Here are some good resources for learning about TB and TB testing. It seems Cepheid has the fastest (<2 hrs) however, you will see that the sensitivity and specificity of the test still leaves much to be desired, not to mention the fact that the costs are prohibitive. There has been some movement towards liquid testing which has increased accuracy and has led to shorter testing times but there is also an increased risk of sample contamination. I wonder if a Nanologix liquid-type test utilizing the BNF could reduce the time to result? Also, there has been some success with a new type of urine testing. (As a general question, does anyone know if urine has been tested using Nanologix technology?) Anyways... regardless, after reading these articles you'll see how useful a 4 day test will be- especially one that is simple, accurate, inexpensive, and can be used in any corner of the world. This is what is being demanded and we have the answer. NEJM seems to eat up articles about TB; when Nanologix shows these results I hope their interest is piqued.
Enjoy the articles:
WHO statistics published Tuesday show the number of people who became sick with the disease dropped to 8.8 million in 2010. The number of people who died last year from TB fell to 1.4 million.
I think Commish posting of that link was HUGE news as it's called here !
As of July we heard that clinical trial was nearing completion but really what does nearing mean ?
<< In addition, results of the completed UTHSC Phase II trial are undergoing submission to medical journals for publication. Meanwhile the Phase III clinical trial of the Group B Strep research is on-going and nearing completion. >>
Now with that clincial trial link it's much more clearer when ! Why the vague talk ? NNLX is an interesting bunch when it comes to when.
Petro he/she isn't all that bad, the other day the link to the clinical trial was posted by that person.
Estimated complete for December 2011, in case you or anyone else missed it.
Someone knowledgeable please enlighten me. I've seen TB tests where they administer an arm injection, and 2 days later at the point of injection you either have a small raised bump (positive) or not (negative.) So it must be that a raised bump merely indicates the presence of an infectious agent(not necessarily TB), and then you go in for a more precise test for TB. Does this sound right?
This is the TB skin test which is riddled with false-positives and false-negatives. The bump is actually measured (differs based on patient's history) and there is more info about this here: http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/testing/skintesting.htm
But for the most part you are right, it's just that you can have a bump and if it's under a certain size you are still considered negative (such as a person who had a BCG vaccination).
They require these where I work once a year however for my first two years of employment you were required to get the blood test.