Viral reservoir could be behind persistence, says study, which also suggests a blood biomarker could be found for clinical laboratory testing
Microbiologists and virologists working closely with physicians treating long COVID-19 patients will gain new insights in a study that found coronavirus spike protein in COVID-19 patients’ blood up to 12 months after diagnosis. The researchers believe their findings could be used to develop a clinical laboratory biomarker for long COVID-19.
Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital said medical experts are not sure why some people have unwelcome symptoms weeks and months after a positive COVID-19 diagnosis, while others clear the infection without lingering effects.
The scientists believe if this work is validated, clinical laboratories might gain an assay to use in the diagnosis of long COVID-19.
“The half-life of spike protein in the body is pretty short, so its presence indicates that there must be some kind of active viral reservoir,” said David Walt, PhD (above), Professor of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and lead author of the study that found coronavirus spike protein in long COVID patients. The study findings indicate a potential clinical laboratory biomarker for long COVID-19. (Photo copyright: Brigham and Women’s Hospital.)
Viral Reservoir Possibly Behind Long COVID-19
The study suggests that SARS-CoV-2 finds a home in the body, particularly the gastrointestinal tract, “through viral reservoirs, where it continues to release spike protein and trigger inflammation,” Medical News Today reported.
Lead author of the study David Walt, PhD, Professor of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Hansjörg Wyss Professor Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard Medical School, told The Guardian he “was motivated to carry out the study after earlier research by his colleagues detected genetic material from the COVID virus (viral RNA) in stool samples from children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (a rare but serious condition that often strikes around four weeks after catching COVID) as well as spike protein and a marker of gut leakiness in their blood.”
Long COVID—also known as long-haul COVID, post-COVID-19, or its technical name, post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 or PASC—can involve health problems continuing weeks, months, or even years after a positive diagnosis, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Symptoms of long COVID, according to the researchers, include:
fatigue,
loss of smell,
memory loss,
gastrointestinal distress, and
shortness of breath.
“If someone could somehow get to that viral load and eliminate it, it might lead to resolution of symptoms,” Walt told the Boston Globe, which noted that the researchers may explore a clinical trial involving antiviral drugs for treatment of long COVID-19.
Clues from Earlier Studies on Long COVID-19
Medical conditions that persisted following a COVID-19 infection have been studied for some time. In fact, in an earlier study, Walt and others found children who developed a multisystem inflammation syndrome weeks after being infected by SARS-CoV-2, according to their 2021 paper published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, titled, “Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Is Driven by Zonulin-Dependent Loss of Gut Mucosal Barrier.”
Although these earlier studies provided clues, the cause of PASC remains unclear, the researchers noted. They planned to take a more precise look at PASC biology by using appropriate sampling and patient recruitment.
“Disentangling the complex biology of PASC will rely on the identification of biomarkers that enable classification of patient phenotypes. Here, we analyze plasma samples collected from PASC and COVID-19 patients to determine the levels of SARS-CoV-2 antigens and cytokines and identify a blood biomarker that appears in the majority of PASC patients,” the researchers wrote.
Finding a Marker of a Persistent Infection
The researchers used plasma samples from 63 people with a previous SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis (37 also had PASC), Medical News Today reported. Over a 12-month period, the researchers’ findings included:
Detection in 65% of PASC samples of full-length spike, S1 spike, and nucleocapsid throughout the year of testing.
Spike detected in 60% of PASC patient samples, and not found in the COVID-19 samples.
In an interview with Scientific American, bioengineer Zoe Swank PhD, post-doctoral researcher, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and co-author of the study, said, “Our main hypothesis is that the spike protein is not causing the symptoms, but it’s just a marker that is released because you still have infection of some cells with SARS-CoV-2.”
In that article, Swank shared the scientists’ intent to do more research involving hundreds of samples over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic from many hospitals and people.
COVID-19 Not the Only Virus That Hangs On
Having a long-haul COVID-19 marker is a “game-changer,” according to an infectious disease expert who was not involved in the study.
