3 ms·

Any science or medicine types know if a potential solution to the problem this company wants to fix can be achieved by a 'hack' of sorts: just make a finger-pri

by firasd 11y ago

Any science or medicine types know if a potential solution to the problem this company wants to fix can be achieved by a 'hack' of sorts: just make a finger-prick, but keep it bleeding somehow (using mechanics or other chemical agents) until you can collect enough of a blood sample? Seems like an easier approach than inventing breakthroughs in microfluidics.

randycupertino 11y ago
The problem is that the finger prick actually hurts a lot more than a traditional venous draw. There aren't any real benefits to a "finger prick" other than marketing spin that it's so easy breezy and good for people who can't stand needles. imo if Theranos had stayed out of microfluidics and stuck with fundamentals of testing but done it well- regular draws but used the best trained phlebotomists who can find the vein on the first stick, do a painless draw and really improved their model of "easy access" walk in Walgreens testing, immediate/fast under 24 hour results, pay up front and low cost, they could have overtaken Quest and Labcorp just by exploiting inefficiencies in that market. Instead they got too sidetracked focusing on razzle dazzle nanotainer microfluidic science that doesn't even work.
- joezydeco 11y ago
  "...There aren't any real benefits to a "finger prick" other than marketing spin..." "...regular draws but used the best trained phlebotomists who can find the vein on the first stick..." That's the advantage of a finger prick. You don't need to be a trained phlebotomist to do it. The microfluidics drove the idea that you only needed "a few drops" to perform the tests (since drawing 100mL out of a finger would take forever). Put those two together and you had the concept of a test that any semi-skilled person could perform in a drugstore. That was the hook Theranos was banking on.
  - randycupertino 11y ago
    > You don't need to be a trained phlebotomist to do it. Yes, but Theranos still had phlebotomists doing their finger pricks. Also, phlebotomists aren't that expensive. Even in the Bay Area I think they only make around $18 an hour. Cheaper than a nurse, for sure.
    - exw 11y ago
      Part of the excitement around Theranos was that their finger prick approach opened up blood diagnostic technologies to situations (e.g., combat) and countries where it is difficult to get access to trained phlebotomists.
    - joezydeco 11y ago
      They had phlebotomists because, as we discovered in the fall, they were still drawing the standard vacutainers for all of the tests except the one that actually worked on the microfluidic system. The remainder were run through traditional ELISA and clin-chem machinery from other companies.
URSpider94 11y ago
1. Ouch. 2. What others who know more have stated is that for many tests, there's a fundamental difference between venous blood (taken from a high-volume vessel) and capillary blood taken from a tiny blood vessel in an extremity. It seems that it's not all about volume.

by firasd 11y ago

randycupertino 11y ago

The problem is that the finger prick actually hurts a lot more than a traditional venous draw. There aren't any real benefits to a "finger prick" other than marketing spin that it's so easy breezy and good for people who can't stand needles. imo if Theranos had stayed out of microfluidics and stuck with fundamentals of testing but done it well- regular draws but used the best trained phlebotomists who can find the vein on the first stick, do a painless draw and really improved their model of "easy access" walk in Walgreens testing, immediate/fast under 24 hour results, pay up front and low cost, they could have overtaken Quest and Labcorp just by exploiting inefficiencies in that market. Instead they got too sidetracked focusing on razzle dazzle nanotainer microfluidic science that doesn't even work.

joezydeco 11y ago
"...There aren't any real benefits to a "finger prick" other than marketing spin..." "...regular draws but used the best trained phlebotomists who can find the vein on the first stick..." That's the advantage of a finger prick. You don't need to be a trained phlebotomist to do it. The microfluidics drove the idea that you only needed "a few drops" to perform the tests (since drawing 100mL out of a finger would take forever). Put those two together and you had the concept of a test that any semi-skilled person could perform in a drugstore. That was the hook Theranos was banking on.
- randycupertino 11y ago
  > You don't need to be a trained phlebotomist to do it. Yes, but Theranos still had phlebotomists doing their finger pricks. Also, phlebotomists aren't that expensive. Even in the Bay Area I think they only make around $18 an hour. Cheaper than a nurse, for sure.
  - exw 11y ago
    Part of the excitement around Theranos was that their finger prick approach opened up blood diagnostic technologies to situations (e.g., combat) and countries where it is difficult to get access to trained phlebotomists.
  - joezydeco 11y ago
    They had phlebotomists because, as we discovered in the fall, they were still drawing the standard vacutainers for all of the tests except the one that actually worked on the microfluidic system. The remainder were run through traditional ELISA and clin-chem machinery from other companies.

URSpider94 11y ago

1. Ouch. 2. What others who know more have stated is that for many tests, there's a fundamental difference between venous blood (taken from a high-volume vessel) and capillary blood taken from a tiny blood vessel in an extremity. It seems that it's not all about volume.