Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
So, and it's not saliva anymore "Although originally intended for use with oral fluid, this test has been modified to employ an easily and comfortably self-collected lower nostril sample in order to achieve the best possible accuracy".
https://www.inquirer.com/news/spit-test-covid-coronavirus-orasure-fda-hiv--20200706.html
PL75, going back the the drawing board is good news for us then. They must be one of those who rushed things. And they wanted to charge just under $50 a test.
Good find.
I’m with folk in that there’s room for plenty of different types of assays and we need them all, thanks for the updates on some of the other assays in development. Agree Matt 2521, there will be other variables with the saliva sample, but I would not expect it to effect end result as much as those that affect the PCRs, just my opinion there and not based on any research.
Be good to hear more of those like dr gottileb talk to the other tests which have other advantages rather than gold plated accuracy. Having just one measure of effectiveness in mind of those purchasing decision makers is what I think needs addressing, but maybe it’s already getting there.
Nope. They’ve gone back to the drawing board and are now looking at Q4.
https://orasure.gcs-web.com/news-releases/news-release-details/orasure-technologies-inc-announces-2020-second-quarter-financial
OraQuick Coronavirus Rapid Antigen Self-Test on track for EUA submission and subsequent launch in the fourth quarter. OraSure is developing a rapid antigen self-test, designed to produce a result for active COVID-19 infection within minutes, with no instrumentation needed to interpret the results and no need to transport samples to a lab for processing, enabling the detection of COVID-19 infection anytime, anywhere. The development of the test is supported by $710,310 of funding from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The test is currently in human clinical testing. Although originally intended for use with oral fluid, this test has been modified to employ an easily and comfortably self-collected lower nostril sample in order to achieve the best possible accuracy. The Company fully expects to meet or exceed applicable FDA performance requirements, with EUA filing and subsequent commercial launch in the fourth quarter, pending regulatory approvals. To date, there are no COVID-19 tests for active infection which provide a result at the point of collection with no need for a diagnostic instrument to interpret the result.
Dr Scott gottleib said multiple companies will be needed in the USA to fight COVID let alone the world
It could be Orasure? They received grant from BARDA (Biomedica research development authority) USA. They already do oral self test for HIV with sensitivity of 98% and it's an antigen.
If they managed to get it so can we! There is space for everyone.
ST
There’s got to be a level of trust in the end user. You’d hope people wouldn’t want to spread it. There’s always going to be the odd covidiot but at the moment it’s being spread by people that are asymptomatic. When you can’t leave it to trust, e.g. airports, then you observe people from behind a screen.
In Development:
Pinpoint Science POC 15 min TBD (sensitivity) Medium (price)
Hememics Biotechnologies Consumer DIY 15 TBD Medium
Canary Health Technologies Consumer DIY 5 TBD Low
E25Bio Consumer DIY 15 TBD Low
Sona Nanotech POC 15 96% Low
Luminostics Consumer DIY 5–30 TBD Low
Nanomix Consumer DIY 10 TBD Low
Assure Tech DIY 15 “High” Low
Leadgene® SARS/SARS-CoV-2 Antigen DIY 15 TBD Low
Orasure Technologies OraQuick DIY 20 TBD Low
Avacta/Cytiva DIY 15 TBD Low
PCL Covid-19 Ag GICA POC 10 100% Medium
I took these from the Rockerfeller foundation
I'm no expert but could it be comparable to an alcohol breath test, what I mean is wether you brush your teeth, eat alcohol will still be detected
Could this be the same detecting the infection using saliva?
I’m sure all that is being addressed by the relevant entities matt2521 .....another possible reason for the govt goalposts being changed along the way!
The problem with saliva is that it also needs consistency. Take sample first thing in the morning before brushing teeth? After a meal? What about those that want to trick the test by taking a swig of water before doing the test?
It's not as easy as just spitting I'm afraid.
I don't think AVCT have had the results from any independant testing. It may well do as new tech.
The results will tell all doze, but what makes you think it will be 99% accurate if saliva doesn't allow for counts less than 20000 copies/mL?
What if antigen AVCT LFD is 99% accurate 100 % of the time. I think wait and see validation before I comment.
Agreed PL75, more good reasons. I think both tests will co-exist (along with others as we desperately need them), but I think it will take some effort to those in power to get their head around the sensitivity levels for the saliva test, especially if they don't understand the other benefits.
Governments will need help to get around headlines such as less accurate tests etc. All achievable, but it requires some effort to get there.
And it’s cheaper, and it can be done more frequently to mass screen and capture the asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic. There’s no argument against using a saliva LFD for mass screening Vs the current situation
I've come across some interesting articles recently that got me thinking about the market receptivity for the saliva test. A recent publication comparing swab to saliva found only 5% concordance where viral load was <20000 copies/mL. From this, it's could be said that saliva contains fewer copies than a NP swab inserted deeply into the NP cavity. Other publications have shown that sputum actually contains higher loads vs. swab.
https://www.famhp.be/en/news/coronavirus_evaluation_of_the_use_of_saliva_samples_as_an_alternative_to_sampling_via_a_deep
One may think that the LFT is automatically less sensitive than a PCR, less reliable to use in different real life scenarios and inferior overall. However, although highly sensitive, PCR assays are difficult to reproduce consistent accurate results repeatedly and still take a certain amount of time to gain results. In fact, it has been reported that 20-30% of results are false because sampling errors are usually reported.
In effect, one is positioning PCR as a highly accurate test that can sometimes give you an accurate results due to common operator error in sampling vs. a less sensitive test (LFT), let's say 85% sensitive for arguments sake, but it will always be 85% accurate, because it only requires a saliva sample which is easy to give.
Whatever the established sensitivity is, a lot of education will need to go into explaining to large (government, employer) purchasers as well as smaller (consumer) that getting a result that is less sensitive almost 100% of the time is better than using a test that is 99% accurate only 70% of the time, especially when that result is available in 15 mins. Only by doing that, will use be encouraged and people have the confidence to get more of the economy going. Do others think the same?