“There has not so far been a clear, objective marker that is measurable in the blood of people experiencing long COVID-19,” Michael Peluso, MD, Assistant Professor, Medicine, University of California San Francisco, told Scientific American. “I hope their findings will hold up. It really would make a difference for a lot of people if a marker like this could be validated,” he added.
However, COVID-19 is not the only virus that could persist. Ebola also may linger in areas that skirt the immune system, such as the eye interior and central nervous system, according to a World Health Organization fact sheet.
Thus, medical laboratory leaders may want to follow the Brigham and Women’s Hospital research to see if the scientists validate their finding, discover a biomarker for long-haul COVID-19, and pursue a clinical trial for antiviral drugs. Such discoveries could have implications for how diagnostic professionals work with physicians to care for long COVID patients.
The focus of the ongoing GenoVA study is to “determine the clinical effectiveness of polygenic risk score testing among patients at high genetic risk for at least one of six diseases measured by time-to-diagnosis of prevalent or incident disease over 24 months,” according to the National Institutes of Health.
The scientists used data obtained from 36,423 patients enrolled in the Mass General Brigham Biobank. The six diseases they researched were:
The polygenic scores were then tested among 227 healthy adult patients to determine their risk for the six diseases. The researchers found that:
11% of the patients had a high-risk score for atrial fibrillation,
7% for coronary artery disease,
8% for diabetes, and
6% for colorectal cancer.
Among the subjects used for the study:
15% of the men in the study had a high-risk score for prostate cancer, and
13% of the women in the study had a high score for breast cancer.
The researchers concluded that the implementation of PRS may help improve disease prevention and management and give doctor’s a way to assess a patient’s risk for these conditions. They published their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, titled, “Development of a Clinical Polygenic Risk Score Assay and Reporting Workflow.”
“We have shown that [medical] laboratory assay development and PRS reporting to patients and physicians are feasible … As the performance of PRS continues to improve—particularly for individuals of underrepresented ancestry groups—the implementation processes we describe can serve as generalizable models for laboratories and health systems looking to realize the potential of PRS for improved patient health,” the researchers wrote.
Using PRS in Clinical Decision Support
Polygenetic risk scores examine multiple genetic markers for risk of certain diseases. A calculation based on hundreds or thousands of these genetic markers could help doctors and patients make personalized treatment decisions, a core tenet of precision medicine.
“As a primary care physician myself, I knew that busy physicians were not going to have time to take an entire course on polygenic risk scores. Instead, we wanted to design a lab report and informational resources that succinctly told the doctor and patient what they need to know to make a decision about using a polygenic risk score result in their healthcare,” epidemiologist Jason Vassy, MD, told The Harvard Gazette. Vassy is Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School at VA Boston Healthcare System and one of the authors of the research.
“This is another great example of precision medicine,” Jason Vassy, MD (above), Adjunct Assistant Professor, General Internal Medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, told WebMD. “There’s always been a tantalizing idea that someone’s genetic makeup might help tailor preventative medicine and treatment.” Personalized clinical laboratory testing is increasingly becoming based on an individual’s genetics. (Photo copyright: Harvard Medical School.)
Increasing Diversity of Patients in Genomic Research
The team did encounter some challenges during their analysis. Because most existing genomic research was performed on persons of European descent, the risk scores are less accurate among non-European populations. The researchers for this study addressed this limitation by applying additional statistical methods to qualify accurate PRS calculations across multiple racial groups.
“Researchers must continue working to increase the diversity of patients participating in genomics research,” said Matthew Lebo, PhD, Chief Laboratory Director, Laboratory Molecular Medicine, at Mass General Brigham and one of the authors of the study. “In the meantime, we were heartened to see that we could generate and implement valid genetic scores for patients of diverse backgrounds,” he told The Harvard Gazette.
The team hopes the scores may be utilized in the future to help doctors and patients make better decisions regarding preventative care and screenings.
“It’s easy to say that everyone needs a colonoscopy at age 45,” Vassy told WebMD. “But what if you’re such a low risk that you could put it off for longer? We may get to the point where we understand risk so much that someone may not need one at all.”
