Supplychain shortages involving clinical laboratory products may not ease up any time soon, as China’s largest shipping province is once again in COVID-19 lockdown
Following two years of extremely high demand, pathology laboratories as well as non-medical labs in the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe are experiencing significant shortages of laboratory resources as well as rising costs. That’s according to a recently released survey by Starlab Group, a European supplier of lab products.
In its latest annual “mood barometer” survey of around 200 lab professionals in the UK, Germany, Austria, Italy, and France, Starlab Group received reports of “empty warehouses” and a current shortage of much needed lab equipment, reportedly as a result of rising costs, high demand, and stockpiling of critical materials needed by pathology laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Laboratory News.
The survey respondents, who represented both medical laboratories and research labs, noted experiencing more pressure from staff shortages and insufficient supplies required to meet testing demands in 2021 as compared to 2020. For example, only 23% of respondents said they had enough liquid handling materials—such as protective gloves and pipettes—in 2021, down from 39% who responded to the same question in 2020.
“The entire laboratory industry has been in a vicious circle for two years. While more and more materials are needed, there’s a lack of supplies. At the same time, laboratories want to stockpile material, putting additional pressure on demand, suppliers, and prices,” Denise Fane de Salis, Starlab’s UK Managing Director and Area Head for Northern Europe, told Process Engineering. “Institutes that perform important basic work cannot keep up with the price competition triggered by COVID-19 and are particularly suffering from this situation,” she added.
“COVID-19 is the largest, but by no means the only challenge facing Europe’s laboratories,” Denise Fane de Salis (above), Starlab’s UK Managing Director and Area Head for Northern Europe, told Laboratory News. “The mood barometer we commissioned once again clearly shows that we need to look at the entire range of laboratory work. The laboratory sector is not only essential in medicine and research. Diagnostics have long since encompassed almost all areas of life and the economy.” Those in this country responsible for clinical laboratory supply chains should consider what Salis is advising. (Photo copyright: Starlab UK.)
Lab Supply Shortages Worsen in 2021
With a UK office in Milton Keynes, Starlab’s network of distributors specialize in liquid handling products including pipette tips, multi-channel pipettes, and cell culture tubes, as well as PCR test consumables and nitrile and latex gloves.
According to Laboratory News, Starlab’s 2021 annual survey, released in March 2022, found that:
64% cited late deliveries contributing to supply woes.
58% noted medical labs getting preference over research labs, up from 46% in 2020.
57% said demand for liquid handling products was the same as 2020.
30% of respondents said material requirements were up 50% in 2021, compared to 2020.
76% reported dealing with rising prices in lab operations.
29% expect their need for materials to increase by 25% in 2022, and 3% said the increase may go as high as 50%.
17% of respondents said they foresee challenges stemming from staff shortages, with 8% fearing employee burnout.
UK-European Medical Laboratories on Waiting Lists for Supplies
Could import of lab equipment and consumables from Asia and other areas outside UK have contributed to the shortages?
“A substantial portion of the world’s clinical laboratory automation, analyzers, instruments, and test kits are manufactured outside UK. Thus, UK labs may face a more acute shortage of lab equipment, tests, and consumables because governments in countries that manufacture these products are taking ‘first dibs’ on production, leaving less to ship to other countries,” said Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report.
Indeed, a statement on Starlab’s website describes challenges the company faces meeting customers’ requests for supplies.
“The pandemic also has an impact on our products that are manufactured in other countries. This particularly affects goods that we ship from the Asian region to Europe by sea freight. Due to the capacity restrictions on the ships, we expect additional costs for the transport of goods at any time. Unfortunately, the situation is not expected to ease for the time-being,” Starlab said.
Furthermore, economists are forecasting probable ongoing supply chain effects from a new SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in China.
Lockdown of China’s Largest Shipping Province Threatens Supply Chains Worldwide
According to Bloomberg News, “Shenzhen’s 17.5 million residents [were] put into lockdown on [March 13] for at least a week. The city is located in Guangdong, the manufacturing powerhouse province, which has a gross domestic product of $1.96 trillion—around that of Spain and South Korea—and which accounts for 11% of China’s economy … Guangdong’s $795 billion worth of exports in 2021 accounted for 23% of China’s shipments that year, the most of any province.”
