Background Due to the increase in COVID-19 cases with the emergence of new variants of concern in late 2021, a key area of interest was whether alternative forms of testing could be used as a contingency should polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing capacity be breached. This evaluation sought to determine if repeat antigen testing was sufficiently sensitive enough to be used as an alternative to PCR. Methods People attending NHS Test and Trace sites for PCR testing were invited to participate and supplied with lateral flow device (LFD) test kits. They were asked to take a test the same day (day 0), and one test per day for the subsequent two days and upload their results using the national COVID-19 reporting system. Participants were assigned a posteriori to five different hypothetical testing patterns and results were used to infer the accuracy of potential multi-day LFD testing patterns in comparison to a single PCR test. Findings Of 2792 recruited participants, 1773 had evaluable PCR and LFD results and were included in the analyses. Multi-day LFD testing patterns that involved testing on days 0 and 2 (relative to PCR testing), or day 0, 1 and 2 offered high sensitivity with the 95% lower confidence limit (LCL) exceeding the 92% non-inferiority threshold. There was not enough evidence to conclude that same day testing (day 0 only) or testing on day 0 and 1 was non-inferior to the single PCR test. Conclusion Multi-day LFD testing for COVID-19 provides a feasible alternative to PCR testing in community-based settings, with earlier detection in most cases.

BACKGROUND:The UK's National Health Service Test and Trace (NHSTT) program aimed to provide the most effective and accessible SARS-CoV-2 testing approach possible. Early user feedback indicated that there were accessibility issues associated with throat swabbing. We report the results of service evaluations performed by NHSTT to assess the effectiveness and user acceptance of swabbing approaches, as well as qualitative findings of user experiences from research reports, surveys, and incident reports. Our intent is to present and summarize our findings about the application of alternative swabbing approaches during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS:From May 2020 to December 2021, NHSTT conducted a series of service evaluations assessing self-swabbing and assisted swabbing of the nose and throat, and nose only (anterior nares/mid-turbinate) using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and lateral flow devices (LFDs), for diagnostic suitability within the COVID-19 National Testing Programme. Outcomes included observational user feedback on swabbing approaches and quantitative testing performance (concordance, sensitivity, and specificity). A post-hoc indirect comparison of swabbing approaches was also performed. Additionally, an analysis of existing cross-service research was conducted in April 2021 to determine user feedback regarding swabbing approaches. RESULTS:Observational data from cross-service research indicated a user preference for nose swabbing over throat swabbing. Significantly more users reported that nose swabbing was easier to perform than throat swabbing (50% vs. 12%) and there were significantly fewer reported incidents. In the service evaluations, while there was reduced sensitivity for nose-only swabbing for PCR (88%) compared with nose and throat swabbing, similar sensitivities were observed for nose-only and nose and throat swabbing for LFDs. The sensitivity of nose-only swabbing for LFDs was higher for individuals with higher viral concentrations. CONCLUSIONS:User experience analyses supported a preference for nose-only swabbing. Nose-only swabbing for LFDs provided sufficient diagnostic accuracy, supporting its use as a viable option in the COVID-19 National Testing Programme. Less invasive swabbing approaches are important to maximize testing accessibility and alongside other behavioral interventions, increase user uptake.