Future of PRS in Clinical Decision Making
The scientists plan to enroll more than 1,000 patients in a new program and track them for two years to assess how medical professionals use PRS in clinical care. It is feasible that patients who are at high risk for certain diseases may opt for more frequent screenings or take preventative medicines to mitigate their risk.
“Getting to that point will take time,” Vassy added. “But I can see this type of information playing a role in shared decision making between doctor and patient in the near future.”
The team also established resources and educational materials to assist both doctors and patients in using the scores.
“It’s still very early days for precision prevention,” Vassy noted, “but we have shown it is feasible to overcome some of the first barriers to bringing polygenic risk scores into the clinic.”
More research and studies are needed to prove the effectiveness of using PRS tests in clinical care and determine its role in customized treatment plans based on personal genetics. Nevertheless, pathologists and medical scientists will want to follow the GenoVA study.
“It is probably most helpful to think of polygenic risk scores as a risk factor for disease, not a diagnostic test or an indication that an individual will certainly develop the disease,” Vassy said. “Most diseases have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and a high polygenic risk score is just one piece of the puzzle.”
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers may want to stay informed as researchers in the GenoVA study tease new useful diagnostic insights from their ongoing study of the whole human genome. Meanwhile, the GenoVA team is moving forward with the 1,000-patient study with the expectation that this new knowledge may enable earlier and more accurate diagnoses of the health conditions that were the focus of the GenoVA study.
The study ‘shows that measurement using a urine test provides improved accuracy relative to other measurement methods, for example certain kinds of blood tests,’ a KI news release states
Researchers at the Karolinska Institute (KI) in Sweden have developed a non-invasive urine-based test that can identify what type of asthma a patient has and its severity. If developed into a clinical laboratory diagnostic, such a test also could give clinicians a better idea of what treatment is more likely to be effective—a core goal of precision medicine.
Another benefit of this methodology is that it is a non-invasive test. Should further studies conclude that this urine-based test produces accurate results acceptable for clinical settings, medical laboratories would certainly be interested in offering this assay, particularly for use in pediatric patients who are uncomfortable with the venipunctures needed to collect blood specimens. Also, given the incidence of asthma in the United States, there is the potential for a urine-based asthma test to generate a substantial number of test requests.
The objective of the study, according to the Karolinska Institute researchers, was “To test if urinary eicosanoid metabolites can direct asthma phenotyping.” The team used mass spectrometry to measured certain lipid biomarkers (prostaglandins and leukotrienes), which are known to play a key role in the inflammation that occurs during asthma attacks.
According to a KI news release, “The study is based on data from the U-BIOPRED study (Unbiased BIOmarkers in PREDiction of respiratory disease outcomes), which was designed to investigate severe asthma. The study included 400 participants with severe asthma, which often requires treatment with corticosteroid tablets, nearly 100 individuals with milder forms of asthma, and 100 healthy control participants.”
“We discovered particularly high levels of the metabolites of the mast cell mediator prostaglandin D2 and the eosinophil product leukotriene C4 in asthma patients with what is referred to as Type 2 inflammation. Using our methodology, we were able to measure these metabolites with high accuracy and link their levels to the severity and type of asthma,” said Johan Kolmert, PhD (above), a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolina Institute, and first author of the study, in the KI news release. If perfected, such accuracy could lead to effective precision medicine clinical laboratory tests. (Photo copyright: Karolinska Institute.)
More Accurate Testing Could Lead to Biomarker-guided Precision Medicine
In the US alone, 25,131,132 people currently suffer from asthma, about five million of which are children under the age of 18, according to 2019 CDC statistics. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that worldwide, “Asthma affected an estimated 262 million people in 2019 and caused 461,000 deaths.”
People with mild asthma may have good success using steroid inhalers. However, for those with moderate to severe asthma where inhalers are not effective, oral corticosteroids may also be necessary. But corticosteroids have been associated with high blood pressure and diabetes, among other negative side effects.
“To replace corticosteroid tablets, in recent times several biological medicines have been introduced to treat patients with Type 2 inflammation characterized by increased activation of mast cells and eosinophils,” said Sven-Erik Dahlén, Professor at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, in the news release.
