This story does a good job of providing the cost of the XTag respiratory panel, $300-400, and cost-related information. The test is relatively expensive but is also covered by insurance. The story presents several benefits of the xTag test. It is 1) more sensitive and more comprehensive than currently available tests and diagnostic procedures, 2) it can address the problem of under-diagnosis of the flu in vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, 3) it can inform treatment decisions by potentially reducing the inappropriate use of antibiotics while indicating when they might be beneficial. An important caveat is that it is not known whether diagnosing these viruses improves outcomes, i.e. decreased use of antibiotics, fewer hospitalizations, fewer deaths. The two main drawbacks of the xTag test, that it is expensive and can take up to a day or two to get the results, are presented. Expense is an important issue given the volume of acute febrile illnesses in children, particularly if this test were given routinely in an outpatient setting. In addition, if the processing time at the specific location is is too long, the test may not have any practical benefit in the treatment decision window. This article provides comprehensive information in an easily understandable way. For example, it provides the context/relevance of the xTag test by summarizing results published in a prestigious medical journal, describing how the test is administered to a patient and the laboratory process used to analyze the sample. It also explains the key pieces of a diagnostic test, sensitivity and specificity. This article is topical because the winter flu season is arriving. However, clarification of the type of patient and situation where this test would be most beneficial was missing. This test would be beneficial for children seen in emergency rooms or hospitalized with acute respiratory illnesses, where making the correct diagnosis as rapidly as possible is essential. The test is generally not needed for most children in the primary care setting who present with symptoms of a short-term flu. In these cases, good physician judgement will determine whether an acute illness is viral in most instances, precluding the need for antibiotics. Although the example of influenza treatment (as a ‘missed opportunity’) was given, this treatment would only decrease symptoms by 1-2 days, which would not be significant for most healthy children. This story draws information from a variety of credible sources, including the FDA, a researcher who published results indicating that the flu is under-diagnosed in children, and an independent emergency room physician. Information from the manufacturer is also given. This article covers all of the bases on treatment diagnosis and treatment option. The flu can be diagnosed based upon clinical observations of signs and symptoms or by other available flu tests. Treatment options, flu medicine, antibiotics or no treatment, are clearly indicated. This story provides good information about availability. The Xtag test is mainly used in hospitals and emergency rooms but can also be done in the primary care setting. Other important information on variability of the length of time needed to process the test, from hours to 1-2 days, was also provided. The xTag test is novel and the article handles this nicely. It is the only FDA approved product that can detect multiple viral strains that can cause acute respiratory diseases. Because an independent source was quoted, it appears the story did not rely solely or largely on a news release.
A single test to detect many winter ailments