Bloomberg noted that “restrictions in Shenzhen could inflict the heaviest coronavirus-related blow to growth since a nationwide lockdown in 2020, with the additional threat of sending supply shocks rippling around the world.”
“Given that China is a major global manufacturing hub and one of the most important links in global supply chains, the country’s COVID policy can have notably spillovers to its trading partners’ activity and the global economy,” Tuuli McCully, Head of Asia-Pacific Economies, Scotiabank, told Bloomberg News.
Wise medical laboratory leaders will remain apprised of supply chain developments and possible lockdowns in Asia while also locating and possibly securing new sources for test materials and laboratory equipment in anticipation of future supply shortages.
Though the variant poses low risk thanks to modern HIV treatments, the scientists stress the importance of access to early clinical laboratory testing for at-risk individuals
With the global healthcare industry hyper focused on arrival of the next SARS-CoV-2 variant, pathologists and clinical laboratories may be relieved to learn that—though researchers in the Netherlands discovered a previously unknown “highly virulent” strain of HIV—the lead scientist of the study says there’s “no cause for alarm.”
In a news release, researchers at the University of Oxford Big Data Institute said the HIV variant got started in the Netherlands in the 1990s, spread quickly into the 2000s, and that prior to treatment, people with the new virulent subtype B (VB variant) had exceptionally high viral loads compared to people with other HIV variants.
Fortunately, the scientist also found that around 2010, thanks to antiretroviral drug therapy, the severe variant began to decline.
In an interview with NPR, Chris Wymant, PhD, the study’s lead author, said, “People with this variant have a viral load that is three to four times higher than usual for those with HIV. This characteristic means the virus progresses into serious illness twice as fast, and also makes it more contagious.”
Fortunately, he added, “Existing medications work very well to treat even very virulent variants like this one, cutting down on transmission and reducing the chance of developing severe illness.
“Nobody should be alarmed,” he continued. “It responds exactly as well to treatment as HIV normally does. There’s no need to develop special treatments for this variant.”
Wymant is senior researcher in statistical genetics and pathogen dynamics at the Big Data Institute (BDI).
Epidemiologist Chris Wymant, PhD (above), lead author of the Big Data Institute study at Oxford University, says today’s modern HIV antiretroviral drug therapies effectively treat for the “highly viral” HIV VB variant he and his team discovered. “Nobody should be alarmed,” he told NPR. “It responds exactly as well to treatment as HIV normally does.” Nevertheless, he stressed the importance of access to early clinical laboratory testing for at-risk individuals. (Photo copyright: Oxford Big Data Institute.)
In their published study, the BDI researchers reported that their analysis of genetic sequences of the VB variant suggested it “arose in the 1990s from de novo (of new) mutation, not recombination, with increased transmissibility and an unfamiliar molecular mechanism of virulence.
“By the time, they were diagnosed, these individuals were vulnerable to developing AIDS within two to three years. The virus lineage, which has apparently arisen de novo since around the millennium, shows extensive change across the genome affecting almost 300 amino acids, which makes it hard to discern the mechanism for elevated virulence,” the researchers noted.
The researchers analyzed a data set from the project BEEHIVE (Bridging the Epidemiology and Evolution of HIV in Europe and Uganda). They found 15 of 17 people positive for the VB variant residing in the Netherlands. That prompted them to focus on a cohort of more than 6,700 Dutch HIV positive people in the ATHENA (AIDS Therapy Evaluation in the Netherlands) cohort database, where they found 92 more individuals with the VB variant, bringing the total to 109.
According to a Medscape report on the study’s findings, people with the VB variant showed the following characteristics:
Double the rate of CD4-positive T-cell declines (indicator of immune system damage by HIV), compared to others with subtype-B strains.
Increased risk of infecting others with the virus based on transmissibility associated with variant branching.
Wymant says access to clinical laboratory testing is key to curtailing the number of people who contract the VB variant. “Getting people tested as soon as possible, getting them onto treatment as soon as possible, has helped reduce the numbers of this variant even though we didn’t know that it existed,” he told NPR.
