Line 374: | Line 374: | ||
<div class = "jumbotron"> | <div class = "jumbotron"> | ||
<h2>The Rapid Diagnostics Steering Committee Interview</h2> | <h2>The Rapid Diagnostics Steering Committee Interview</h2> | ||
− | <p><p>We would like to know if there are specific designs that UK government would like to have in the diagnostic technology that they calling for. We went beyond reading reports and contacted | + | <p><p>We would like to know if there are specific designs that UK government would like to have in the diagnostic technology that they calling for. We went beyond reading reports and contacted a member of the AMR steering group, Mr. David Oglesby. He works in the Rapid Diagnostics Steering sub-group.</p> |
</p> | </p> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/cf/T--Sheffield--P%2BP-David.jpg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/cf/T--Sheffield--P%2BP-David.jpg"> | ||
− | <p | + | <p>Dr David Oglesby,</p> |
− | <p | + | <p>Clinical Fellow and member of the Rapid Diagnostics Steering Group</p> |
<p>We know the world governments, including the UK is calling for a device like ours. However, due to the fact that our choice of biomarker, lipocalin 2, is produced by the host in response to bacterial infections and it is not something that is produced by specific pathogens, our device would not be able to detect the type of bacterial infection. We asked Mr. Oglesby if this limitation would mean our device too simplistic.</p> | <p>We know the world governments, including the UK is calling for a device like ours. However, due to the fact that our choice of biomarker, lipocalin 2, is produced by the host in response to bacterial infections and it is not something that is produced by specific pathogens, our device would not be able to detect the type of bacterial infection. We asked Mr. Oglesby if this limitation would mean our device too simplistic.</p> |
Revision as of 17:15, 18 October 2016
![]() |
UK STRATEGIES |
![]() |
---|
|
|
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/a3/T--Sheffield--slider-intro.png)
The 5 Year Plan
We then turned our attentions closer to home - to the strategies that the UK government was adopting to tackle antibiotic resistance. We discovered the AMR five year strategy; a collaboration between a host of organisations from the Government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the National Health Service and the Ministry of Defence.
Together, these organisations set out a number of action points for seeing a reduction in antibiotic resistance over the next 5 years, beginning from 2013.
In their report they put these points as targets:
- Good infection prevention and control measures to help prevent infections occurring become the norm in all sectors of human and animal health
- Infections can be diagnosed quickly and the right treatment used
- Patients and animal keepers fully understand the importance of antibiotic treatment regimens and adhere to them
- Surveillance is in place which quickly identifies new threats or changing patterns in resistance
- There is a sustainable supply of new, effective antimicrobials
The UK are also calling for quick diagnosis of infections in tackling antibiotic resistance -
The Rapid Diagnostics Steering Committee Interview
We would like to know if there are specific designs that UK government would like to have in the diagnostic technology that they calling for. We went beyond reading reports and contacted a member of the AMR steering group, Mr. David Oglesby. He works in the Rapid Diagnostics Steering sub-group.
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/cf/T--Sheffield--P%2BP-David.jpg)
Dr David Oglesby,
Clinical Fellow and member of the Rapid Diagnostics Steering Group
We know the world governments, including the UK is calling for a device like ours. However, due to the fact that our choice of biomarker, lipocalin 2, is produced by the host in response to bacterial infections and it is not something that is produced by specific pathogens, our device would not be able to detect the type of bacterial infection. We asked Mr. Oglesby if this limitation would mean our device too simplistic.
He response was “Absolutely not. When you look at the reports around that say where antibiotic resistance is coming from... one of the biggest areas you still find is that people giving antibiotics that have viral infections…”
Furthermore, Mr Oglesby said that the device would have to be accurate enough to give doctors the confidence to use the results. Its accuracy should be above 85%.
INTEGRATION INTO OUR PROJECT
This conversation gave us a clear validation to the concept our device. It allowed the wet and dry lab teams to continue their work with confidence. Furthermore,we were also given a target range of accuracy above 85% to work toward.
![](https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/5/55/T--Sheffield--TopArrow.png)