Currently, there are no simple tests that show what type of asthma a patient has. Instead, clinicians rely on lung function tests, patient interviews, allergy tests, and blood tests.
Earlier this year, researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Exosome Diagnostics in Massachusetts investigated a non-invasive, urine-based test for transplant rejection. According to a news release, “Patients can spend up to six years waiting for a kidney transplant. Even when they do receive a transplant, up to 20% of patients will experience rejection.”
“If rejection is not treated, it can lead to scarring and complete kidney failure. Because of these problems, recipients can face life-long challenges,” said Jamil Azzi, MD, Director of the Kidney Transplantation Fellowship Program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard School of Medicine. “Our goal is to develop better tools to monitor patients without performing unnecessary biopsies. We try to detect rejection early, so we can treat it before scarring develops,” he said.
Detecting Bladder Cancer with Urine Testing
Another condition where urine tests are being investigated is bladder cancer. An article in Trends in Urology and Men’s Health states, “Several point-of-care urine tests have been developed to help identify patients who may be at higher risk of bladder cancer.” Those tests could have the potential for use in primary care, which could mean fewer people would need invasive, painful, and risk-carrying cystoscopies.
“New tests to help identify hematuria patients who are at a higher risk of cancer would help to improve the diagnostic pathway, reduce the number diagnosed by emergency presentation, lessen the burden on urology services, and spare those who do not have cancer an invasive and costly examination, such as cystoscopy,” the article’s authors wrote.
These urine-based tests are still under investigation by various research teams and more research is needed before clinical trials can be conducted and the tests can be submitted for regulatory approval. Though still in the early stages of development, urine-based diagnostic testing represents far less invasive, and therefore safer, ways to identify and treat various diseases.
Studies into how the elements in urine might be used as biomarkers for clinical laboratory tests may lead to improved non-invasive precision medicine diagnostics that could save many lives.
Cozy relationships between hospital chief executives and healthcare companies they do business with may raise ethical questions
If hospital employees, including pathologists, wonder why their hospital uses a certain company’s products and services it may be because their Chief Executive Officer (CEO) sits on the Board of Directors of the same companies from which the hospital buys products and services. That’s the suggestion in a recent Boston Globe investigative report.
In “Boston’s Hospital Chiefs Moonlight on Corporate Boards at Rates Far Beyond the National Level,” The Boston Globe reported that, in Boston, hospital CEOs at the city’s academic medical centers frequently sit on the boards of healthcare companies with which their hospitals do business. However, because the investigative reporters did not list the healthcare companies which had Boston hospital CEOs as board members, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists cannot determine from the article if their medical laboratories are using products from those same companies.
According to The Globe, five of seven CEOs and Presidents of Boston’s major teaching hospitals also receive compensation for serving as directors of publicly traded companies. And in their roles as corporate board members, hospital CEOs often receive stock in these companies, making the value of their remuneration potentially worth millions of dollars, The Globe reported.
Not Illegal, But Is It Ethical?
The Boston Globe’s investigation noted that such moonlighting, while not unheard of elsewhere in the country, is commonplace in Boston, raising ethical concerns despite conflict-of-interest policies aimed at limiting outside relationships.
“Hospitals in Boston and elsewhere that allow this outside corporate work do so under the terms of conflict-of-interest policies,” The Globe reported. “A Globe review of more than a dozen hospital conflict-of-interest policies across the country found more similarities than differences. Almost all require hospital trustees to approve a hospital chief’s outside board work and consider certain factors, such as the amount of business a company does with the hospital and time required.
“But the policies offer limited evidence about actual practices,” The Globe added. “Trustees typically retain significant discretion over what is permitted or barred, and their deliberations are generally hidden from the public. It is hard to tell if the relative rarity of hospital chiefs in other cities holding outside directorships is because of a lack of interest or opportunity, or is the result of trustees saying no.”
