Sep 11, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
National Health Service estimates 73% of 65-million urine specimens collected annually in the UK are contaminated
Wanting to know why so many female patients that present with urinary tract infections (UTIs) require repeat appointments, Dr. Vincent Forte, a family GP and forensic physician who worked for the National Health Service (NHS) for 26 years, began investigating. He determined that the standard urine specimen collection cup is primarily the cause of poor-quality medical laboratory test results.
Forte realized that the method of collecting the specimens was largely to blame, with the required “start-aim-start” midstream collection technique required by traditional polypropylene specimen cups at the root of the problem.
That realization led to the development of a unique “midstream” urine collection device that eliminates the problem of first-void urine contaminating samples, according to a blog post on the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) website written by Forte Medical of London’s Founding Director and Chief Executive Officer Giovanna Forte, Vincent Forte’s sister.
65-million Specimens Deemed Unreliable
Healthcare professionals, whether working in clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups or hospitals and out-patient clinics, often are among the first to notice when gaps in the quality or integrity of medical laboratory test results exist. However, in this case, it was a general practice physician rather than a medical laboratorian or in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturer that set out to solve the problem of poor urine specimen collection, which The Daily Telegraph reports results in 73% of the 65-million urine specimens collected annually by the NHS being unreliable. That’s 47.5-million unreliable medical laboratory specimens collected and tested yearly in the United Kingdom.
Accurate Urine Collection Brings Billions in Savings
Vincent Forte concluded that the quality gap in urine specimen collection for his female patients was preventing accurate first-time analysis, diagnosis, and targeted treatment. In 2001, he set out to re-engineer urine collection cups. His first design—“a simple flushable paper funnel, which rejected first-flow urine, collected midstream, and ejected the remainder”—established the underlying design principle behind the patented Peezy Midstream product, Giovanna Forte stated in the RSA blog post.
Giovanna Forte noted that the first version of the device, marketed in 2010, was a “funnel formed by flat-sheet film, with a unique container-acceptor,” with overflow duct and incorporating a compressed sponge that rejects the first 8-10 ml of urine. While the product was well received, Forte says the selling price was too expensive to meet the NHS requirement for cost savings. By 2012, the product evolved into an injected-modeled design, which cut production costs by 50%. By 2014, the ergonomically designed funnel was improved to incorporate the two most common urine collection tubes.
In a Forte Medical presentation, Giovanna Forte predicted that accurate urine collection could result in a £1.2-billion (US $1.56-billion) savings to the NHS.
A Design Week article described the testing process for developing the midstream specimen collection device as “similar to launching a website in beta,” with initial testing resulting in changes such as the creation of a flatter, rounder handle to make the product easier to hold.
“Within the NHS, I was allowed to attend clinics where evaluations were taking place and speak directly to the patients. This allowed me to find out what they thought of everything from instructions for use to the collection system itself,” Vincent Forte stated in the Design Week article. “All the information was fed back into our design engineers, who proposed an improved product made more simply at a lower price.”
The patented Peezy Midstream urine collection system rejects the first (often contaminated) 8-10 ml of urine, isolating and capturing the important midstream and rejecting the rest of the urine into the toilet. The product claims 98.5% accurate urine specimen collection and would improve the accuracy and reliability of the medical laboratory tests performed on urine samples collected with this device. (Photo copyright: Forte Medical.)
Today, Forte Medical offers two midstream urine collection devices used by both men and women:
1. Peezy Midstream PE40, which collects urine into a traditional 30ml universal container; and
2. Peezy Midstream PE50, which collects urine into a lab-friendly 10ml primary tube designed to fit in laboratory analyzers.
“This simple solution … took 10 years and £2.6-million [US $3.38-million] to get right. It was achieved not by a multinational with deep pockets, but by a startup funded largely by friends, family, and a handful of angel investors, along with the goodwill of design and manufacturing partners,” Vincent Forte stated in the RSA blog post.
Specimen Capture Methods Lead to Careless Infection Control
In an article published on News Medical, an online, open-access medical information provider, Giovanna Forte points out another flaw in traditional urine collection systems.
“Thrusting one’s hands willingly into our own urine is hardly common practice. That we are expected to do so in order to capture an important specimen essential to diagnosis hardly chimes with the concept of modern medicine and leads to pretty shabby infection control by any standards,” she stated.
The Peezy Midstream is a Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) approved product in the UK, and is FDA listed in the United States. As a Class 1 “Container, Specimen Mailer and Storage, Non-Sterile” device, the Peezy Midstream is “510(k) exempt” and did not require FDA review before being marketed in this country.