BackgroundRapid identification of individuals with acute respiratory infections is crucial for preventing nosocomial infections. For rapid diagnosis, especially in EDs, lateral flow devices (LFDs) are a convenient, inexpensive option with a rapid turnaround. Several ‘multiplex’ LFDs (M-LFDs) now exist, testing for multiple pathogens from a single swab sample. We evaluated the real-world performance of M-LFD versus PCR testing in detecting influenza A, B and SARS-CoV-2) in the ED setting.MethodsAfter preliminary evaluation of an M-LFD (SureScreen) with laboratory-grown virus and PCR-negative clinical samples, it was evaluated in a real-world setting at the ED of St Thomas’ Hospital (London, UK) from 1 December 2022 to 21 April 2023. Eligible participants were ≥18 years of age, admitted with respiratory symptoms and received concurrent M-LFD and PCR tests. Main endpoints were sensitivity to detect influenza A/B (primary) and SARS-CoV-2 (secondary) versus PCR. The probability of a true positive in relation to viral concentration (expressed as PCR cycle threshold (Ct)) was analysed using logistic regression.ResultsIn total, 808 symptomatic participants were included (49.8% female; mean age 46.9 years). Test sensitivity (95% CI) was 67.0% (56.9% to 76.1%) for influenza A (n=100), 94.1% (71.3% to 99.9%) for influenza B (n=17) and 48.2% (39.7% to 56.8%) for SARS-CoV-2 (n=141). Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was significantly lower than that for influenza A and B (p=0.0057 and p=0.00088, respectively). The probability of a true positive was 98% for Ct<25 for influenza A and SARS-CoV-2 (influenza B non-evaluable). No co-infections were identified by PCR or M-LFD.ConclusionThe real-world performance of SureScreen M-LFD was consistent with laboratory evaluation and achieved a high sensitivity for individuals with high viral concentration, most likely to be infectious. Given the representative UK population sample, results could be generalised for use in other settings.

PURPOSE:The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns about the best sampling sites for PCR testing, with early indications suggesting throat swab samples were better than nasal swab samples. Our study evaluated the sensitivity of detecting SARS-CoV-2 across different swabbing sites. METHODS:Participants undergoing testing at NHS Test and Trace sites in England provided self-collected samples using nose only, throat only, and combined nose and throat swabs, which were analysed by realtime PCR. RESULTS:Among 815 participants, combined swabs had higher viral concentrations than nose only or throat only swabs. Sensitivity for detecting SARS-CoV-2 by PCR was 91 % for nose only and 97 % for throat only, relative to the combined approach. VC remained stable in nose swabs but declined in throat swabs with time. CONCLUSIONS:Combined nose and throat swabbing remains the most effective method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. If a single swab is used, a throat swab has a higher sensitivity than nose swabs, although VC in the throat decreases faster in later infection stages. The variations in VC over time and intra-person variation between sampling sites underscore the complexity of viral dynamics, highlighting the importance of considering both nose and throat samples for comprehensive testing.

BACKGROUND:The advent of lateral flow devices (LFDs) for SARS-CoV-2 detection enabled widespread use of rapid self-tests during the pandemic. While self-testing using LFDs is now common, whether self-testing provides comparable performance to professional testing was a key question that remained important for pandemic planning.METHODS:Three prospective multi-centre studies were conducted to compare the performance of self- and professional testing using LFDs. Participants tested themselves or were tested by trained (professional) testers at community testing sites in the UK. Corresponding qRT-PCR test results served as reference standard. The performance of Innova, Orient Gene and SureScreen LFDs by users (self) and professional testers was assessed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and kit failure (void) rates. Impact of age, sex and symptom status was analysed using logistic regression modelling.RESULTS:16,617 participants provided paired tests, of which 15,418 were included in the analysis. Self-testing with Innova, Orient Gene or SureScreen LFDs achieved sensitivities of 50 %, 53 % or 72 %, respectively, compared to qRT-PCR. Self and professional LFD testing showed no statistically different sensitivity with respect to corresponding qRT-PCR testing. Specificity was consistently equal to or higher than 99 %. Sex and age had no or only marginal impact on LFD performance while sensitivity was significantly higher for symptomatic individuals. Sensitivity of LFDs increased strongly to up to 90 % with higher levels of viral RNA measured by qRT-PCR.CONCLUSIONS:Our results support SARS-CoV-2 self-testing with LFDs, especially for the detection of individuals whose qRT-PCR tests showed high viral concentrations.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100892.].

