Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals
Affiliation
University of Arizona Health Sciences BiorepositoryDepartment of Immunobiology & Medicine, The University of Arizona
Biorepository, The University of Arizona
University of Arizona Health Sciences Biorepository
Issue Date
2023-11-17
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Harris, D.T.; Ingraham, N.; Badowski, M. Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7146. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227146Journal
Journal of Clinical MedicineRights
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has infected more than 770 M people and killed more than 6.9 M persons worldwide. In the USA, as of August 2023, it has infected more than 103 M people while causing more than 1.1 M deaths. During a pandemic, it is necessary to rapidly identify those individuals infected with the virus so that disease transmission can be stopped. We examined the sensitivity of the Quidel Rapid Antigen test on the manual Sofia 2 platform and the Beckman-Coulter antigen test on the automated DxI-800 system for use in screening asymptomatic individuals at the University of Arizona from March through May 2021. A total of 378 asymptomatic subjects along with 176 validation sets of samples in 23 independent experiments were assessed in side-by-side antigen testing using both assays. Nasal swabs and saliva were used as viral sources. Manual testing (Quidel) was compared with automated testing (Beckman) methods for cost and efficiency. Limit dilution of viral antigen spiked samples was performed to determine sensitivity to antigen load by the tests. The results between the two tests were found to be concordant. Both tests were comparable in terms of detecting low numbers of positive subjects in the asymptomatic population. A concordance of 98% was observed between the two tests. Experiments also demonstrated that saliva specimens were an acceptable viral source and produced comparable results for each test. Overall, the two methods were interchangeable. © 2023 by the authors.Note
Open access journalISSN
2077-0383Version
Final Published Versionae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.3390/jcm12227146
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.