Still to come are clinical trials and papers in peer-reviewed medical journals that support the function of this medical device to improve patient care. It is notable, though, that the National Health System in the UK is collaborating with Forte Medical in certain ways to determine how the device can improve patient care. Dark Daily would like to hear from any medical laboratories in the UK and USA that are using this device when urine specimens are collected.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Liquid Gold: Urine Is the Unsung Hero of Modern Medicine and Health Economy
Peezy Mid-Stream Urine (MSU) Usability Study Results Report
What Is a Mid-Stream Urine Sample and Why Do Healthcare Professionals Request Them?
The Peezy: The Tale of an Award-Winning, Rapid-Prototyped, User-Developed Design
How Design Integrity Can Save Lies in Essential Basic Medicine
Aug 30, 2017 | Digital Pathology, Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Should this milestone be an indicator that more patients are willing to use telehealth to interact with providers, then clinical laboratories and pathology groups will need to respond with new ways to collect specimens and report results
Telehealth is gaining momentum at Kaiser Permanente (KP). Public statements by Kaiser administrators indicate that the number of virtual visits (AKA, telemedicine) with providers now is about equal to face-to-face visits with providers. This trend has many implications for clinical laboratories, both in how patient samples are collected from patients using virtual provider visits and how the medical laboratory test results are reported.
That this is happening at KP is not a surprise. The health system is well-known as a successful healthcare innovator. So, when its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Bernard Tyson publically announced that the organization’s annual number of virtual visits with healthcare providers had surpassed the number of conventional in-person appointments, he got the members’ attention, as well as, the focus of former US Senator Bill Frist, MD, who moderated the event.
Tyson made this statement during a gathering of the Nashville Health Care Council. He informed the attendees that KP members have more than 100 million encounters each year with physicians, and that 52% of those are virtual visits, according to an article in Modern Healthcare.
However, when asked to comment about Tyson’s announcement during a video interview with MedCity News following the 13th Annual World Health Care Congress in Washington, DC, Robert Pearl, MD, Executive Director/CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and President/CEO of the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group (MAPMG), stated, “Currently we’re doing 13-million virtual visits—that’s a combination of secure e-mail, digital, telephone, and video—and we did 16-million personal visits. But, by 2018, we expect those lines will cross because the virtual visits [are] going up double digits, whereas the in-person visits are relatively flat.”
So, there’s a bit of disagreement on the current numbers. Nevertheless, the announcement that consumer demand for virtual visits was increasing sparked excitement among the meeting attendees and telemedicine evangelists.
“It’s astounding,” declared Senator Frist, “because it represents what we all want to do, which is innovate and push ahead,” noted an article in The Tennessean.
Is this a wake-up call for the healthcare industry? Should clinical laboratories start making plans for virtual patients?
Of virtual office visits, Pearl noted in the interview with MedCity News, “Why wouldn’t you want, if the medical conditions are appropriate, to have your care delivered from the convenience of your home, or wherever you might be, at no cost to you, and to have it done immediately without any delays in care?”
Pearl added that one-third of patients in primary care provider virtual visits are able to connect with specialists during those sessions.
“It’s better quality, greater convenience, and certainly better outcomes as care begins immediately,” he noted.
Kaiser Permanente ‘Reimagines’ Medical Care
The virtual visit milestone is an impactful one at Kaiser Permanente, an Oakland, Calif.-based nonprofit healthcare organization that includes Kaiser Foundation hospitals, Permanente Medical Groups, and the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. It suggests that the KP has successfully integrated health information technology (HIT) with clinical workflows. And that the growing trend in virtual encounters indicates patients are becoming comfortable accessing physicians and clinicians in this manner.
As Tyson stated during the Nashville meeting, it is about “reimagining medical care.”
Bernard Tyson (right), Chairman and CEO of Kaiser Permanente, speaking with former Senator Bill Frist, MD (left), at the Nashville Health Care Council meeting where he announced that the non-profit provider’s number of virtual visits with patients had surpassed its face-to-face appointments. (Photo Credit: Nashville Health Care Council.)
What does “reimagining” mean to the bottom line? He shared these numbers with the audience, according to the Modern Healthcare report:
- 25% of the system’s $3.8 billion in capital spending goes to IT;
- 7-million people are Kaiser Permanente members;
- 95% of members have a capitated plan, which means they pay Kaiser Permanente a monthly fee for healthcare services, including the virtual visits.