PURPOSE:In April 2020, the UK Government implemented NHS Test and Trace to provide SARS-CoV-2 quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) testing for the public, with nose-and-throat swabbing for samples performed by trained staff. Self-swabbing (SS) would allow rapid scale-up of testing capacity and access. Six studies were undertaken to determine whether SS was as effective for detecting SARS-CoV-2 as swabbing performed by trained staff. METHODS:Six prospective studies were conducted between April-October 2020, using six swab/media combinations. Differences between assisted swabbing (AS) and SS were evaluated for concordance, positivity, sensitivity, cycle threshold (Ct) values and void rates. Statistical analysis was performed using 95% confidence intervals (CIs), paired t-tests and model-based methods. RESULTS:Overall, 3,253 individuals were recruited (median age 37 years, 49% female), with 2,933 having valid paired qRT-PCR results. Pooled concordance rate was 98% (95% CI: 96%, 99%). Positivity rate differences for SS (8.1%) and AS (8.4%) and differences in pooled sensitivities between SS (86%; 95% CI: 78%, 92%) and AS (91%; 95% CI: 78%, 96%) were nonsignificant. Both types of swabbing led to pooled void rates below 2% and strongly correlated Ct values. Age, sex and previous swabbing experience did not have a significant impact on concordance or sensitivity. CONCLUSION:The UK adopted a policy to promote self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 based on data demonstrating equivalence of SS versus AS. Positive outcomes with SS are likely generalisable to testing for other respiratory pathogens, and we consider self-sampling and self-testing essential for future pandemic preparedness.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:We investigated if performing two lateral flow device (LFD) tests, LFD2 immediately after LFD1, could improve diagnostic sensitivity or specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen. STUDY DESIGN:Individuals aged ≥16 years attending UK community testing sites (February-May 2021) performed two successive LFD tests and provided a nose-and-throat sample for a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Using the PCR result as the reference diagnosis, we assessed whether improvements could be achieved in sensitivity (by counting a positive result in either LFD as a positive overall test result) or specificity (by using LFD2 as confirmatory test). RESULTS:Overall, 2231 participants were included with 159 (7 %) having a positive PCR test. Of 2223 participants who completed both LFD tests, LFD results were highly concordant both with each other and with PCR tests (>97 %). The proportion of discord LFD results decreased significantly over the study period. Combined LFD usage achieved a sensitivity of 68.6 %, versus 67.1 % for either LFD individually. The specificity increased from 99.5 % to 99.8 % when using LFD2 as confirmatory test. Observed increases in sensitivity and specificity were not statistically significant. Void results were recorded for 31 (1.4 %) LFD1s, 19 (0.9 %) LFD2s and 6 (0.3 %) combined LFD tests. CONCLUSIONS:LFD tests were highly reproducible even when they were performed by untrained users following only written instructions and without supervision. While performing two LFD tests of the same type in quick succession marginally increased sensitivity or specificity, statistically significant improvements were not detected in our study.

To detect SARS-CoV-2 amongst asymptomatic care home staff in England, a dual-technology weekly testing regime was introduced on 23 December 2020. A lateral flow device (LFD) and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) test were taken on the same day (day 0) and a midweek LFD test was taken three to four days later. We evaluated the effectiveness of using dual-technology to detect SARS-CoV-2 between December 2020 to April 2021. Viral concentrations derived from qRT-PCR were used to determine the probable stage of infection and likely level of infectiousness. Day 0 PCR detected 1,493 cases of COVID-19, of which 53% were in the early stages of infection with little to no risk of transmission. Day 0 LFD detected 83% of cases that were highly likely to be infectious. On average, LFD results were received 46.3 h earlier than PCR, enabling removal of likely infectious staff from the workplace quicker than by weekly PCR alone. Demonstrating the rapidity of LFDs to detect highly infectious cases could be combined with the ability of PCR to detect cases in the very early stages of infection. In practice, asymptomatic care home staff were removed from the workplace earlier, breaking potential chains of transmission.

Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection carries a significant burden with a 0.64% global prevalence and a 17-20% chance of serious long-term effects in children. Since the last guidelines, our understanding, particularly regarding primary maternal infections, has improved. A cCMV guidelines group was convened under the patronage of the European Society of Clinical Virology in April 2023 to refine these insights. The quality and validity of selected studies were assessed for potential biases and the GRADE framework was employed to evaluate quality of evidence across key domains. The resulting recommendations address managing cCMV, spanning prevention to postnatal care. Emphasizing early and accurate maternal diagnosis through serological tests enhances risk management and prevention strategies, including using valaciclovir to prevent vertical transmission. The guidelines also strive to refine personalized postnatal care based on risk assessments, ensuring targeted interventions for affected families.