The University of Oxford Big Data Institute study is another example of how constantly improving genome sequencing technology allows scientists to dig deeper into genetic material for insights that can advance the understanding of many diseases and health conditions.
Medical laboratory company’s patients in Southwest England previously had tested positive for COVID-19 ona Lateral Flow Device
If providing accurate test results is key to maintaining trust with healthcare consumers, a private COVID-19 testing laboratory in the United Kingdom (UK) may have permanently damaged its reputation after reporting an estimated 43,000 false negative COVID-19 RT-PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test results over a five-week span between September 8, 2021, and October 12, 2021.
For now, Immensa Health Clinic Ltd., a subsidiary of DNA testing company Dante Labs, had its testing operations suspended on October 15 while the UK Health Security Agency (UKSA) investigates the cause of false negative PCR test results from the company’s lab in Wolverhampton, England. The test results went out to people who previously had tested positive for COVID-19 on a lateral flow device (LFD).
“We have recently seen a rising number of positive LFD results subsequently testing negative on PCR. As a result of our investigation, we are working with NHS Test and Trace and the company to determine the laboratory technical issues which have led to inaccurate PCR results being issued to people. We have immediately suspended testing at this laboratory while we continue the investigation,” said Will Welfare, MBChB, Public Health Incident Director, UK Health Security Agency, in a UKHSA statement.
“There is no evidence of any faults with LFD or PCR test kits themselves and the public should remain confident in using them and in other laboratory services currently provided,” he added.
UK Government Officials Question How Lab Won Lucrative COVID-19 Testing Contracts
Immensa was awarded a £119 million (US$163.37 million) coronavirus testing contract by the British government in October 2020, just months after it was founded by Andrea Riposati, owner/CEO of Dante Labs, which has clinical laboratories in the UK, Italy, and the United Arab Emirates. The company’s corporate headquarters are in New York City while its scientific operations are based in the UK.
“Serious questions have to be asked about how this private firm—[which] didn’t exist before May 2020—was awarded a lucrative £120 million (US$164.64 million) contract to run this lab,” Member of Parliament (MP) Jonathan Ashworth (above), Labor Party Shadow Health Secretary, told The Guardian. “From duff PPE [personal protective equipment] to failing test kits, ministers have sprayed around tax money like confetti and utterly failed to deliver the service people deserve,” he added. (Photo copyright: The Mirror.)
NHS Test and Trace, the government program to track and help prevent the spread of COVID-19, has advised people who received the false test results, but who may still be infectious, to be retested.
In responding to the UKHSA’s action, Riposati pointed to Immensa’s track record and reiterated the laboratory’s emphasis on quality.
“We are fully collaborating with UKHSA on this matter. Quality is paramount for us,” Riposati said in the UKHSA statement. “We have proudly analyzed more than 2.5 million samples for NHS Test and Trace, working closely with the great teams at DHSC and UKHSA. We do not wish this matter or anything else to tarnish the amazing work done by the UK in this pandemic.”
Clinical Laboratories Not Accredited to Perform COVID-19 Testing
However, on October 18, 2021, The Guardian reported that the Immensa Health Clinic was not accredited by the UKAS, the UK’s independent accreditation service, before being appointed to perform COVID-19 testing. Dante Labs also has not been awarded UKAS accreditation, according to the newspaper report.
Government officials previously maintained that Immensa was “accredited to all of the appropriate standards.”
Immensa first made headlines in January 2021 when The Sun published an expose´ that included video of employees fighting, drinking, and bragging about watching porn while working at the clinical laboratory.
News of the testing failure at Immensa caused Tory MP Nigel Mills to tell The Sun, “This place should have been shut down for good when The Sun ran its [original] story. It is shocking it has been allowed to remain open and now there is an enormous mess.
“It’s a disgrace,” he added. “If shortcomings have emerged in the process here—which I strongly imagine they have—then heads should roll. The investigation should widen out and an audit should be carried out into other testing companies.”
Dante Labs Under Other Investigations
Immensa’s parent company, Dante Labs, is also under investigation in the UK due to concerns the company “may be treating its customers unfairly.”