One of the hospital chief executives The Globe’s investigation highlighted was former-Boston Children’s Hospital CEO Sandra Fenwick. While there, The Globe noted, she also held a seat on the board of for-profit telehealth company Teledoc Health, and during her tenure as Children’s CEO, she lobbied Massachusetts legislators for telehealth funding at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Though no laws were broken, some questioned the ethics of such actions. Nevertheless, The Boston Globe wrote that “Debra O’Malley, a spokesperson for Secretary of State William Galvin’s office, said Fenwick’s actions did not appear to violate the law: She is required to disclose in writing to the state that she is a lobbyist for the hospital and the bills she lobbied on, which she did, O’Malley said. That information is publicly available.”
And though The Globe reported that Boston Children’s Hospital had “declined to answer detailed questions about [Fenwick’s] lobbying efforts,” the paper wrote that a hospital spokesperson said, “[Fenwick’s] directorships are publicly disclosed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.”
Fenwick retired from Boston Children’s Hospital in March 2021. The Globe noted that at that time her Teledoc Health stock, which was compensation for her board work, was worth $8.8 million. Additionally, she had been paid $2.7 million annually as CEO of Boston Children’s Hospital.
“It does seem like buying influence and it’s hard to imagine what else it would be,” Carl Elliott, MD, PhD (above), Professor in the Center for Bioethics and the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Minnesota told BioPharma Dive. “If you’re actually trying to buy scientific knowledge, then you wouldn’t really be going after CEOs. What they have is power.” (Photo copyright: Boston University.)
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest
Bad optics created by a Boston hospital CEO receiving seven-figure compensation for serving on the board of directors of a publicly traded company is not new. In July 2020, former Brigham and Women’s Hospital President Elizabeth Nabel, MD, resigned from the board of biotech company Moderna (NASDAQ:MRNA) “to alleviate any potential concern about the conduct or the outcome of the COVID-19 vaccine trial when Brigham and Women’s Hospital was identified by NIH as one of the clinical sites for the Phase 3 trial,” a Moderna press release states.
On March 1, 2021, Nabel also stepped down as Brigham and Women’s Hospital president. She then rejoined the Moderna board of directors on March 10, 2021, the press release noted.
In a STAT editorial, titled, “Hospital CEOs, Med School Leaders Shouldn’t Sit on For-Profit Health Care Company Boards,” endocrinologist and former Dean of Harvard Medical School Jeffrey Flier, MD, wrote, “As dean, I vigorously supported the value of robust interactions between faculty and industry to advance innovation and human health, and still do. In my current status as a professor of medicine at Harvard, I serve on several for-profit and not-for-profit boards. I learn from this work, and I believe I am making useful contributions as a board member. But I also believe that the considerations governing such relationships should be judged differently for institutional leaders.”
Flier maintains there are multiple reasons why hospital and medical school leaders should not sit on for-profit boards despite the expertise they bring to the table, including:
The time commitment required,
The “extraordinary compensation packages” they receive in their full-time jobs,
The potential for complicated “business intersections,” and
The risks to an “institution’s reputation for integrity.”
“I recommend that hospital CEOs and academic leaders at the level of Deans and Presidents devote their full attention to their well-compensated day jobs and defer positions on the boards of for-profit companies—and the unavoidable conflicts they raise—to the post-leadership phase of their careers,” Flier wrote.
While cozy relationships between hospital and academic medical center leaders and for-profit healthcare companies may not directly impact hospital pathologists and staff, it is worth staying aware of potential conflicts of interest.
Researchers find a savings of more than one million dollars and prevention of hundreds, if not thousands, of adverse drug events could have been had with machine learning system
Support for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in healthcare has been mixed among anatomic pathologists and clinical laboratory leaders. Nevertheless, there’s increasing evidence that diagnostic systems based on AI and ML can be as accurate or more accurate at detecting disease than systems without them.
Dark Daily has covered the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning systems and their ability to accurately detect disease in many e-briefings over the years. Now, a recent study conducted at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) suggests machine learning can be more accurate than existing clinical decision support (CDS) systems at detecting prescription medication errors as well.