The American Telemedicine Association, which itself interchanges the words “telemedicine” and “telehealth,” noted that large healthcare systems are “reinventing healthcare” by using telemedicine. The worldwide telemedicine market is about $19 billion and expected to grow to more than $48 billion by 2021, noted a report published by Research and Markets.
Consumers Want Virtual Health, but Providers Lag Behind Demand
Most Americans are intrigued with telehealth services. However, not everyone is participating in them. That’s according to an Advisory Board Company Survey that found 77% of 5,000 respondents were interested in seeing a doctor virtually and 19% have already done so.
Healthcare systems such as Kaiser Permanente and Cleveland Clinic are embracing telehealth, which Dark Daily covered in a previous e-briefing. However, the healthcare industry overall has a long way to go “to meet consumer interest in virtual care,” noted an Advisory Board news release about the survey.
“Direct-to-consumer virtual specialty and chronic care are largely untapped frontiers,” noted Emily Zuehlke, a consultant with The Advisory Board Company (NASDAQ:ABCO). “As consumers increasingly shop for convenient affordable healthcare—and as payers’ interest in low-cost access continues to grow—this survey suggests that consumers are likely to reward those who offer virtual visits for specialty and chronic care,” she stated.
Telehealth Could Increase Healthcare Costs
Does telehealth reduce healthcare spending? A study published in Health Affairs suggests that might not be the case. The researchers found that telemedicine could actually increase costs, since it drives more people to use healthcare.
“A key attraction of this type of telehealth for health plans and employers is the potential savings involved in replacing physician office and emergency department visits with less expensive virtual visits. However, increased convenience may tap into unmet demand for healthcare, and new utilization may increase overall healthcare spending,” the study authors wrote in the Health Affairs article.
Clinical Laboratories Can Support Virtual Healthcare
Clinical laboratories must juggle supporting consumer demand for convenience, while also ensuring health quality expectations and requirements. How can pathologists and medical laboratory leaders integrate their labs with the patient’s virtual healthcare experience, while also aiming for better and more efficient care? One way would be to explore innovative ways to contact patients about the need to collect specimens subsequent to virtual visits. Of course, the procedures themselves must be done in-person. Nevertheless, medical laboratories could find ways to digitally complement—through communications, test results sharing, and education—patients’ use of virtual visits.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Kaiser Permanente Chief Says Members are Flocking to Virtual Visits
Kaiser’s Tyson to Nashville: Health Care’s Future Isn’t in a Hospital
More Virtual Care Than Office Visits at Kaiser Permanente by 2018
Telemedicine Market Forecasts: 2016 to 2021
What do Consumers Want from Virtual Visits?
Virtual Visits with Medical Specialists Draw Strong Consumer Demand, Survey Shows
Direct-to-Consumer Telehealth May Increase Access to Care but Does Not Decrease Spending
Cleveland Clinic Gives Patients Statewide 24/7 Access to Physicians Through Smartphones, iPads, Tablets, and Online; Will Telemedicine Also Involve Pathologists?
Aug 23, 2017 | Digital Pathology, Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
Technology allows retrievable information to be recorded directly into the genomes of living bacteria, but will this technology have value in clinical laboratory testing?
Researchers at Harvard Medical School have successfully used CRISPR technology to encode an image and a short film into the Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of bacteria. Their goal is to develop a way to record and store retrievable information in the genomes of living bacteria. A story in the Harvard Gazette described the new technology as a sort of “biological hard drive.”
It remains to be seen how this technology might impact medical laboratories and pathology groups. Nevertheless, their accomplishment is another example of how CRISPR technology is leading to new insights and capabilities that will advance genetic medicine and genetic testing.
The researchers published their study in the journal Science, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Recording Complex Biological Events in the Genomes of Bacteria
Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) are DNA sequences containing short, repetitive base sequences found in the genomes of bacteria and other micro-organisms that can facilitate the modification of genes within organisms. The term CRISPR also can refer to the whole CRISPR-Cas9 system, which can be programmed to pinpoint certain areas of genetic code and to modify DNA at exact locations.
Led by George Church, PhD, faculty member and Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, the team of researchers at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., constructed a molecular recorder based on CRISPR that enables cells to obtain DNA information and produce a memory in the genome of bacteria. With it, they inserted a GIF image and a five-frame movie into the bacteria’s DNA.
“As promising as this was, we did not know what would happen when we tried to track about 100 sequences at once, or if it would work at all,” noted Seth Shipman, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, and one of the authors of the study in the Harvard Gazette story. “This was critical since we are aiming to use this system to record complex biological events as our ultimate goal.”
Translating Digital Information into DNA Code
The team transferred an image of a human hand and five frames of a movie of a running horse onto nucleotides to imbed data into the genomes of bacteria. This produced a code relating to the pixels of each image. CRISPR was then used to insert genetic code into the DNA of Escherichia coli (E-coli) bacteria. The researchers discovered that CRISPR did have the ability to encode complex information into living cells.
“The information is not contained in a single cell, so each individual cell may only see certain bits or pieces of the movie. So, what we had to do was reconstruct the whole movie from the different pieces,” stated Shipman in a BBC News article. “Maybe a single cell saw a few pixels from frame one and a few pixels from frame four … so we had to look at the relation of all those pieces of information in the genomes of these living cells and say, ‘Can we reconstruct the entire movie over time?’”
The team used an image of a digitized human hand because it embodies the type of intricate data they wish to use in future experiments. A movie also was used because it has a timing component, which could prove to be beneficial in understanding how a cell and its environment may change over time. The researchers chose one of the first motion pictures ever recorded—moving images of a galloping horse by Eadweard Muybridge, a British photographer and inventor from the late 19th century.
“We designed strategies that essentially translate the digital information contained in each pixel of an image or frame, as well as the frame number, into a DNA code that, with additional sequences, is incorporated into spacers. Each frame thus becomes a collection of spacers,” Shipman explained in the Harvard Gazette story. “We then provided spacer collections for consecutive frames chronologically to a population of bacteria which, using Cas1/Cas2 activity, added them to the CRISPR arrays in their genomes. And after retrieving all arrays again from the bacterial population by DNA sequencing, we finally were able to reconstruct all frames of the galloping horse movie and the order they appeared in.”
In the video above, Wyss Institute and Harvard Medical School researchers George Church, PhD, and Seth Shipman, PhD, explain how they engineered a new CRISPR system-based technology that enables the chronological recording of digital information, like that representing still and moving images, in living bacteria. Click on the image above to view the video. It is still too early to determine how this technology may be useful to pathologists and clinical laboratory scientists. (Caption and video copyright: Wyss Institute at Harvard University.)
“In this study, we show that two proteins of the CRISPR system, Cas1 and Cas2, that we have engineered into a molecular recording tool, together with new understanding of the sequence requirements for optimal spacers, enables a significantly scaled-up potential for acquiring memories and depositing them in the genome as information that can be provided by researchers from the outside, or that, in the future, could be formed from the cells natural experiences,” stated Church in the Harvard Gazette story. “Harnessed further, this approach could present a way to cue different types of living cells in their natural tissue environments into recording the formative changes they are undergoing into a synthetically created memory hotspot in their genomes.”
Encoding Information into Cells for Clinical Laboratory Testing and Therapy
The team plans to focus on creating molecular recording devices for other cell types and on enhancing their current CRISPR recorder to memorize biological information.
“One day, we may be able to follow all the developmental decisions that a differentiating neuron is taking from an early stem cell to a highly-specialized type of cell in the brain, leading to a better understanding of how basic biological and developmental processes are choreographed,” stated Shipman in the Harvard Gazette story. Ultimately, the approach could lead to better methods for generating cells for regenerative therapy, disease modeling, drug testing, and clinical laboratory testing.
According to Shipman in the BBC News article, these cells could “encode information about what’s going on in the cell and what’s going on in the cell environment by writing that information into their own genome.”
This field of research is still new and its full potential is not yet understood. However, if this capability can be developed, there could be opportunities for pathologists and molecular chemists to develop methods for in vivo monitoring of a patient’s cell function. These methods could prove to be an unexpected new way for clinical laboratories to add value and become more engaged with the clinical care team.
—JP Schlingman
Related Information:
New CRISPR Technology Takes Cells to the Movies
Molecular Recordings by Directed CRISPR Spacer Acquisition
GIF and Image Written into the DNA of Bacteria
Pro and Con: Should Gene Editing be Performed on Human Embryos?
CRISPR Gene Editing Can Cause Hundreds of Unintended Mutations
Intellia Therapeutics Announces Patent for CRISPR/Cas Genome Editing in China
Everything You Need to Know about CRISPR, the New Tool that Edits DNA
Breakthrough DNA Editor Born of Bacteria
Patent Dispute over CRISPR Gene-Editing Technology May Determine Who Will Be
Top Biologists Call for Moratorium on Use of CRISPR Gene Editing Tool for Clinical Purposes Because of Concerns about Unresolved Ethical Issues
Aug 21, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
However, the distinction between how the two different types of diagnostic tests are intended to be used still confuses many physicians and healthcare professionals
Companion diagnostics are well-known to medical laboratorians. However, the new-breed of complementary diagnostics might not be as familiar. As the pharmaceutical pipeline increasingly becomes filled with test-dependent new drug therapies, medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups may need to sharpen their understanding of companion and complementary diagnostics to broaden their laboratory test portfolios and keep pace with the growing demand for these new diagnostics.
Companion Diagnostics
Currently in the US, 30 companion diagnostic assays have been approved governing the use of 19 therapeutic drugs, according to a recent NCBI table published in Clinical and Translational Science.
The FDA defines a companion diagnostic as a “medical device, often an in vitro device, which provides information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding drug or biological product. The test helps a healthcare professional determine whether a particular therapeutic product’s benefits to patients will outweigh any potential serious side effects or risks.”
Because a companion diagnostic device is “essential for the safe and effective use” of the drug to which it has been assigned, it is identified on the drug’s product label.
The anti-HER2 drug Herceptin, for example, is a commonly prescribed breast-cancer therapy drug that in its various forms comes with one of 11 companion diagnostic devices. As a requirement of Herceptin’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the agency requires pathologists to use a companion diagnostic test to confirm a patient’s over expression of HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor2) protein before prescribing Herceptin. The other HER2-directed therapies have their own assigned companion diagnostic.
Complementary Diagnostics Is a Growing Opportunity for Clinical Labs
Now, nearly two decades after companion diagnostics first made headlines, pathologists are encountering a new concept—complementary diagnostics. Unlike companion diagnostics, complementary diagnostics aid the therapeutic decision process, but are not required when prescribing the corresponding drug.
In an interview with Dark Daily, Debra Harrsch, President and Chief Executive Officer of Philadelphia-based Brandwidth Solutions, noted that the addition of complementary diagnostics adds a layer of complexity to the diagnostics landscape for pathologists and other healthcare professionals.
“The diagnostics landscape is not only expanding in size and scope, it is also becoming increasingly complex as growth in biomarker– and genomic-based test strategies fuels progress in personalized medicine,” she stated.
Peggy Robinson (left), US Vice President of ANGLE plc, and, Debra Harrsch (right), President and CEO of Brandwidth Solutions in Philadelphia, spoke with Dark Daily on the differences and values of companion versus complementary diagnostics. “The role that companion diagnostics can have in driving personalized medicine is already leaving its mark with drugs such as Herceptin. The impact of complementary diagnostics and how the two types of tests come to share the stage awaits to be seen,” they noted. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
Peggy Robinson, US Vice President of ANGLE plc, a global liquid biopsy diagnostic company, explained that the lack of a regulatory link to a specific testing technology is the critical distinction between a complementary and a companion diagnostic.
“A companion diagnostic is one of the gateways for you to receive a drug,” Robinson stated in the Dark Daily interview. “A complementary diagnostic can aid your physician in helping to determine what level of therapy would be appropriate for you, but it is not required.”
Pairing Clinical Laboratory Tests with Complementary Diagnostics
In 2015, Dako’s PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDX immunohistochemistry test, which determines PD-L1 protein in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, became the first FDA-approved complementary diagnostic, when it was paired with the drug Opdivo (Nivolumab).
At that time, Christopher Fikry, MD, then Vice President, Oncology, of Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX), praised the FDA’s introduction of the first complementary diagnostic. He noted in a statement that it would “give physicians greater understanding of treatment expectations with Opdivo and helpful information to communicate to patients.”
Clinical Laboratories Can Add Value to Their Patients’ Healthcare
The challenge for clinical laboratories and pathology groups will be keeping pace with a rapidly expanding catalog of available diagnostic tests. While the number of drugs (two) with FDA-approved complementary diagnostic tests remains small, Peter Keeling, CEO of Diaceutics, a global advisory group for the laboratory, diagnostic, and pharmaceutical industries, predicts that number will be rising.
In a 2016 webinar on companion versus complementary diagnostics, Keeling pointed out that 50% to 90% of products in development through 2020 at the top 10 pharmaceutical companies are test dependent. This highlights the importance of targeted therapies designed to advance the goals of personalized medicine.
