This is an interesting discussion and overall I would have to...

This is an interesting discussion and overall I would have to agree with Hawk70’s assessment. Overall I think the utility of Febridx will be mostly in primary care practices where labs aren’t immediately available or regional EDs.

One important point is that the utility of any diagnostic test is dependent on the pre test probability not on the intrinsic performance of the test. Similarly clinicians need to use risk assessments when managing patients. For example if you have someone who has sepsis but has a Febridx test that is negative this will not stop them from using antibiotics because the pre test probability of a bacterial infection is so high the post test probability is still high enough when you consider the possible harm (consequences of not treating). In a high incidence setting ie in EDs, there may be limited utility of Febridx unless used exclusively in the low acuity areas like Fast Track. But even then overall, ED clinicians probably aren’t handing out a lot of antibiotics for bacterial URTI compared to GPs.

The CLIA waver is essential for sales, so I for one am glad for the capital raise and progression of the study.