The study was partially retrospective in that the
researchers compiled past alerts generated by the CDS systems at BWH and MGH
between 2009-2011 and added them to alerts generated during the active part of
the study, which took place from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013, for a
total of five years’ worth of CDS alerts.
They then sent the same patient-encounter data that generated those CDS alerts to a machine learning platform called MedAware, an AI-enabled software system developed in Ra’anana, Israel.
MedAware was created for the “identification and prevention
of prescription errors and adverse drug effects,” notes the study, which goes
on to state, “This system identifies medication issues based on machine
learning using a set of algorithms with different complexity levels, ranging
from statistical analysis to deep learning with neural networks. Different
algorithms are used for different types of medication errors. The data elements
used by the algorithms include demographics, encounters, lab test results,
vital signs, medications, diagnosis, and procedures.”
The researchers then compared the alerts produced by
MedAware to the existing CDS alerts from that 5-year period. The results were
astonishing.
According to the study:
“68.2% of the alerts generated were unique to
the MedAware system and not generated by the institutions’ CDS alerting system.
“Clinical outlier alerts were the type least
likely to be generated by the institutions’ CDS—99.2% of these alerts were
unique to the MedAware system.
“The largest overlap was with dosage alerts,
with only 10.6% unique to the MedAware system.
“68% of the time-dependent alerts were unique to
the MedAware system.”
Perhaps even more important was the results of the cost
analysis, which found:
“The average cost of an adverse event
potentially prevented by an alert was $60.67 (range: $5.95–$115.40).
“The average adverse event cost per type of
alert varied from $14.58 (range: $2.99–$26.18) for dosage outliers to $19.14
(range: $1.86–$36.41) for clinical outliers and $66.47 (range: $6.47–$126.47)
for time-dependent alerts.”
The researchers concluded that, “Potential savings of $60.67 per alert was mainly derived from the prevention of ADEs [adverse drug events]. The prevention of ADEs could result in savings of $60.63 per alert, representing 99.93% of the total potential savings. Potential savings related to averted calls between pharmacists and clinicians could save an average of $0.047 per alert, representing 0.08% of the total potential savings.
“Extrapolating the results of the analysis to the 747,985
BWH and MGH patients who had at least one outpatient encounter during the
two-year study period from 2012 to 2013, the alerts that would have been fired
over five years of their clinical care by the machine learning medication
errors identification system could have resulted in potential savings of
$1,294,457.”
Savings of more than one million dollars plus the prevention
of potential patient harm or deaths caused by thousands of adverse drug events
is a strong argument for machine learning platforms in diagnostics and
prescription drug monitoring.
Researchers Say Current Clinical Decision Support Systems
are Limited
Machine learning is not the same as artificial intelligence. ML is a “discipline of AI” which aims for “enhancing accuracy,” while AI’s objective is “increasing probability of success,” explained Tech Differences.
Healthcare needs the help. Prescription medication errors cause patient harm or deaths that cost more than $20 billion annually, states a Joint Commission news release.
CDS alerting systems are widely used to improve patient
safety and quality of care. However, the BWH-MGH researchers say the current
CDS systems “have a variety of limitations.” According to the study:
“One limitation is that current CDS systems are rule-based and can thus identify only the medication errors that have been previously identified and programmed into their alerting logic.
“Further, most have high alerting rates with many false positives, resulting in alert fatigue.”
Commenting on the value of adding machine learning
medication alerts software to existing CDS hospital systems, the BWH-MGH
researchers wrote, “This kind of approach can complement traditional rule-based
decision support, because it is likely to find additional errors that would not
be identified by usual rule-based approaches.”
However, they concluded, “The true value of such alerts is
highly contingent on whether and how clinicians respond to such alerts and
their potential to prevent actual patient harm.”
Future research based on real-time data is needed before machine
learning systems will be ready for use in clinical settings, HealthITAnalytics
noted.
However, medical laboratory leaders and pathologists will
want to keep an eye on developments in machine learning and artificial
intelligence that help physicians reduce medication errors and adverse drug
events. Implementation of AI-ML systems in healthcare will certainly affect
clinical laboratory workflows.