Abstract Purpose Saliva has been considered a suitable sample material for SARS-CoV-2 testing but uncertainty remained regarding the sensitivity and reliability of different saliva collection methods for community mass testing. This study aimed to investigate the potential utility of expectorated saliva (ES) and drooled saliva (DS) through a large cohort study. Methods ES and DS samples were collected in a two-stage non-randomized prospective cohort study. Their utility for SARS-CoV-2 RNA qRT-PCR testing was assessed by comparison with results for combined throat and nose (CTN) swabs. A total of 2,878 subjects were recruited, from which 2,747 were evaluable for statistical analyses. Results Using CTN swab-based results as reference,DS- and ES-based tests showed the same high level of concordance (98% vs 98%) or specificity (99% vs 99%). Sensitivity seemed to be higher for DS than for ES (93% vs 80%) but not significantly once viral concentration was taken into account. Multivariable analysis indicated however an inferior sensitivity of saliva-based testing for female compared to male subjects with low viral burden. Assuming no false positive qRT-PCR results, an unbiased comparison showed no significant difference in sensitivity between saliva- and swab-based testing. Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing based on saliva showed high diagnostic accuracy and can be considered an alternative where swabbing may not be tolerated or operationally feasible. Drooled saliva yielded the same diagnostic performance compared to expectorated saliva and may present a preferred option with reduced aerosol risk and increased compliance. Observed sex-specific difference in detection performance however warrant further investigations.

BACKGROUND:Antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) have been widely used to control SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to improve understanding of LFD performance with changes in variant infections, vaccination, viral load, and LFD use, and in the detection of infectious individuals. METHODS:In this diagnostic study, paired LFD and RT-PCR test results were prospectively collected from asymptomatic and symptomatic participants in the UK between Nov 4, 2020, and March 21, 2022, to support the National Health Service (NHS) England's Test and Trace programme. The LFDs evaluated were the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, the Orient Gene Rapid Covid-19 (Antigen) Self-Test, and the Acon Flowflex SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test (Self-Testing). Test results were collected across various community testing settings, including predeployment testing sites, routine testing centres, homes, schools, universities, workplaces, targeted community testing, and from health-care workers. We used multivariable logistic regression to analyse LFD sensitivity and specificity using RT-PCR as a reference standard, adjusting for viral load, LFD manufacturer, test setting, age, sex, test assistance, symptom status, vaccination status, and SARS-CoV-2 variant. National contact tracing data from NHS Test and Trace (Jan 1, 2021, to Jan 11, 2022) were used to estimate the proportion of transmitting index patients (with ≥1 RT-PCR-positive or LFD-positive contact) potentially detectable by LFDs (specifically Innova, as the most widely used LFD) with time, accounting for index viral load, variant, and symptom status. FINDINGS:We assessed 75 382 pairs of LFD and RT-PCR tests. Of these, 4131 (5·5%) were RT-PCR-positive. LFD sensitivity versus RT-PCR was 63·2% (95% CI 61·7-64·6) and specificity was 99·71% (95% CI 99·66-99·74). Increased viral load was independently associated with being LFD positive (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2·85 [95% CI 2·66-3·06] per 1 log10 copies per mL increase; p<0·0001). There was no evidence that LFD sensitivity differed for delta (B.1.617.2) infections versus alpha (B.1.1.7) or pre-alpha (B.1.177) infections (aOR 1·00 [0·69-1·45]; p=0·99), whereas omicron (BA.1 or BA.2) infections appeared more likely to be LFD positive (aOR 1·63 [1·02-2·59]; p=0·042). Sensitivity was higher in symptomatic participants (68·7% [95% CI 66·9-70·4]) than in asymptomatic participants (52·8% [50·1-55·4]). Among 347 374 unique index patients with probable onward transmission, 78·3% (95% CI 75·3-81·2) were estimated to have been detectable with LFDs (Innova), and this proportion was mostly stable with time and for successive variants. Overall, the estimated proportion of infectious index patients detectable by the Innova LFD was lower in asymptomatic patients (57·6% [53·6-61·9]) versus symptomatic patients (79·7% [76·7-82·5]). INTERPRETATION:LFDs remained able to detect most SARS-CoV-2 infections throughout vaccine roll-out and across different viral variants. LFDs can potentially detect most infections that transmit to others and reduce the risk of transmission. However, performance is lower in asymptomatic individuals than in symptomatic individuals. FUNDING:UK Health Security Agency, the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, and the University of Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.

Modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) is an attenuated vaccinia virus with restricted replication in human cells. The virus serves as an ideal vaccine vector suitable for safe use even in immune-compromised individuals. With its inherently large packaging capacity, expression cassettes encoding bulky genes can be inserted into deletion regions within the MVA genome. These deletion sites develop during the process of the attenuation of the virus by passage in Chicken Embryo Fibroblasts (pCEFs). Transgene stability in MVA is important to assure immunogenicity and efficacy. In the present study, we assessed the effect of substantial passage of recombinant MVA vectors on the stability of expression cassette encoding SIV Gag/Tat genes inserted at the Del-II site, as part of generating a vaccine to protect from HIV. Our data indicated that after 15 passages there was a significant loss or mutation of the inserted genes.

Background: The challenges of rapid upscaling of testing capacity were a major lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic response. The need for process adjustments in high-throughput testing laboratories made sample pooling a challenging option to implement.Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether pooling samples at source (swab pooling) was as effective as qRT-PCR testing of individuals in identifying cases of SARS-CoV-2 in real-world community testing conditions using the same high-throughput pipeline.Methods: Two cohorts of 10 (Pool10: 1,030 participants and 103 pools) and 6 (Pool6: 1,284 participants and 214 pools) samples per pool were tested for concordance, sensitivity, specificity, and Ct value differences with individual testing as reference.Results: Swab pooling allowed unmodified application of an existing high-throughput SARS-Cov-2 testing pipeline with only marginal loss of accuracy. For Pool10, concordance was 98.1% (95% Confidence interval: 93.3-99.8%), sensitivity was 95.7% (85.5-99.5%), and specificity was 100.0% (93.6-100.0%). For Pool6, concordance was 97.2% (94.0-99.0%), sensitivity was 97.5% (93.7-99.3%), and specificity was 96.4% (87.7-99.6%). Differences of outcomes measure between pool size were not significant. Most positive individual samples, which were not detected in pools, had very low viral concentration. If only individual samples with a viral concentration > 400 copies/ml (i.e. Ct value < 30) were considered positive, the overall sensitivity of pooling increased to 99.5%.Conclusion: The study demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity by swab pooling and the immediate capability of high-throughput laboratories to implement this method making it an option in planning of rapid upscaling of laboratory capacity for future pandemics.

Background: Saliva has been considered a suitable sample material for severe acute respiratory syndrome coro-navirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA testing, but uncertainty remained regarding sensitivity and reliability of different saliva collection methods.Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the potential utility of expectorated saliva (ES) and drooled saliva (DS) for community mass testing.Study design: Self-collected ES and DS samples were obtained in a prospective cohort study with 2,878 partici-pants. The utility of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 qRT-PCR testing was assessed by comparing the capacity to detect SARS-CoV-2 positive cases with results for self-collected combined throat and nose (CTN) swabs. Additionally, quantification cycle (Cq) values were compared.Results: ES-and DS-based tests showed the same high level of concordance (98% vs 98%) with CTN swab-based results. Sensitivity was higher for DS (94%) than for ES (83%) or CTN swab (90%) but differences were statis-tically not significant. Comparing only symptomatic cases, however, a significantly higher sensitivity of DS (96%) than of ES (76%) or CTN swab (91%) was observed. Cq values of saliva and swab specimen were significantly correlated and appeared to be not impacted by age or other potentially confounding factors.Conclusions: Saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 RNA testing showed high diagnostic accuracy and can be considered an alternative where swabbing may not be tolerated or operationally feasible. DS yielded the same or better diagnostic performance compared to ES and may present a preferred option with reduced aerosol risk and increased compliance.

