83.1%) of cases with PCR-positive contacts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies by case viral load, contact event type, and age. Those with high viral loads are the most infectious. B.1.1.7 increased transmission by ~50%. The best performing LFDs detect most infectious cases.

COVID-19 in children with haematological malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Children with cancer are not at increased risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, adults with haematological malignancies have increased risk of severe infections compared with non-haematological malignancies. METHODS: We compared patients with haematological and non-haematological malignancies enrolled in the UK Paediatric Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project between 12 March 2020 and 16 February 2021. Children who received stem cell transplantation were excluded. RESULTS: Only 2/62 patients with haematological malignancy had severe/critical infections, with an OR of 0.5 for patients with haematological compared with non-haematological malignancies. INTERPRETATION: Children with haematological malignancies are at no greater risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection than those with non-haematological malignancies.

Key findings from the UKCCMP cohort of 877 patients with haematological malignancy and COVID-19: disease control as an important factor relative to recent chemotherapy or anti-CD20 therapy.

Patients with haematological malignancies have a high risk of severe infection and death from SARS-CoV-2. In this prospective observational study, we investigated the impact of cancer type, disease activity, and treatment in 877 unvaccinated UK patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and active haematological cancer. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex and comorbidities, the highest mortality was in patients with acute leukaemia [odds ratio (OR) = 1·73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·1-2·72, P = 0·017] and myeloma (OR 1·3, 95% CI 0·96-1·76, P = 0·08). Having uncontrolled cancer (newly diagnosed awaiting treatment as well as relapsed or progressive disease) was associated with increased mortality risk (OR = 2·45, 95% CI 1·09-5·5, P = 0·03), as was receiving second or beyond line of treatment (OR = 1·7, 95% CI 1·08-2·67, P = 0·023). We found no association between recent cytotoxic chemotherapy or anti-CD19/anti-CD20 treatment and increased risk of death within the limitations of the cohort size. Therefore, disease control is an important factor predicting mortality in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection alongside the possible risks of therapies such as cytotoxic treatment or anti-CD19/anti-CD20 treatments.

A systematic review of the sensitivity and specificity of lateral flow devices in the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: Lateral flow devices (LFDs) are viral antigen tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 that produce a rapid result, are inexpensive and easy to operate. They have been advocated for use by the World Health Organisation to help control outbreaks and break the chain of transmission of COVID-19 infections. There are now several studies assessing their accuracy but as yet no systematic review. Our aims were to assess the sensitivity and specificity of LFDs in a systematic review and summarise the sensitivity and specificity of these tests. METHODS: A targeted search of Pubmed and Medxriv, using PRISMA principles, was conducted identifying clinical studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of LFDs as their primary outcome compared to reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Based on extracted data sensitivity and specificity was calculated for each study. Data was pooled based on manufacturer of LFD and split based on operator (self-swab or by trained professional) and sensitivity and specificity data were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-four papers were identified involving over 26,000 test results. Sensitivity from individual studies ranged from 37.7% (95% CI 30.6-45.5) to 99.2% (95% CI 95.5-99.9) and specificity from 92.4% (95% CI 87.5-95.5) to 100.0% (95% CI 99.7-100.0). Operation of the test by a trained professional or by the test subject with self-swabbing produced comparable results. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review identified that the performance of lateral flow devices is heterogeneous and dependent on the manufacturer. Some perform with high specificity but a great range of sensitivities were shown (38.32-99.19%). Test performance does not appear dependent on the operator. Potentially, LFDs could support the scaling up of mass testing to aid track and trace methodology and break the chain of transmission of COVID-19 with the additional benefit of providing individuals with the results in a much shorter time frame.