Clinical Labs Can Build Out Test Menus with Complementary Diagnostics
“Laboratorians need to understand what type of technologies they are using to employ these diagnostics,” Robinson told Dark Daily. “As laboratory managers build out their test portfolios, they should be looking at the technology and asking, ‘Can I integrate that into my laboratory?’ so that when a new test comes out, they can offer it.”
Meanwhile, healthcare professionals have more work to do to understand the differences between companion versus complementary test labeling. In his webinar, Kelly noted that in a poll of 30 Opdivo/Keytruda prescribers, Diaceutics found:
- 40% of prescribers surveyed did not understand the differences between the PD-L1 test labels for Keytruda (Pembrolizumab), which requires a companion diagnostic, and Opdivo, which has an associated complementary diagnostic;
- 60% were unclear about the role of complementary testing; and
- 50% said their therapy decisions would be impacted if a laboratory used for PD-L1 testing offered only one test.
Harrsch told Dark Daily that “time will tell” whether complementary diagnostics can match the impact of companion diagnostics in improving healthcare outcomes.
Future of Complementary Diagnostics Still Uncertain
“The role companion diagnostics can have in driving personalized medicine is already leaving its mark with drugs such as Herceptin,” she said. “The impact of complementary diagnostics, and how the two types of tests come to share the stage, awaits to be seen.”
As the market for companion and complementary diagnostics expands beyond targeted therapies for oncology, clinical laboratories and pathology groups can position themselves to “add value” to their patients’ journey through the entire healthcare continuum. Robinson believes one key for pathologists going forward will be maintaining a “close working relationship” with client physicians in order to plan for future test offerings.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Companion and Complementary Diagnostics: Clinical and Regulatory Perspectives
Current Status of Companion and Complementary Diagnostics: Considerations for Development and Launch
Distinguishing Between Companion and Complementary Diagnostic Tests
Quest Diagnostics Introduces Dako’s PD-L1 Complementary Diagnostic Test to Support Bristol Myers Squibb’s OPDIVO Anti-PD-1 Therapy for Non-Squamous No-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Companion Versus Complementary Diagnostics
PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDX-P150025
Aug 16, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Undergoing genetic testing also can impact the cost and availability of life insurance in Australia, not just for the person who underwent the testing, but for their families as well
Concerns about direct-to-consumer genetic testing have led to stricter regulatory requirements for Clinical laboratories that perform genetic tests in Australia.
Starting in July 2017, medical laboratories that perform genetic testing must have accreditation by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA). And their tests must meet performance standards established by the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council. Manufacturers must also obtain a conformity assessment certificate from the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the organization that regulates medical devices, medicines, blood, and tissue in Australia.
According to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), there are currently 220 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) diagnostic tests available in Australia. There are 44 different laboratories located throughout the country that perform those tests. A database of the available tests and labs is maintained by the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA).
However, Australian citizens are not limited to just the tests and labs listed by the HGSA. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits, which are marketed through retail outlets, mail order, and the Internet, also can be used to obtain genetic information. However, receipt of genetic test results can be problematic and have negative consequences, say some experts.
Genetic Tests Can Cause Confusion; Affect Insurance
A recent paper, authored by researchers at Monash University, outlined apprehension about home genetic testing and how it can have a negative impact on people’s lives and insurance rates. The authors claim the tests can be misleading, noting concerns that the results are often interpreted by people who lack proper training. They cautioned that providers in other countries are not subject to the strict laws that govern genetic testing in Australia. Monash University is Australia’s largest university with facilities and campuses in Australia, Malaysia, South Africa, China, India, and Italy.
“In the age of individuality and consumer empowerment, some people want to take things into their own hands, but that’s not without its risks,” stated Ken Harvey, MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery), in a Special Broadcast Service (SBS) article. Dr. Harvey is an FRCPA (Pathologist) and Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine at Monash University, and one of the authors of the paper. “If you’re getting something over the internet it can be really difficult to assess whether that test has been accredited by a reputable independent authority.”
The chart above tracks the collective annual test volume of just three direct-to-consumer (DTC) providers of genetic test in the US. It illustrates the steep rise in DTC genetic test usage among US-based healthcare consumers. Clinical laboratories could chart a similar progression tracking the increase in DTC genetic testing they have performed in just the past few years. (Image copyright: University of Iowa Wiki.)
In addition, the results of home genetic tests have to be translated and explained to consumers by a medical professional, often a General Practitioner (GP), which, according to the Australian researchers, can lead to confusion.
“Though the results would go back to the GPs, many GPs really had no idea what to do with these results when they got them”, Harvey noted in the SBS article. “I’ve had GPs tell me one of their patients comes in clutching a handful of printouts about their genetic tests, and they say, ‘what am I meant to do with this?’”
Why Genetic Testing is Important
One person who understands the urge to try genetic testing is Heather Renton, Founder and President of Syndromes Without a Name (SWAN) Australia, a not-for-profit incorporated association and charity that works to increase awareness and understanding of the impact and prevalence of undiagnosed genetic conditions.
After being misdiagnosed multiple times, it was discovered that Renton’s daughter had the rare FOXP1 gene. Individuals with the FOXP1 genetic disorder have delayed speech and learning issues, sometimes with signs of autism. Symptoms of the condition include:
- Speech and learning disabilities;
- Immune system issues; and
- Behavioral abnormalities.
“People are sometimes so desperate for answers, [but] who’s to know that it’s credible—you might think you’ve got this gene and it might turn out that you don’t,” Renton stated in the SBS article.
“You might have a gene susceptible to breast cancer the older you get, but as a 20-year-old you have no idea you’ve got that,” she continued. “Life’s a lottery game.”
Why Genetic Testing Can Cause Problems
Nevertheless, some individuals may not welcome the results that genetic testing could reveal.
“If you get one of these batteries of genetic tests, the implication is these are genetic conditions that can be inherited; the results are not just important or significant to you, but to your family members, your children, etc.,” Harvey stressed. “The implications go beyond a particular person—and not everyone wants to know.”
“For some families, it’s been life shattering to find out they’ve actually passed this condition on to their child, and they carry this guilt,” Renton added.
Genetic Test Results Can Affect Insurance Premiums/Availability
Results of genetic tests also could affect the costs and availability of life insurance policies in Australia that went into effect after July.
Under the Insurance Contracts Act, Australians applying for life insurance are required to disclose:
- Their medical history;
- Information about the health of first degree relatives (parents, siblings, and children); and
- The known results of any genetic testing.
Life insurance policies in Australia are guaranteed renewable. This means consumers do not have to inform insurers of changes in their medical conditions after policies have been issued. It is forbidden for insurers to demand that consumers have any genetic testing performed. However, if a consumer has had a genetic test performed and knows the results before the policy is issued, those results must be divulged to the insurer. That information can then be used to determine policy rates or deny coverage.
Could This Happen In the US?
In the United States, some genetic testing is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the processes that oversee medical devices. The FDA has proposed regulating laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), which would bring more genetic testing under the agency’s scrutiny. As direct-to-consumer genetic testing becomes more advanced and is marketed to the public, it is probable that regulatory oversight of labs performing these tests also will increase in an effort to protect the public. Thus, clinical laboratories and pathology groups are advised to monitor this situation in Australia. Similar regulatory actions could be taken in the US as well.
—JP Schlingman
Related Information:
‘Not Everyone Wants to Know’: Warnings Over Genetic Tests
Warning Over Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests
Retail Genetics
Growth in DTC Genetic Testing
Thinking About Life Insurance Through a Genetic Lens
Life Insurance Products and Genetic Testing in Australia
British Health Authorities Criticize Medical Laboratory Tests for Consumers
Medical Laboratory Tests for Consumers Under Investigation on Two Continents
Aug 9, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Additionally, the device also could help reduce antibiotic-resistant infections and other HAIs and HACs, though this result was not part of the study
Research findings indicate how a new system-in-a-box device that phlebotomists and clinical laboratories would use when drawing blood could reduce contamination of blood cultures and lower patients’ use of antibiotics. In a study involving 1,800 blood cultures done on 904 patients at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), use of the device was attributed to an 88% reduction in the blood culture contamination rate.
Developed by Magnolia Medical Technologies, the SteriPath Initial Specimen Diversion Device (ISDD) is compatible with standard BD and bioMérieux blood collection tubes and culture bottles, and has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing in the United States.
According to a press release by researchers at UNMC who studied the device, “With traditional blood draws, about 30% to 40% of patients with contaminated blood cultures are prescribed antibiotics unnecessarily. This contributes to antibiotic resistance and undermines nationwide efforts to improve antimicrobial stewardship.” The researchers reported their findings in an article published in the Oxford Academic journal Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID).
