Pinned straw:
Thanks @markeewan
I hadn't heard of this product. It seems a real shame they didn't get this out in time for Pandemic, as I suspect it would have sold like hot cakes. There are a number of studies I found looking at its utility and seemed to be pretty supportive.
Currently, it is aiming to sell into the GP market, by the looks of things. It may well get some traction, as I can see the attraction. It should be noted it is only marketed at febrile illnesses that are respiratory in origin. But these account for most acute febrile illnesses that patients present with so represents a huge TAM.
I found one independent assessment of their product. The results and conclusion are pasted below:
FebriDx had pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84% (95% CI 75%-90%, k = 4) and 93% (95% CI 90%-95%, k = 4) for bacterial infections, and 87% (95% CI 72%-95%; k = 4) and 82% (95% CI 66%-86%, k = 4) for viral infections, respectively.
Conclusion: Combinations of biomarkers show potential clinical utility in discriminating the aetiology of RTIs. However, the limitations in the evidence base, due to a high proportion of studies with high risk of bias, preclude firm conclusions. Future research should be in primary care and evaluate patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness with experimental study designs.
So from a statistical point of view, although the percentages all look high, this is actually quite an inaccurate test. There are plenty of other inaccurate tests that get used all the time in medicine, so that may not be a barrier to uptake, but I suspect there is a long way to go before there is a more generalised uptake and that will probably require multiple more trials and HUGE expense. Cap raise after Cap raise after dilution etc with no guarantee of success.
Interesting to keep an eye, but uninvestable for me
C