Competition, page-30

I’d say @dman0 is making a fair point regarding some form of regulatory approval for WHO procurement – and that it only strengthens ResApp as being totally disruptive with outstanding results and a research/management team to match.

Worth checking #19 out: http://www.unicef.org/supply/files/2015_09_29_ARIDA_REOI_.pdf

In real terms – do developing world kids deserve any less certified standard of care than our kids? WHO/UNICEF/MSF treat 25 million kids a year – would they put millions of kids lives and their global standing on the line for unregulated diagnostic devices?

ResApp’s WHO announcement in March was for a field test expected to commence around mid-year. I’d guess the field testing and analysis will conclude in good time for FDA marketing approval Product 1- paediatric pneumonia – and has probably been planned out as much by management all along. The potential revenue figures discussed previously would still seem achievable given 120 million patients/year.

The knockout blow for ResApp compared to all the other ARIDA’s being trialled is that the app has achieved early results in diagnosis separating viral/atypical and bacterial pneumonia.

That’s been clinically impossible to identify until now. It’s an absolutely massive development in the capacity of the app.

One of UNICEF’s specific goals for a future pneumonia diagnostic device is to develop guidelines for a product that can achieve this differential diagnosis. This device could then prevent widespread antibiotic resistance, saving time, costs, hospitalisation and get effective treatment to more kids than the current 20%.

ResApp has completely skipped the waffle stage for the design of the impossible. It’s totally disruptive and will help save millions of lives every year. FDA approval and differential diagnosis would likely mean procurement on a massive scale.