Cargando…

Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harris, David T., Ingraham, Nicole, Badowski, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10672191/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38002757
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227146
_version_ 1785149502028513280
author Harris, David T.
Ingraham, Nicole
Badowski, Michael
author_facet Harris, David T.
Ingraham, Nicole
Badowski, Michael
author_sort Harris, David T.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10672191
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106721912023-11-17 Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals Harris, David T. Ingraham, Nicole Badowski, Michael J Clin Med Article 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. MDPI 2023-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10672191/ /pubmed/38002757 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227146 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Harris, David T.
Ingraham, Nicole
Badowski, Michael
Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals
title Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals
title_full Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals
title_fullStr Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals
title_short Comparison of Manual versus Automated SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Testing in Asymptomatic Individuals
title_sort comparison of manual versus automated sars-cov-2 rapid antigen testing in asymptomatic individuals
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10672191/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38002757
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227146
work_keys_str_mv AT harrisdavidt comparisonofmanualversusautomatedsarscov2rapidantigentestinginasymptomaticindividuals
AT ingrahamnicole comparisonofmanualversusautomatedsarscov2rapidantigentestinginasymptomaticindividuals
AT badowskimichael comparisonofmanualversusautomatedsarscov2rapidantigentestinginasymptomaticindividuals