A statement from the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), outlined the UK government’s probe into Dante Labs. The statement cited the lab for:
Potentially not delivering PCR tests and/or results on time or at all,
Failing to respond to complaints or provide proper customer service,
Refusing or delaying refunds when requested, and
Providing terms and conditions that may unfairly limit consumers’ rights.
According to The Guardian, Dante Labs’ US operation also faced scrutiny in 2018 after the company admitting it had sent five used DNA test kits to people containing the saliva of other people. Dante Labs maintained its shipping company was the cause of the error.
US Labs Also Face Scrutiny over False Negative Test Results
Since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020, there have been only a limited number of news accounts about clinical laboratories that reported a substantial number of inaccurate COVID-19 test results, either in the United States or the United Kingdom. In the US, there has been more news coverage of the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuting lab owners and related parties for submitting fraudulent claims for COVID-19 tests.
But the absence of those news accounts does not mean that there have been no incidents in the US where a lab testing company reported significant numbers of inaccurate COVID-19 test results.
In 2020, for example, Dark Daily reported on how Abbott Lab’s ID NOW COVID-19 rapid molecular test faced scrutiny over false negatives resulting in the FDA issuing a public warning about the point-of-care test’s accuracy after receiving 15 “adverse event reports” indicating some patients were receiving “false negative results.”
Then on June 22, 2020, KHN reported that the FDA had “received a total of 106 reports of adverse events for the Abbott test, a staggering increase. The agency has not received a single adverse event report for any other point-of-care tests meant to diagnose COVID-19.”
The UK lab’s failures are simply the latest example of how inaccurate test results erode the trust of healthcare consumers and draw the ire of politicians and government regulators. In this case, however, poor government oversight of a newly minted COVID-19 testing laboratory should face equal scrutiny.
Under-resourced British healthcare system faces a record high backlog of care with 5.61 million people in England waiting for hospital-based medical procedures
Healthcare in the United Kingdom (UK) is about to become much more expensive. The UK government has announced plans to substantially increase payroll taxes to fund the surging demand for care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But that may only be the part of the healthcare-funding iceberg visible above the surface. Below the surface is a healthcare system where wait times for access to many types of care—including cancer diagnoses—are already unacceptable.
Some pathologists and medical laboratory executives in the US who have long questioned healthcare reformers’ desire to introduce an NHS-like single-payer healthcare system in this country will not be surprised to learn that the UK’s notoriously underfunded National Health Service (NHS) is facing a record waitlist for hospital-based medical diagnostic tests and procedures.
Consequently, Reuters reported, the high cost of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed British Prime Minister Boris Johnson into breaking with election promises and announcing plans to raise payroll taxes to record levels so that more money can be funneled into the struggling government-run healthcare system.
Speaking to lawmakers in the House of Commons, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (above) acknowledged his tax plan breaks his Conservative Party’s election year pledge to not raise VAT (value-added tax), income, or national insurance taxes. He insists that the COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for the national health system. “I accept that this breaks a manifesto commitment, which is not something I do lightly, but a global pandemic was in no one’s manifesto,” he told lawmakers, Reuters reported. (Photo copyright: The Independent.)
5.6M People on Growing NHS Waiting List for Treatments and Procedures
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck the UK in March 2020, the NHS suspended elective surgeries such as hip or knee replacements and cataract removal and postponed many patients’ medical laboratory diagnostic tests.
In “Record 5.6M People in England Waiting for Hospital Treatment,” The Guardian estimated that 1.4 million patients were added to the waiting lists during the pandemic’s first 18 months. More than one-third of the 5.6 million people waiting for care in July 2021 had been on a waitlist for at least 18 months, the paper noted. Since then, the waiting list has grown by 150,000 people per month, as more people who did not seek or could not access NHS treatments during the pandemic returned to their doctors’ offices.
Johnson’s tax hike formula for fixing the record NHS backlog and improving social care for the elderly created shockwaves in the UK’s Conservative Party, which, like the Republican Party in this country, has championed low taxes. But Johnson maintains the government is out of options.
“It would be wrong for me to say that we can pay for this recovery without taking the difficult but responsible decisions about how we finance it,” Johnson told Parliament. “It would be irresponsible to meet the costs from higher borrowing and higher debt,” he added.