Background Antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) have been widely used to control SARS-CoV-2. Changes in LFD sensitivity and detection of infectious individuals during the pandemic with successive variants, vaccination, and changes in LFD use are incompletely understood. Methods Paired LFD and PCR tests were collected from asymptomatic and symptomatic participants, across multiple settings in the UK between 04-November-2020 and 21-March-2022. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyse LFD sensitivity and specificity, adjusting for viral load, LFD manufacturer, setting, age, sex, assistance, symptoms, vaccination, and variant. National contact tracing data were used to estimate the proportion of transmitting index cases (with ≥1 PCR/LFD-positive contact) potentially detectable by LFDs over time, accounting for viral load, variant, and symptom status. Findings 4131/75,382 (5.5%) participants were PCR-positive. Sensitivity vs. PCR was 63.2% (95%CI 61.7-64.6%) and specificity 99.71% (99.66-99.74%). Increased viral load was independently associated with being LFD-positive. There was no evidence LFD sensitivity differed between Delta vs. Alpha/pre-Alpha infections, but Omicron infections were more likely to be LFD positive. Sensitivity was higher in symptomatic participants, 68.7% (66.9-70.4%) than in asymptomatic participants, 52.8% (50.1-55.4%). 79.4% (68.6-81.3%) of index cases resulting in probable onward transmission with were estimated to have been detectable using LFDs, this proportion was relatively stable over time/variants, but lower in asymptomatic vs. symptomatic cases. Interpretation LFDs remained able to detect most SARS-CoV-2 infections throughout vaccine roll-out and different variants. LFDs can potentially detect most infections that transmit to others and reduce risks. However, performance is lower in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic individuals. Funding UK Government. Evidence before this study Lateral flow devices (LFDs; i.e. rapid antigen detection devices) have been widely used for SARS-CoV-2 testing. However, due to their imperfect sensitivity when compared to PCR and a lack of a widely available gold standard proxy for infectiousness, the performance and use of LFDs has been a source of debate. We conducted a literature review in PubMed and bioRxiv/medRxiv for all studies examining the performance of lateral flow devices between 01 January 2020 and 31 October 2022. We used the search terms ‘SARS-CoV-2’/’COVID-19’ and ‘antigen’/’lateral flow test’/’lateral flow device’. Multiple studies have examined the sensitivity and specificity of LFDs, including several systematic reviews. However, the majority of the studies are based on pre-Alpha infections. Large studies examining the test accuracy for different variants, including Delta and Omicron, and following vaccination are limited. Added value of this study In this large national LFD evaluation programme, we compared the performance of three different LFDs relative to PCR in various settings. Compared to PCR testing, sensitivity was 63.2% (95%CI 61.7-64.6%) overall, and 71.6% (95%CI 69.8-73.4%) in unselected communitybased testing. Specificity was 99.71% (99.66-99.74%). LFDs were more likely to be positive as viral loads increased. LFD sensitivity was similar during Alpha/pre-Alpha and Delta periods but increased during the Omicron period. There was no association between sensitivity and vaccination status. Sensitivity was higher in symptomatic participants, 68.7% (66.9-70.4%) than in asymptomatic participants, 52.8% (50.1-55.4%). Using national contact tracing data, we estimated that 79.4% (68.6-81.3%) of index cases resulting in probable onward transmission (i.e. with ≥1 PCR/LFD-positive contact) were detectable using LFDs. Symptomatic index cases were more likely to be detected than asymptomatic index cases due to higher viral loads and better LFD performance at a given viral load. The proportion of index cases detected remained relatively stable over time and with successive variants, with a slight increase in the proportion of asymptomatic index cases detected during Omicron. Implications of all the available evidence Our data show that LFDs detect most SARS-CoV-2 infections, with findings broadly similar to those summarised in previous meta-analyses. We show that LFD performance has been relatively consistent throughout different variant-dominant phases of the pandemic and following the roll-out of vaccination. LFDs can detect most infections that transmit to others and can therefore be used as part of a risk reduction strategy. However, performance is lower in asymptomatic compared to symptomatic individuals and this needs to be considered when designing testing programmes. ### Competing Interest Statement DWE has received lecture fees from Gilead outside the submitted work. No other author has a conflict of interest to declare. ### Funding Statement Supported by the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care; the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford, in partnership with Public Health England (NIHR200915); and the University of Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. DWE is a Robertson Foundation Fellow. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Public Health England's Research Ethics (PHEREG) provided approval for the studies as Service Evaluation and Ongoing Evaluation. This was reviewed and approved under REGG R and D 438. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes Applications to use the data in this study can be made to NHS Digital's Data Access Request Service, please see for more details.

