Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abbott Labs defends COVID-19 test after reports of false negatives in study; Stock Drops
Seeking Alpha ^ | 05/13/2020 | By: Douglas W. House,

Posted on 05/13/2020 10:22:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

An Abbott (ABT -1.6%) spokesperson says the sensitivity (correctly identifying true positives) of its rapid molecular test for detecting the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 in nasal specimens is 99.98%, in other words, a false negative rate of 0.02%. The test, OK'd for emergency use by the FDA in March, is performed on its ID Now system and can generate a positive result in as little as five minutes.

The company responded after reports circulated that an NYU study showed sensitivity of only 51%, explaining that investigators did not use the test as intended.

Principal competitors Roche (OTCQX:RHHBY +0.3%) and Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO +0.6%) are up on the news.

(Excerpt) Read more at seekingalpha.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abbott; covid19; tests

1 posted on 05/13/2020 10:22:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The analysis, which has yet to be confirmed, found that Abbott’s ID NOW missed at least one-third of positive cases detected with a rival test and much as 48% when using the currently recommended dry nasal swabs, according to the report posted on BioRxiv, a server where researchers post early work before it has been reviewed by other scientists.

See the report here:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.11.089896v1?rss=1

TITLE:

Performance of the rapid Nucleic Acid Amplification by Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 in nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral media and dry nasal swabs, in a New York City academic institution

However, BioRvix always posts this caveat on their website:

bioRxiv is receiving many new papers on coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information.


2 posted on 05/13/2020 10:26:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (look at Michigan, it will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The only solution is to find test kits made by a company President Trump has not praised.


3 posted on 05/13/2020 1:19:31 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (BLACK LIVES MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sounds like a marketing ploy to resurrect sales of the chicom tests containing the pre-virus loaded nasal swabs.


4 posted on 05/13/2020 1:21:59 PM PDT by redcatcherb412
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

yup. was given an early heads up on this specific test from my lab contacts. i can support this report. hope Abbott comes clean and fixes it, for all our sakes.


5 posted on 05/19/2020 11:49:48 AM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson