Member Info for technick

@scart I would agree with DB's assessment but I would add that the influenza test the platform the Abbott says test is based on was not sensitive in the first place, for flu that wasn't seen as too much of a problem, just get tested again in a week or so's time, but fro SARS it has more serious implications. Whats wrong is not setting the performance criteria and validating them before getting the product out. Wishful thinking doesn't make a better test.

@scart I believe that GDR are taking a responsible approach, it will be a gold standard product. I think too this is why they are being cautious about when their POC test will be available and when it is it will be a fully validated platform. In the meantime their 96 product will have superior in performance to the competition in my view. A good ethical approach.

https://www-inquirer-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/abbott-coronavirus-test-nyu-study-questions-accuracy-20200514.html?outputType=amp

@scart the avacta technology is very neat, I see how it makes for a very specific test, I just think their detection choice eg lateral flow is not going to give them a sensitive test.

@crombatt me too, I originally invested in Epistem at £2.85 and have averaged down and now the right side of fence. The tech is great and the team now commercial which is great to see.

Thanks Scart, interesting but I just don't get why you would replace a qPCR test with proven sensitivity with a LAMP based isothermal test known not to be sensitive. It's rather like asking Heston Blumenthal to use his kitchen to cook a ready meal. Sure you can do it, but its a waste of all that talent and the taste will be rather limited.

Yes, my background is 20 years in the diagnostics space, I have been involved with both molecular test development and antibody / antigen ELISA based test development, I have even looked at aptamers so it puts be in a position to comment.

qPCR is the gold standard, and Genedrive will provide gold-standard results based on tried and tested technology. It is the gold standard because the process 'amplifies' the target buy making copies of it when the target it present. It is uniquely efficient and although many others have tried to make alternatives (e.g. isothermal amplification) none match the elegance and efficiency of PCR. As a sign of this look at Abbotts isothermal COVID test, released to a fanfare but now showing it isn't sensitive enough and missing lots of low positives.

Avacta and affirmers. I start by saying I have no direct experience of these. But from the papers I have read I see no reason to believe that these will be more sensitive than aptamers or antigen based tests. What that means is I do not believe they will have the sensitivity. Most papers are quoting 60%-80% sensitivity in a clinical setting which isn't good enough.

Why these companies think that what didn't work before will suddenly work now I can't fathom. I put Abbott in that category too, their influenza test based on the same isothermal technology wasn't sensitive enough too.

I may well have missed something that's not in the public domain that has made a breakthrough since the publications on affirmers. My experience says not, but I am happy to be proven wrong.

All my opinion but based on my experience in this field...

We are expecting the CE IVD announcement next week, hopefully all those reaction beads they showed this week are plated up and ready to ship to customers :) as always my opinion is this will be shown to have a value much greater than the current share price once sales are recognised.

I also think compared to NVCT the underlying test has many advantages due to its formulation and the chemistry used. No least that it can take advantage of non-realtime PCR machines of which there are 100's for every realtime machine so a lab can ramp up numbers for minimal capital outlay.

Perhaps the company will follow the model with its other tests offering high throughput versions of its HCV and TB test to run in parallel with its Genedrive POC testing capability?

Next week is hopefully going to show the re-rate and another step in the value build

Are the larger trades someone building a position? Thoughts?

https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/coronavirus-test-lockdown-norwich-earlham-institute-a9513141.html

I suspect the CE-IVD announcement will be next. I suspect that when the Company suggested week of the 18th that the files had been submitted to the MHRA and that they were told x weeks turnaround time... so next week should bring that and sales can start in the EU.

Then we may also hear about FDA emergency use submission, maybe in the same RNS, then US sales can start.

A lot of countries accept these two 'standards' so it opens up countries outside the UK, EU and US. Important statements coming!

but I though these had all been forward sold and hence the drop, which one is it?

yes, retail investors dipping in and out ahead of news flow. There was trading on the back of the expected fall when the placing was announced and many saw that as a likely response because 'it always happens'. But in reality the interest in the share has kept it pretty buoyant. I suspect when news does starts to come that there'll be a recovery, where it goes next is down to news flow and what sales channels we make.

@sam invested :-D

@samolly PhD in molecular diagnostics and 20 years commercial clinical diagnostics ...

Olderandwiser, NVCT were first to market, in diagnostics that's their model so this played very well into the modus operandi. The continuing demand for molecular tests is going to be large and neither NVCT or GDR will be satisfying the whole demand. Lots of tests required. From what I understand a lot of the current molecular tests are not sensitive enough, Abbott for example missing many 'low' positives. I assume NVCT and GDR fair much better in that regard.

Why is this important? Because my reading of the situation is that whilst at the moment the government is testing people,e with symptoms, the biggest issue is testing of asymptomatic people. It seems that the majority of infected people don't exhibit symptoms and if they were to go about their daily life as normal they would infect people.

The other issue is it seems that low grade infectivity may not be producing a good immune response, again making this population of people more likely to become re-infected despite having some IgM and IgG response showing they had previously been infected.

Where does that leave us? I huge demand for continual testing for existing current infection so people can be quickly quarantined and not be in the population infecting people.

The demand for tests is going to be around for many years I think, again today the WHO has suggested 5-years

Tec, it did, and when they announced the SARS test I couldn’t work out why it would be more sensitive. All good for us hopefully

Exactly Scart, should put us in a good position

phew

Olderandwiser, it will be being done in a class 10,000 clear room facility under appropriate ISO 13885 accreditation don't you worry!