Metagenomic high-throughput sequencing (mHTS) is a hypothesis-free, universal pathogen detection technique for determination of the DNA/RNA sequences in a variety of sample types and infectious syndromes. mHTS is still in its early stages of translating into clinical application. To support the development, implementation and standardization of mHTS procedures for virus diagnostics, the European Society for Clinical Virology (ESCV) Network on Next-Generation Sequencing (ENNGS) has been established. The aim of ENNGS is to bring together professionals involved in mHTS for viral diagnostics to share methodologies and experiences, and to develop application recommendations. This manuscript aims to provide practical recommendations for the wet lab procedures necessary for implementation of mHTS for virus diagnostics and to give recommendations for development and validation of laboratory methods, including mHTS quality assurance, control and quality assessment protocols.

Lighthouse Labs network tests for the presence of RNA of SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. The Thermofisher TaqPath assay targets three regions of SARS-CoV-2; ORF1ab, N and S-genes. The assay identified a drop in S-gene target detection among positive samples due to the circulation of a new SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern (VOC) designated as 202012/01. By end of December 2020, 60% of daily positive test results at Alderley Park Lighthouse Labs, were linked to the new Variant of Concern. This timeline view identifies the rapid spread of the variant across the country.

Background: The rise of new SARS-CoV-2 variants worldwide requires global molecular surveillance strategies, in support of public health control. Early detection and evaluation of their risk of spreading within the population is pivotal. Methods: Between April 2020 and February 2021, the Lighthouse Laboratory at Alderley Park Network tested more than eight million nose and throat swab samples for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. The PCR assay used, targets three genomic regions of the virus N, Orf1ab and S. Whole genome next-generation sequencing was used to confirm PCR positive results. Positive sample results were mapped to postal code origin of samples to allow real-time tracking of the spread of the variant through the UK. Findings: In mid-November 2020 the assay identified an increasing number of S gene negative, N and Orf1ab positive samples. Whole genome sequencing demonstrated that the loss of S gene detection was due to the appearance of a SARS-CoV-2 lineage (B.1.1.7) designated as Variant of Concern (VOC) 202012/01. By the beginning of January 2021, the new SARS-CoV-2 VOC had risen to comprise 70% of daily positive samples tested at Alderley Park and ~98% by the end of February 2021. Interpretation: The timeline view identified the rapid spread of the variant across England during the first three weeks of December. Coupling high throughput diagnostics and molecular surveillance was pivotal to the early detection of the spread of this variant. The availability of real time tracking of an emerging variant is an important new tool to inform decision-making for risk mitigation. In a respiratory pandemic, a tool for the timely response to the emergence and spread of a novel variant is vital especially when a variant is associated with enhanced transmission, as has occurred with VOC 202012/01.Funding Statement: The Lighthouse laboratory network was generated using funding from DHSC.Declaration of Interests: None to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: The manuscript was reviewed by the Head of Approvals Support, NHS Health Research Authority (HRA-NHS, UK), who confirmed that the study, which used unlinked and anonymised data was health surveillance and did not require NHS Research ethics review.