and I presume was on Boris’s list of the tests last night.
We are updating our Cochrane review and have been through our searches. There are no pre-prints or published studies of this test.
There are 2 studies – 1 from the company Instructions for Use (IFU) and 1 from PHE Porton Down.
Test is made by Xiamen Biotime Biotech in China.
Quick Critical appraisal of PHE Porton Down study:
1)Is the study relevant? Can’t tell.
2)What do the results mean? Can’t tell.
3)Should we believe the results? Can’t tell.
(please give us the full report!!!)
The company study is reported in Instructions for Use, and available in presentation download - more information provided from a manufacturer than often - thank you!
But first note the “Intended Use” statement in the IFU. This states what the test can be marketed for – test is for use in symptoms in the first 5 days of illness. Certainly not intended for use in people without symptoms.
And states not for home use – of course this could change but currently appears not to have MHRA approval for home use – correct me if I am wrong. Unclear how it can be rolled out for widespread use this week - home use approval takes work, no Covid-19 test has it yet.
Here is the description of the study – accompanying powerpoint helps explain. Cohort of 295 with RT-PCR testing of nasal swabs with confirmed pneumonia in first 5 days of symptoms , 75 were RT-PCR+, 220 RT-PCR-. Second stage of 25+25 relates to testing with pharyngeal swabs.
Here is the 2x2 table. Sensitivity 96% (89-99%); Specificity 100% (98.3-100%)
There are important limitations to the product mentioned in the manufacturer’s IFU
Summary– test appeared to perform well in company study limited to people with pneumonia in first few days of symptoms (so severe and likely to have high viral load – easier to detect). No evaluation of infectiousness– only infection. Must be used by a health care professional.
No data presented on accuracy in asymptomatics, or in people with less severe symptoms, or at other time points. Only nasal swabs tested, not saliva.
My view: current evidence seems very inadequate to consider implementing this test.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2A Test 60 spiked saliva samples (n=15x4 dilutions)+71 -ve samples
2B Test against seasonal coronaviruses
3 Lab study of 1000 negatives and 200 positives sourced by Oxford University Hospitals. -ves fresh (<48hr) saliva samples +ves frozen
“Phase 3 findings will be reported to the Oversight Group, with DHSC and ministers using this information and any recommendations to inform potential purchasing decisions.”
Little detail is public – full results below - criteria for “pass” and “fail” for Phase 3 not stated
Following from the Telegraph at the weekend, I have now seen the data from iAbra for their 20 second "Holographic microscopy" saliva test being trialled at Heathrow.
“we are in a pandemic, people are dying from the disease, and a company decides that it is reasonable to mislead us all to make their test look like the best thing available."
2/10
"Legally, they can probably get away with this, but there cannot be any consideration that this is morally acceptable.”
They have said my characterisation was “incredibly unfair”.
We have published our next Cochrane review of Covid-19 tests:
Rapid, point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection - Dinnes, J - 2020 | Cochrane Library cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10…
Includes pre-prints and published studies available up to the end of May. We found 18 study cohorts with 3198 unique samples, of which 1775 had confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.
Due to the importance of these tests we currently updating to end of July and will republish in weeks.
Most of the data included here are from remnant sample studies, didn't use the tests according to their instructions, and were shockingly poor in other ways.