This one was dealt with fairly thoroughly when it first appeared.
However, a few points.
1. The T-spot test from OI is similar to CSTs QFT-G test in that both tests measure interferon response. The difference is in the way that the measurement is done. CST uses the widely available ELISA machine to perform the measurement, OI count spots produced (using an expensive, single role machine). This, and the fact that the OI test will not work on whole blood make it much more cumbersome, slower, more labour intensive and expensive than QFT. Many independant comparison trials have been conducted and the conclusion is always the same - the results are similar but the complexity of the OI test mean that it will never be suitable for mass screening (the market we are talking about).
I could go on and on but in short OI are not of any concern to us.
2. Re the PR that you mention. The truth of the matter is that OI tried to get a patent through that infringed on other patents and made claims that were unsustainable. The aim of the challenge was to get this amended. I have read the actual patent documents (I really should get a life!) and OI were forced to delete huge tracts of the application to get it accepted. They are very good at PR spin and that is what that PR was all about. The heading, in fact, should have been "Oxford Immunotech forced to amend patent application"
I hope the above helps.
CST Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
