Like Holmes, Balwani faces 12 counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud for allegedly misleading investors, patients, and others about blood-testing startup’s technology
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists are buckling up as the next installment of the Theranos story gets underway, this time for the criminal fraud trial of ex-Theranos President and COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani.
In one text to Holmes, Balwani wrote, “I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” NBC Bay Area reported.
Partners in Everything, including Crime, Prosecutors Allege
According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), prosecutors are following the Holmes trial playbook. They focused their opening arguments on the personal and working relationships between the pair, tying Balwani to Holmes’ crimes at the Silicon Valley blood-testing startup.
As second in command at Theranos, Balwani helped run the company from 2009 to 2016. He also invested $5 million in Theranos stock, while also underwriting a $13 million corporate loan.
“They were partners in everything, including their crimes,” Assistant US Attorney Robert Leach told jurors, the Mercury News reported. “The defendant and Holmes knew the rosy falsehoods that they were telling investors were contrary to the reality within Theranos.”
Leach maintained that Balwani was responsible for the phony financial projections Theranos gave investors in 2015 predicting $990 million in revenue when the company had less than $2 million in sales.
Former Theranos President and COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani (above) is seen arriving at the federal court in San Jose, California, for the start of his federal fraud trial. Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists who followed the trial of ex-Theranos founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes will no doubt be interested in what can be learned from this trail as well. (Photo copyright: Jim Wilson/The New York Times.)
“This is a case about fraud. About lying and cheating to obtain money and property,” Leach added. Balwani “did this to get money from investors, and he did this to get money and business from paying patients who were counting on Theranos to deliver accurate and reliable blood tests so that they could make important medical decisions,” the WSJ reported.
Defense attorneys downplayed Balwani’s decision-making role within Theranos, pointing out that he did not join the start-up until six years after Holmes founded the company with the goal of revolutionizing blood testing by developing a device capable of performing blood tests using a finger-prick of blood.
“Sunny Balwani did not start Theranos. He did not control Theranos. Elizabeth Holmes, not Sunny, founded Theranos and built Theranos,” defense attorney Stephen Cazares, JD of San Francisco-based Orrick, said in his opening argument, the WSJ reported.
The trial was expected to begin in January but was delayed by the unexpected length of the Holmes trial. It was then pushed out to March when COVID-19 Omicron cases spiked in California during the winter.
Balwani’s trial is being held in the same San Jose courthouse where Holmes was convicted. Balwani, 56, is facing identical charges as Holmes, which include two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 10 counts of wire fraud. He has pleaded not guilty.
Holmes, who is currently free on a $500,000 bond, will be sentenced on Sept. 26, Dark Daily reported in January.
Judge Excludes Jurors for Watching Hulu’s ‘The Dropout’
During jury selection in March, some jurors acknowledged they were familiar with the case, causing delays in impaneling the 12-member jury and six alternates. US District Court Judge Edward Davila excluded two potential jurors because they had watched “The Dropout,” Hulu’s miniseries about Holmes and Theranos. Multiple other jurors were dropped because they had followed the Holmes trial in the news, Law360 reported.
When testimony began, prosecutors had a familiar name take the stand—whistleblower and former Theranos lab tech Erika Cheung, who provided key testimony in the Holmes trial. During her testimony, Cheung said she revealed to authorities what she saw at Theranos because “Theranos had gone to extreme lengths to [cover up] what was happening in the lab,” KRON4 in San Francisco reported.
“It was important to report the truth,” she added. “I felt that despite the risk—and I knew there could be consequences—people really need to see the truth of what was happening behind closed doors.”
Nevada State Public Health Laboratory (NSPHL) Director Mark Pandori, PhD, who served as Theranos’ lab director from December 2013 to May 2014, was the prosecution’s second witness. Pandori testified that receiving accurate results for some tests run through Theranos’ Edison blood testing machine was like “flipping a coin.”
“When you are working in a place like Theranos, you’re developing something new. And you want it to work. Quality control remained a problem for the duration of my time at the company. There was never a solution to poor performance,” Pandori testified, according to KRON4.
While the defense team has downplayed Balwani’s decision-making role—calling him a “shareholder”—Aron Solomon, JD, a legal analyst with Esquire Digital, maintains they may have a hard time convincing the jury that Balwani wasn’t a key player.