But Johnson’s proposal drew the wrath of some members of his own party and provided the opposition Labor Party with ammunition to denounce the prime minister’s leadership during the pandemic.
In “U.K. Is Among First Western Nations to Increase Taxes to Cover COVID-19 Costs,” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that Labor Party leader Keir Starmer compared Johnson’s tax increases to putting a bandage “on gaping wounds that his party inflicted,” and questioned why they weren’t levied more directly on the rich. The UK government says the wealthiest 14% will pay about half of the extra tax revenues, the WSJ noted.
“This is a tax rise that breaks a promise that the prime minister made at the last election … Read my lips, the Tories can never again claim to be the party of low tax,” Starmer told Reuters.
The BBC graphic above illustrates how the tax hikes, which were approved by the Parliament on September 8 by a 319 to 248 vote, will increase the national insurance payroll tax paid by workers and employers by 1.25% each. CNBC reported that the UK government projects the increased taxes will raise £36 billion (US$49.6 billion) over the next three years. (Graphic copyright: BBC.)
Politics versus Hard Facts
According to The Guardian, in 2023-2024, national insurance contributions will be rebranded as a health and social care levy, with more of the money raised going to social care. The added funding will enable the UK government to implement a new cap on total care costs so that no individual will pay more than £86,000 (US$117,142) over their lifetime for social-care programs. Currently, many seniors are forced to sell their homes to meet unexpected care costs, the newspaper noted.
“One message to voters and investors is that taxes are set to rise for years to come,” the WSJ editorial board wrote, predicting the cost of social care will escalate as the UK’s population ages, and that the planned diversion of future taxes for social care will be presented as a “cut” in NHS funding. They maintained that the danger in Johnson’s decision goes deeper than breaking an election campaign pledge or nationalizing more of the UK’s healthcare economy.
“The larger problem is that national healthcare and other entitlements become ever more unaffordable even as they are politically impossible to reform,” the newspaper stated. “The Tories are becoming tax collectors for the entitlement state, which is deadly for parties of the right.”
Bloomberg noted that the UK Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts the planned April 1 tax increase will “raise the UK tax burden to its highest-ever sustained level since records began in 1955—about 35% of national income.”
But, according to the UK-based The Health Foundation, at £2,646.95 (US$3,648.43) per person in 2019, the United Kingdom spends less on healthcare than many developed countries. Less per person than the:
US (£6,782.80),
Germany (£4,131.21),
France (£3,307.54),
Japan (£2,949.19) and
Canada (£2,823.07).
And when healthcare costs are viewed as a percentage of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP), the UK (8% GDP) lags behind the US (13.9%), Germany (9.9%), Japan (9.3%) and France (9.3%) and exceeds only Canada (7.6%) and Italy (6.4%).
While US hospitals, healthcare systems, and patients continue to struggle with ever-increasing healthcare costs, reformers who promote a single-payer healthcare system as an answer to this nation’s healthcare ills may want to take a hard look at the outcomes of the UK’s model.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists interested in how the US healthcare system can be improved might be well-served to study the experience of the National Health Service in the UK, that, like all other health systems in the world, has its own unique methods for how it serves its population.
FDA cites ‘risk of false results’ and concerns about labeling and ‘performance claims’ in its official warning letter to Innova, a company with connections to Chinese firms
By many standards, the US government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been phenomenal. However, the many emergency use authorizations (EUAs) awarded by the US federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to bring as many COVID-19 tests to market as quickly as possible means some of those tests in use today at clinical laboratories nationwide have not undergone the normal pre-market review and clearance typically required by the FDA.
But in its recall announcement, the FDA described Innova’s recall of its SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test as a “Class 1 recall” and gave the stern warning, “Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death.”
And in its public Safety Communication, the federal agency wrote, “The FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health. In addition, labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests. Finally, the test has not been authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA for commercial distribution or use in the United States, as required by law.”
In May 2021, Innova Medical Group of Pasadena, Calif., announced it would start producing millions of its COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid test kits (above) per day in the United Kingdom by opening a production facility in Rhymney, South Wales. (Photo copyright: Innova Medical Group, Inc.)
