Jon Deeks Profile picture
1 Nov, 11 tweets, 4 min read
How well will these 15-minute rapid tests Boris mentioned work? (quick answer – we don’t know)

The Innova test was mentioned this week in Telegraph.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/1…

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!

triedandtested.tech
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
 

Keep Current with Jon Deeks

Jon Deeks 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 @deeksj

1 Nov
The PM claimed that they have validated these new 15min antigen tests – what is the @dhsc @phe validation process?

15 Aug ministers commissioned new process at PHE Porton Down in collaboration with Oxford University. Protocol here (updated 23 Oct).

gov.uk/government/pub…
3 phases:

1 document review

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
Read 6 tweets
22 Sep
BMJ Editorial @bmj_latest on why Moonshot is scientifically unsound.

with Tony Brookes and @AllysonPollock

has just been published here

bmj.com/cgi/content/fu…

#Moonshot @UoB_IAHR @unibirm_MDS

1/10
Moonshot plans uses point of care tests (POCT) approved for home use which don’t yet exist.

Proposals use computer modelling not empirical evidence. Understanding model assumptions is critical.

Widely claimed model is based on using LESS ACCURATE TESTS. This is WRONG.

2/10
The model assumes new POCT is positive in people who have INFECTIOUS Covid-19

and negative in both those who don’t have COVID-19 infection at all

and negative in those who have NON-INFECTIOUS Covid-19.

(infectious means you can pass the virus to somebody else).

3/10
Read 10 tweets
18 Sep
What type of COVID-19 test do you think this is? @MHRAgovuk please have a look Image
Some antigens are proteins, so looks like if could be an antigen test, and a saliva one as well, and it is CE marked.

It's a dream ...
But it is actually an antibody test. Misleading?

(antibody tests have antigens (proteins) inside that detect the antibodies - so they are telling us what is inside it rather than what it detects).

Dream over.
Read 4 tweets
16 Sep
More iAbra statistical nonsense

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.

Start here in the FT, then see below.

1/10

ft.com/content/e7a279…
In FT I said:

“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”.

See what you think.

3/10
Read 10 tweets
11 Sep
Follow-on explanation from RSS statement

Fair questions about the actual figures used, and how this fits with repeated cheap testing as proposed by Michael Mina and others.

Key is that the Mina proposals (and Moonshot) only look at one side of the coin - the benefits

1/10
Moonshot does not consider the harms that mass testing will do through false positives.

In screening you always need to balance the benefits (the true positives) against the harms (mainly false positives)

So what determines how many false positives there will be?

2/10
Key figures that matter:

1)Prevalence of COVID
2)Specificity

An illustration - bear with my assumptions.

~3,000 cases in UK detected per day at the moment
National rate is 5 per 100,000

Double to allow for undetected asymptomatics –
Real rate of 10 per 100,000

3/10
Read 10 tweets
26 Aug
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.

Hoping for better evidence in the update Image
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!