Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rapid Test For Ebola Now Available

Posted by Soulskill on from the for-when-you-might-have-ebola-on-the-go dept.

sciencehabit writes: The World Health Organization (WHO) has approved the first rapid diagnostic test for Ebola. The test needs no electricity, requires just a few drops of blood from a finger prick, and can return results in 15 minutes. That will be a huge help to health workers in remote areas. Current PCR-based tests require a blood sample taken by needle, secure transport of the blood to a properly equipped laboratory with trained staff, and at least several hours to return results. Depending on how far away a suspected case is from a testing laboratory, it can take more than a day to receive test results.

27 comments

  1. Of course by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

    Now that Ebola is actually a threat to rich white people living in developed nations, we can expect that new treatments will be created soon.

    1. Re:Of course by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, or maybe it's because this outbreak killed more people than all previous outbreaks combined. For example this report from 2003 lists 128 total deaths in a remote area of the Congo, at the peak of this outbreak there were more people than that dying per day in Sierra Leone. It's pretty understandable that you don't spend billions on research and development for a drug that might be used on 40 people per year on average but would on a drug that can stop a global pandemic.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Of course by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now that Ebola is actually a threat to rich white people living in developed nations, we can expect that new treatments will be created soon.

      And if there were no developed nations or rich people, we would more likely have new treatments?

    3. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern Healthcare Algorithm:
      First there will be the cheap/rapid initial screening test with high sensitivity and low specificity. Next comes the validation test with slightly higher specificity, slightly more expensive. If the result is still positive, after that a series of more expensive confirmatory tests will need to be performed. If an arbitrary number of confirmatory tests agree with each other, then the diagnosis can be made. If the diagnosis is made, then first the quickest/cheapest treatment will be applied (that has low probability of success). If the initial treatment fails, more complicated and expensive measures will be tried, with higher probability of success. If those fail, extremely expensive experimental treatments with unknown (possibly 100%) probability of success may be attempted.

    4. Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For example this report [who.int] from 2003 lists 128 total deaths in a remote area of the Congo, at the peak of this outbreak there were more people than that dying per day in Sierra Leone."

      Wouldn't we expect that to occur in the absence of an outbreak? Fewer people are dying in areas where fewer people live does not surprise me. I have a theory that the number of deaths (d) cannot exceed the number of people (n). Stated mathematically dn. In addition, it is likely that d is proportional to n, so d=p*n where p is a proportionality constant that can be estimated from data. We would need to collect data from various times and regions to get a sense of the stability of p.

    5. Re:Of course by geantvert · · Score: 1

      You are a genius

    6. Re:Of course by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      Now that Ebola is actually a threat to rich white people living in developed nations, we can expect that new treatments will be created soon.

      Not so much me thinks.

      A test and or a tester is very different than a cure or immunization for Ebola.
      The ability to further screen someone identified by a remote non touch fever
      sensor is the gold here.

      Hospitals had issues sorting 80 some common infections that presented like Ebola.
      The only unique Q&A answer that identified Ebola as a likely infection was "did you travel to _Africa_?".

      Should Ebola have surfaced with a vengeance in one or more modern cities the options that
      health departments have are few. One is to isolate the city and divide it while Ebola burns itself out.
      The collapse of commerce for food and other common needs would be difficult to sort out.

      And more importantly because this is not a treatment the testing and approval time frame
      could be very short. And more importantly there are cities in Africa that could use it now.

      There are some social implications but from the containment side of the option list
      this is a good thing.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    7. Re:Of course by sribe · · Score: 2

      Now that Ebola is actually a threat to rich white people living in developed nations, we can expect that new treatments will be created soon.

      Treatments were under development long before this outbreak. But of course, when they become available, you'll just assume that development started after the first cases in the US and Europe.

    8. Re:Of course by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      What's your argument? That it's okay to withhold medical care and resources from those who can't pay for them, because they've been systematically disadvantaged and exploited by people from developed nations who invaded their lands and stripped them of all their natural resources?

    9. Re:Of course by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      No, thats not my point but appears to be yours. My point is that you are vilifying the only entities that are providing the solutions, and the system that enables them to be deployed, albeit not on your time schedule. But, it seems you have a vision in mind of a world where things like priorities and trade offs don't come into play.

    10. Re:Of course by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      My point is that the entities providing the solutions only start providing the solutions when there is a threat to their own constituents. If Ebola was still a disease that primarily threatened developing nations, there would be less attention paid to it.

      You seem to have no problem with that, but it's not really clear why you have no problem with that based on your comments.

    11. Re:Of course by KamikazeSquid · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

  2. More Money For Uncle Sam by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    The new test, produced by Corgenix, a company in Broomfield, Colorado, uses antibodies to identify a specific Ebola virus protein. The list price will be about $15 per test, says Robert Garry, a hemorrhagic disease expert at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana, who helped develop the test. But discounts will be available, he says, for bulk purchases and suppliers for use in Africa.

    Medicial Device Excise Tax: That's $0.345 per tax at the non-bulk rate into Uncle Sam's coffers. I wonder how much purchasing power $0.345 has in the regions hardest hit by Ebola?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:More Money For Uncle Sam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      change master price $150

    2. Re: More Money For Uncle Sam by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      You gave a "list price" of $15 for a product that, for all you know (and given medicine pricing, like does) costs $0.10 to produce, and your issue is the $0.35 tax?

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    3. Re:More Money For Uncle Sam by hey! · · Score: 1

      You do know what an excise tax is? It doesn't get charged on goods being *exported*. So you can stop worrying about Africa, if in fact you ever were.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. My own rapid test... by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 1

    Are you bleeding from your eyeballs? Well, you might have Ebola.

    Tada!

    --
    "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
    1. Re:My own rapid test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just watched "keeping up with the kardashians"...

    2. Re:My own rapid test... by tlambert · · Score: 1

      or just watched "keeping up with the kardashians"...

      The differential diagnosis: If you are also bleeding from your ears, it was the Kardashians.

    3. Re:My own rapid test... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Here's what I'm guessing: in practical terms the test in question won't tell you any more than your bleeding eyeball test would, if we're talking about people with obvious hemorrhagic fever symptoms who have recently spent time in an Ebola hot zone.

      The reason that something like this is needed is that *early* symptoms of Ebola are pretty much identical to influenza or any number of other viral illnesses. So you have someone coming from Liberia with the flu, you give them the quick finger stick test and send them on their way if it's negative. If it's positive you isolate them and perform an expensive, time-consuming "gold-standard" test like PCR or neutralization.

      And in case anyone is wondering, using a test like this for screening asymptomatic people coming from Ebola areas would almost certainly be futile. If there's no symptoms yet there won't be enough antigens to trigger an antibody test like this. At present there's no test that will catch recently infected people who aren't showing symptoms. Anyone exposed to Ebola have to monitor themselves for fever for a few weeks.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. Running PCR machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "with 2 weeks of training, “there are thousands of people” who could learn to run the PCR machines safely, he says. "

    This is a funny quote. Shouldn't we want the lab techs to run the machines properly? Safely is not sufficient.

  5. Republicans have already outlawed this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hate Africans and want us to die. That is why they are fighting so hard to keep spreading Ebola. The Bush Crime Family has already spent over a billion dollars on trying to keep the current epidemic going. They hate us and want us to die.

    1. Re:Republicans have already outlawed this by geantvert · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. I don't know you but I also feel that I hate you.

  6. Impressed by EthanBernard · · Score: 3, Informative

    Assuming they were motivated by the recent epidemic, they created this marketable test in ~ 6 months. Bravo.