FDA Warns Public to Stop Using Innova’s Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Test
Widescale COVID-19 testing has been viewed as key to containing community spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and fast, inexpensive rapid COVID-19 testing is a necessity in that fight.
However, as clinical laboratory scientists know, rapid tests are not as specific as molecular polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, which means there is a higher chance of false negatives and false positives with a COVID-19 rapid test than with a molecular test. When diagnosing COVID-19, a PCR test is considered the gold-standard, though results can take multiple days to produce.
Nevertheless, according to the Innova Europe website, the Innova rapid antigen test has a sensitivity on symptomatic individuals of 97% and a specificity of 99% and is the most widely used test in the world. More than 500 million units are in circulation.
Regardless, in its June 10th warning, the FDA called for the public to stop using the Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid test for diagnostic use.
“The FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health,” the FDA stated. “In addition, labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests. Finally, the test has not been authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA for commercial distribution or use in the United States, as required by law.”
In its warning, the FDA recommended anyone in possession of Innova tests “destroy the tests by placing them in the trash” or return the tests to Innova.
The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid test is also distributed under the names:
Innova COVID-19 Self-Test Kit (3T Configuration),
Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Test (7T Configuration), and
Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Test (25T Configuration).
Innova Medical Group was formed in March 2020 by Charles Huang, PhD, founder and chairman of private-equity firm Pasaca Capital. The Pasaca website states Innova worked with its primary contract manufacturer, China-based Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology Co., for several months to design “a highly accurate rapid antigen test for COVID-19.”
“The simple test takes less than five minutes to administer and generates results in as little as 20 minutes without the need for a machine,” the website states. “Equally important, Innova and its partner have been able to manufacture the product at scale, presently in excess of ten million kits per day.”
However, The Los Angeles Times claims that in September 2020 Innova “secured a vast supply of rapid coronavirus tests from an obscure Chinese manufacturer before established pharmaceutical companies could do so.” The LA Times adds that Innova distributed more than 70,000 tests in the United States even though the FDA had not acted on Innova’s application to sell its tests domestically.
This may have contributed to the FDA’s dire warning to discontinue use and discard the Innova tests.
UK’s MHRA Disagrees with FDA Warning
But in the UK, it is a different story. According to The Guardian, Innova’s lateral flow tests are the cornerstone of “Operation Moonshot”, the government’s mass testing plan aimed at reducing community transmission by identifying asymptomatic COVID-19 positive people using an inexpensive, quick-response test distributed for home use and to workplaces, schools, and test centers.
In “Rapid COVID Tests Used in Mass UK Programme Get Scathing US Report,” The Guardian reports that “criticism of the Innova test has been fierce” in the UK following the FDA’s “scathing review” of its rapid antigen test. However, after investigating the concerns raised by the FDA, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reiterated that the Innova lateral flow tests were safe to use.
“We have now concluded our review of the risk assessment and are satisfied that no further action is necessary or advisable at this time,” said Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Director of Devices, in a UK government response statement which announced that the MHRA was extending the Exceptional Use Authorization (EUA) for the tests use in its national asymptomatic testing program through Aug. 28, 2021. “This has allowed us to extend the EUA to allow ongoing supply of these [lateral flow devices] over the coming months. People can be assured of the MHRA’s work to continuously monitor the tests in use; as is our standard process.”
Innova Defends Its Test, FDA Repeats Its Warning
An Innova spokesperson told The Guardian: “The Innova rapid antigen test has been widely used, studied, tested, scrutinized and analyzed with data supporting the efficacy of the test from the largest mass testing program out of the UK. Innova is confident about the quality of its product.”
However, the FDA maintains Innova’s COVID-19 lateral flow test included labeling that provided “false and misleading” estimates of the test’s clinical performance. In its warning letter to Innova, the FDA also pointed out that the clinical study data Innova submitted as part of its EUA request was “identical to data previously provided by other manufacturers in their EUA requests. The data reliability and accuracy issues noted herein raise significant concerns that the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test has not been adequately established, and that the products distributed by Innova without FDA approval, clearance, or authorization could present a serious risk to the public health.”
Pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals in this country will want to watch carefully to see if efforts to increase regulatory scrutiny of diagnostic tests in the UK spills across the Atlantic.
