Recent global policy initiatives, including the 2025 International Panel for Pandemic Surveillance Report and the G7 100-day mission, emphasise the imperative of deploying diagnostics extremely rapidly during emerging epidemics. These policy drivers set an operational target for bringing diagnostics into routine use within a truncated timeframe after detection of a novel threat. The authors argue that meeting such timelines is not solely a matter of accelerated test design; it depends on prior investments in systems and materials that enable rapid translation into deployable tools.
The central premise is that rapid diagnostic deployment requires preparatory infrastructure. Without pre-established components and pathways, the practical timeframe for developing, validating and approving diagnostics will exceed policy targets. The abstract stresses that infrastructure includes not only laboratory capacity but also the upstream availability of biological reagents, reference standards and streamlined regulatory processes. In short, the ability to reach a 100-day objective hinges on groundwork laid during inter-epidemic periods.
The authors identify a set of diagnostic "building blocks" that should be established in advance. These include ready access to monoclonal antibodies and characterised antigens that can be incorporated into rapid tests, well-defined biological reference materials for assay validation, and prearranged regulatory pathways that permit expedited but robust evaluation and approval. The presence of these components reduces lead times for assay development, performance testing and roll-out.
The article draws on the development pathway for lateral flow tests and on haemorrhagic fever case studies to illustrate the practical barriers encountered when key building blocks are missing. These examples are used to demonstrate how delays in reagent availability, lack of reference materials and unclear regulatory expectations can prolong timelines. Specific experimental or programmatic details from those case studies were not reported in the abstract; the abstract indicates these examples were used to highlight general requirements rather than to present new empirical results.
A major concern raised is the persistence of funding imbalances and inequitable global investment. The authors state that uneven funding threatens the ability to respond quickly and equitably during outbreaks. When investment is concentrated in a subset of settings, global access to diagnostics during the early phase of an outbreak may be constrained, undermining both the speed and fairness of the response. The abstract frames funding parity and equitable resource allocation as essential to achieving the 100-day ambition.
To address the gaps identified, the authors recommend three broad actions: sustained preparedness investment, strengthening of biobanking infrastructure, and establishment of equitable access frameworks. Sustained funding during inter-epidemic periods would support maintenance of reagents and platforms. Enhanced biobanking—meaning systematic collection, storage and governance of clinical specimens and reference materials—would enable faster assay development and validation. Equitable access frameworks are presented as necessary to ensure diagnostics reach diverse settings quickly and fairly when a threat emerges.
The abstract concludes that only by combining these elements can diagnostics be delivered within meaningful response timelines that align with the 100-day mission. The piece positions diagnostics and the associated preparatory infrastructure as integral elements of pandemic preparedness and global health equity. Specific operational steps, timelines, and stakeholder commitments beyond these high-level recommendations were not detailed in the abstract. The full text likely contains more granular examples and discussion; those details were not reported in the source abstract available here.