Loop-mediated isothermal amplification is a promising candidate for the rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. However, the high potential for carry-over contamination is the main obstacle to its routine use. Here, a closed tube LAMP was intended for the visual detection of Mtb to compare turbidimetric and two more favorable colorimetric methods using calcein and hydroxy naphthol blue (HNB). Additionally, a less studied dye (i.e., eriochrome black T (EBT)) was optimized in detail in the reaction for the first time. Mtb purified DNA and 30 clinical specimens were used to respectively determine the analytical and diagnostic sensitivities of each method. The turbidimetric method resulted in the best analytical sensitivity (100 fg DNA/reaction), diagnostic sensitivity and specificity (100%), and time-to-positivity of the test (15 min). However, this method is highly prone to subjective error in reading the results. Moreover, HNB-, calcein-, and EBT-LAMP could respectively detect 100 fg, 1 pg, and 1 pg DNA/reaction (the analytical sensitivities) in 30, 15, and 30 min, while the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were respectively 93.3% and 100% for them all. Interestingly, EBT-LAMP showed the lowest potential for subjective error in reading the results. This report helps judiciously choose the most appropriate visual method, taking a step forward toward the field applicability of LAMP for the detection of Mtb, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the commercial HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit for diagnosing COVID-19 among the Iranian population by compared with the results of commercial RT-PCR. Materials and Methods: Two nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from each patient. One swab was tested with HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit, and the second swab was placed in 3 mL of a virus-transmitted inactivated media for RT-PCR testing. Then, the results of both tests were compared to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid antigen test. Results: A total of 275 suspected COVID-19 patients’ samples were collected to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit. In this study, 162 positive and 113 negative samples were evaluated. As a result, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of HARDSON COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit were 90%, 100%, and 94%, respectively. Conclusion: The diagnostic kit analyzed in this study indicated excellent specificity and a relatively good overall sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19 when compared with the RT-PCR detection kit. Based on the result of this study, COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test Kit indicated a good sensitivity (96%) in low cycle threshold (Ct) value, and it would be recommended to be integrated into routine diagnostic laboratories and used as an at-home rapid antigen test. Keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, rapid diagnostic, RT-PCR