Expert Views on Innova and LFT11 Jun 2021 11:46
Professor Jon Deeks and others have pointed out the short comings of the Innova test. Contrary to the comments on this board, they are not against lateral flow tests, but ones which are not accurate enough to do the job.
Richard Tedder, senior research investigator in medical virology at Imperial College London, commented, “This assay is simply not sensitive enough to use to test persons with a view to confirming an absence of infection and thereby an absence of infectivity. A negative result with this lateral flow test simply does not infer an absence of
infection.”
Jon Deeks states that:
“Clearly, there is a risk of giving false reassurance to people who get a negative result. You also have to question whether mass screening using a test that performs so poorly is the best use of our limited resources.”
Both experts are for accurate LFTs but not for the inaccurate Innova test. When they analysed the Innova test, please note the ct values, Innova was horrifically bad:
"...tests missed 23 of the 45 PCR positive participants, giving a sensitivity of 48.89% (33.70% to 64.23%).
The lateral flow tests missed a third of people with high viral load who had Ct scores (cycle threshold, a measure of virus) below 25—but seven of 15 cases with Ct scores of 20-25 were missed, giving a sensitivity of only 47% in this group (21% to 73%). In people with Ct scores of 25-30, six of seven cases were missed—a sensitivity of 14% (0.4% to 58%).
Deeks remarked, “We are seeing that it is really very poor
at detecting covid in asymptomatic cases, even those with a higher viral load.”
I reiterate Deeks is not against lateral flow tests, but against poorly performing and badly assessed tests being marketed as for for purpose. The FDA now back his and others statements.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