Blood Culture Contamination Harms Patients and Increases Cost of Care
The UNMC researchers noted that, during a blood draw, a significant percentage of blood cultures become contaminated when skin fragments containing bacteria are dislodged and mix with the patient’s blood. For the thousands of patients each day who have their blood drawn, contaminated blood cultures, which lead to false positive results for sepsis, often result in unnecessary antibiotic treatment. This in turn can lead to serious and deadly antibiotic-resistant infections with various multi-drug-resistant organisms such as Clostridium difficile infection (C. diff), as well as, other hospital-acquired infections and conditions (HAIs & HACs) due to unnecessary extended length of stay, according to Mark Rupp, MD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, and Medical Director, Department of Healthcare Epidemiology-Infection Control at UNMC.
In the CID article, Rupp and colleagues reported on a prospective, controlled trial conducted in the emergency department (ED) at UNMC’s partner hospital Nebraska Medicine. Results of the trial showed that the SteriPath ISDD diverts and sequesters the first 1.5 to 2 mL portion of blood. The researchers presumed that these initial drops of blood would contain the contaminating skin cells and microbes.
SteriPath is a self-contained, preassembled, sterile blood collection system. It provides proprietary vein-to-bottle technology that significantly reduces blood culture contamination, according to Magnolia Medical Technologies. This could be useful for helping phlebotomists and clinical laboratories improve the quality of specimens collected for use in blood culture testing. Click on the image above to view videos on the SteriPath ISDD. (Photo copyright: Magnolia Medical Technologies.)
The researchers tested the SteriPath ISDD during standard phlebotomy procedures in patients requiring blood cultures. After drawing 1,808 blood cultures from 904 study subjects, the researchers concluded that the ISDD significantly reduced blood culture contamination compared with standard phlebotomy procedures. The blood culture contamination among phlebotomists who used the ISDD decreased by nearly 90%, compared to phlebotomy procedures conducted by nurses who did not use the ISDD.
“We were able to decrease the false positive rate significantly through use of this device—from 1.78% down to 0.2%, which represents an 88% reduction,” Rupp noted in the UNMC press release. “The 1.78% baseline rate of contamination may seem small, but we should strive to decrease adverse events to the lowest possible level, because of the impact to the patient and the burden to our healthcare system.
“The device is innovative in that it diverts the first couple of milliliters of blood into the sequestration chamber,” Rupp explained. “That’s where we think the contaminants are. The remaining blood being drawn is then diverted into the sterile pathway into the blood culture vial, thereby preventing the contamination.”
Billions of Healthcare Dollars Could Be Saved with SteriPath’s ISDD
During a conference call with reporters, Rupp admitted that cynics might scoff at such a low rate of improvement. “Many of those folks don’t understand that we do tens of millions of blood cultures in this country every year,” he explained. “Every year, we do about 30 million or so blood cultures. That many cultures means a 2% contamination rate equates to somewhere in the neighborhood of about 600,000 contamination events. And 2% is a very respectable level. Usually clinicians are satisfied anywhere below about 3%, which is about 900,000 events each year.”
For about 40% to 50% of patients whose blood is contaminated, physicians will prescribe antibiotics, order another blood test, and require patients to stay several days in the hospital, he added. “All of this results in thousands of extra dollars being spent,” he declared. If each blood contamination case costs about $4,000, then reducing such contamination in potentially 600,000 cases each year could save more than $1 billion healthcare dollars.
According to the researchers, costs associated with blood culture contamination ranged from $1,000 per patient in 1998 to $8,700 per patient in 2009. “If a midpoint cost estimate of $4,850 is used, and the added cost of the device is not taken into account, it equates to a cost avoidance of $1.8 million per year at our institution alone,” Rupp stated. “If the low rate of contamination that we observed in the study, 0.22%, was applied to all blood cultures throughout the country, billions of dollars of excess costs could be avoided.”
This clinical study offers strong evidence that the SteriPath ISDD might prove to be a useful tool that clinical laboratories could use to help prevent unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and hospital stays, lower healthcare costs, and improve patient test outcomes. If the UNMC clinical study outcomes are replicated in future studies, then it is a technology and a solution that has the potential to be adopted by phlebotomists in medical laboratories and hospitals.
—Joseph Burns
Related Information:
Reduction in Blood Culture Contamination Through Use of Initial Specimen Diversion Device
Study Shows Device Reduces Blood Draw Contamination
Novel Device Significantly Reduces Blood Draw Contamination, Reduces Risks to Patients, Study Shows
Better Care by Reducing Blood Culture Contamination: Sepsis, SteriPath and Antimicrobial Stewardship
Study by Mark Rupp, MD, in Clinical Infectious Diseases: Reduction in Blood Culture Contamination Through Use of Initial Specimen Diversion Device (SteriPath)
