Share this page!

Michael Mina Profile picture
Twitter logo
14 Oct, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Rapid test data!

@MarionKoopmans and team evaluate rapid “paper-strip” Ag tests against likely contagious virus samples

Here @AbbottNews PanBio and SD Biosensor rapid tests perform very well to detect infectious virus

But, not all tests are equal

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
1/ Image
The authors evaluated a number of different tests against PCR positive and culture positive specimens. (Culture positive is generally appreciated as representing likely transmissible virus).

They find a large disparity across different tests...

2/
Against culturable virus, they find that the Abbott PanBio Test and the SD Biosensor (Neither available in the US right now) perform very well. An additional 3 tests were evaluated 2, also looked quoted good but the rapigen performed quite poorly.

3/
Overall, this data fits the expectations (best performance against transmissible virus - versus sensitivity against any-time PCR+ samples, many of which no longer have viable virus).

I expect that this is just the beginning of these types of data and these types of tests!

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Michael Mina

Michael Mina Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelmina_lab

Michael Mina Profile picture
16 Oct
NEW! research shows rapid antigen tests can work in a real world setting - with asymptomatic and symptomatic people. The rapid "paper-strip" antigen test called the BinaxNOW detected >90% of people with high viral loads who are likely to be infectious
nytimes.com/2020/10/15/hea…

1/
I've written about the BinaxNOW from @AbbottNews before and why these types of tests can be 'game changers' for our ability to combat this virus


2/
As expected... the BinaxNOW did NOT detect all PCR positive people... only ~60%

BUT DID detect >90% of those with high/contagious virus load. THESE ARE THE PPL THAT MATTER most when trying to cut off transmission chains.

3/
Read 19 tweets
Michael Mina Profile picture
14 Oct
New research! Starring... Ct values!

We endeavored to ask:

Can we create a brand new metric to know if #COVID19 is increasing/decreasing without staring at case counts & fractions positive - both greatly obscured by test practices.

Yes! w/ Ct values!

medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
In this incredible Tweet thread 👆 @jameshay218 describes the new work - we hope will lay new groundwork for public health authorities to track this/future viruses & if control strategies are working

Work also w co 1st author Lee Kennedy-Shaffer, @mlipsitch & @SanjatKanjilal
One piece that is so cool about this method is we do NOT need a time series of case data to create a trajectory (those little bars on @nytimes website or google that we’ve all stared at for the past 9 months to see trend up vs down in cases). We can do it from a single day!

3/
Read 7 tweets
Michael Mina Profile picture
13 Oct
Important

This virus is not happening in a vacuum where no information existed previously

On Immunity, On testing, On serology, On transmission, On masks, On treatments...

We must stop this narrative that we know nothing of this virus until we learn it anew - again.

1/
The constant drum beat of “we do not know that yet” is tiring.

We KNOW SO MUCH! about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. We knew it before this virus was ever discovered!

We’ve watched since January with study after study reaffirming out expectations of this virus in SO MANY WAYS.

2/
In many we ways we got lucky on this front.

Take HIV for ex. HIV was a new virus for which we generally did have to rewrite the text book

But this virus is different from HIV in that it is behaving in almost all ways per the “textbook”.

3/
Read 19 tweets
Michael Mina Profile picture
13 Oct
So important in this pandemic to NOT let RARE events make the headlines & grab our attention

@NPR - this should NOT be a headline unless you’re going to have daily headlines that say “Millions NOT reinfected today with COVID19”

People are scare enough

npr.org/sections/coron…
Re-exposures are essential to build our immune system. This is not in question. They are like training.

But like anything, when enough people get a re-exposure, there are going to be rare cases here and there that go awry and someone gets more sick the second time.

2/
But this is rare and should NOT be interpreted as people will not build protective immunity and that vaccines will not work.

The take away from this piece should be “In a rare event, a person in the US gets a severe second infection with SARS-CoV-2”

One other point

3/
Read 7 tweets
Michael Mina Profile picture
12 Oct
Trump tested negative on @AbbottNews BinaxNOW test. His MDs are using for evidence of no longer contagious

I don’t disagree - but like use of tests to stop transmission - this is just one piece. Frankly, in this context, it’s being used out of context...

1/
The most important point of deployable rapid tests are that they can be used by many people, frequently!

But should not be used as confirmatory testing of -ve PCRs. This doesn’t make sense and WH use for this confuses how these tests are most appropriately used.

2/
These tests should be to screen ppl (frequently) for +ve results to identify people likely needing to be isolated

In this case @POTUS has had numerous PCR tests and is the president! He can get a viral culture test if he wants to go out w confidence he is not contagious

3/
Read 5 tweets
Michael Mina Profile picture
10 Oct
IDNOW by @AbbottNews rapid test is what @POTUS uses

It's said to be poor w very low sensitivity - the news, @US_FDA and many others say so

But this is a mistake. It's a very good rapid test

I explain here at ~3:30
(Just found link from an old talk)

The short story is the main study from NYU that led to the low sensitivity claims used an extremely skewed sample set

If you remove from the paper just the +ve samples with a Ct value >40 (incredibly miniscule RNA loads), the sensitivity of the test jumps from 60% --> 90%!
If you take only samples with Ct values <38 (still on par w almost any other PCR test), then sensitivity jumps from 60% --> 95%!!

So the problem wasn't the test, it was the samples evaluated. 30% of them were at the very limit of detection of a SLIGHTLY better test
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @michaelmina_lab