Evaluation of a multi-day testing approach with lateral flow devices for SARS-CoV-2

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Heliyon
Published
2026-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2026.e45353
Primary Topic
SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluation of a multi-day testing approach with lateral flow devices for SARS-CoV-2

Edward Blandford, Zareen Thorlu-Bangura, Tom Fowler, Andy Vail et al.
Heliyon
SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
article

Evaluation of a multi-day testing approach with lateral flow devices for SARS-CoV-2

Edward Blandford, Zareen Thorlu-Bangura, Tom Fowler, Andy Vail, Penny Bevan, Vineta Bhalla, Paul E. Klapper, Chris Kenny, Malur Sudhanva, Prof Tim Peto, Matthew Boulter, CAROLYN LEWIS, David Chapman, Sarah Tunkel, Raghavendran Kulasegaran-Shylini, Susan Hopkins, Ellie Sheppard, Alasdair Fellows, Jeanette Hall, Peter Marks, Matthias E. Futschik, Andrew Dodgson
article en

Abstract

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.

HeliyonVol. 12(14)
Queen Mary University of London (GB), University of Manchester (GB), National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB), University of Oxford (GB), Metropolitan Arts Centre (GB), King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB), Deloitte (United Kingdom) (GB), William Harvey Research Institute (GB), UK Health Security Agency (GB), University of Plymouth (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.