もっと詳しく

Who could have imagined five years ago that we would all smear our throats and noses at home to find out if we were the next victim of a pandemic? But now this is life, and while everyone knows about lateral flow and PCR tests, few know about the third option available: molecular tests for COVID-19…

Fast or reliable – choose one

Lateral flow tests (LFTs) are quick and easy to perform at home, giving results within 20-30 minutes. They look for proteins on the surface of the virus that are easily detected. However, they have a big drawback: they can show a negative result in the early stages of infection. This is especially true when people are too careless with their tampons.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test is much more reliable because it looks for tiny pieces of a virus’s genetic material and then uses a process that creates many copies of it. By using this process, known as amplification, you get enough genetic material to be reliably detected in a test. However, their equally big drawback is that testing can only be done using expensive lab equipment, meaning you have to send in a swab and then wait for the results, which usually takes two to three days.

But The Verge reports on a third option that few even know exists.

Molecular test for COVID-19

The COVD-19 molecular test uses the same amplification approach as PCR and provides the same accuracy, but can be done at home in 20 to 75 minutes. Three of these are currently FDA-approved for self-testing and available over-the-counter (OTC): Cue, Detect, and Lucira.

To amplify virus fragments, PCR tests require special laboratory equipment that cycles at higher and lower temperatures. This process can take several hours and currently requires trained technicians. That’s why you can’t always get PCR results on the same day.

But the Cue, Detect, and Lucira tests use a process that can amplify genetic material at one constant temperature, which can be done with a small machine you can keep at home.

Essentially, over-the-counter molecular tests at home are important because they can provide faster and faster results that are as accurate as lab tests—without having to send a swab to a lab. For example, the Lucira test gives results in 30 minutes or less. The Q test gives results in about 20 minutes. The Detect test takes about an hour.

The tests are as simple as LFT. Sample collection is exactly the same: take a swab (both the throat and nose are most reliable), then stir it in a vial of liquid for 20 seconds. But instead of using a dropper and a disposable strip, you put it in a small machine.

App tests are best

Of the three options, the Lucira doesn’t require an app, but the machine is actually a one-time use. Cue and Detect takes a smarter reusable approach and Bluetooth connectivity to a companion app.

The app will guide you through the process, take care of the timing and provide a report of your results.

But molecular tests for COVID-19 aren’t cheap.

The downside, you guessed it, is the cost.

Lucira: $75 per test (including disposable machine) Cue: $249 per machine then $65 per test Detect: $39 per machine then $49 per test

Cue and Detect also offer packages.

The Detect Hub is $39 and the test is $49. There’s also a starter kit that includes a hub and one test for $85. Meanwhile, the Cue Reader retails for $249, while the standalone test costs $65. You can also opt for a Cue Plus membership, which gives you a discount on the Cue Reader and tests, as well as the number of tests per year. There are two tiers: Cue Plus Essential, which costs $39.99 per month for 10 tests, and Cue Plus Complete, which costs $74.99 for 20 tests.

However, they are cheaper than most PCR tests, but for travel use, you need to check if your country of destination accepts the results. If so, you’ll probably have to pay for remote monitoring of your test, which costs an additional $20.

However, the prices of the tests are likely to fall as sales rise and more companies compete.

The post Molecular test for COVID-19 combines the accuracy of PCR and the convenience of lateral flow appeared first on Gamingsym.