“There’s no way the defense is going to be successful in painting Sunny Balwani in the light simply as a shareholder,” he told NBC Bay Area. “We know that, literally, Sunny Balwani was intimately involved with Theranos, because he was intimately involved with Elizabeth Holmes,” Solomon added.
Little Media Buzz for Balwani, Unlike Holmes Trial
While the Holmes trial hogged the media spotlight and drew daily onlookers outside the courthouse, reporters covering Balwani’s court appearances describe a much different atmosphere.
“The sparse crowd and quiet atmosphere at US District Court in San Jose, Calif., felt nothing like the circus frenzy that engulfed the same sidewalk months earlier when his alleged co-conspirator and former girlfriend, Elizabeth Holmes, stood trial on the same charges,” The New York Times noted in its coverage of the Balwani trial.
The Balwani trial may not reach the same headline-producing fervor as the Holmes legal battle. However, clinical laboratory directors and pathologists who follow these proceedings will no doubt come away with important insights into how Theranos went so terribly wrong and how lab directors must act under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA).
Survey respondents can give their opinions about the proposed VALID and VITAL acts
Two bills are pending in Congress, and each is written to change the current regulatory scheme for laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs). The bills go by the acronyms of the VALID Act and VITAL Act. Many clinical laboratories offering LDTs today may be unaware of the details within each bill as currently written.
That existing regulatory arrangement will change if one of the two pending bills in Congress were to pass and be signed into law. That proposal is known as the Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act, or VALID Act. It is a bipartisan, 245-page bill that proposes FDA oversight of LDTs and is making its way through both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
A smaller, seven-page counterproposal is also before the Senate called the Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories Act, or VITAL Act. The VITAL Act would keep LDTs under CLIA but mandate updates to CLIA’s rules to account for modern tests.
Readers: Are you in favor of more or less regulation of LDTs? Take this quick survey and let us know what you think. Dark Daily wants to know your thoughts about LDT oversight. Click here to take our six-question survey. Results of this survey will be reported in a coming Dark Daily e-briefing.
Alert pathologists and clinical laboratory managers know that behind every bill proposed in Congress is a party with a vested interest that brought the issue to a senator or representative. Once enacted into law, a new bill changes the status quo, generally to the benefit of the private interests that requested that bill. This is true of both the VALID Act and the VITAL Act.
The table at the bottom of this briefing compares the provisions of each act and is current as of March 28.
Who Opposes VALID Act?
The VALID Act is garnering more attention than the VITAL Act.
On March 22, the American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) sent out an email message urging its members to oppose the VALID Act.
“Let your legislators know that that if VALID becomes law, your institution and other hospitals and small commercial laboratories could be forced to stop providing LDTs,” wrote Patricia Jones, PhD, DABCC, FACB, Chair of AACC’s Policy and External Affairs Core Committee. The AACC has long criticized the VALID Act..
On the other side of the debate, Philadelphia-based The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit that in part analyzes publics policy, has come out in support of the VALID Act’s proposed requirements.
Two bills are pending in Congress about the future of LDT regulation.
“Although the [current] LDT regulatory process offers labs significant flexibility and enables a more rapid response to public health needs when no FDA-cleared or -approved test exists, the relative lack of oversight for LDTs puts the health of patients at risk,” Pew wrote in an October 2021 report on LDTs.
The Advanced Medical Technology Association also supports the VALID Act, as do many manufacturers of in vitro test kits and large commercial labs. Proponents also believe FDA regulation is needed for IVCTs because they are similar to medical devices and bring with them patient safety concerns.
The American Clinical Laboratory Association and the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) have not taken formal positions on the VALID Act.
Congress Could Roll VALID Act into MDUFA Vote to Win Passage
There may be an effort to attach the VALID Act to the authorization vote for the Medical Device User Fee Agreement V (MDUFA), according to a February health legislation alert from law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld based in Washington.
MDUFA funding provides resources to the FDA’s medical device review program. Congress is set to receive final MDUFA V recommendations in April.
Nineteen healthcare and lab industry groups, including the American Medical Association, AACC, AMP, and NILA, sent a joint letter to four Congress members on Feb. 23 requesting they deliberate the VALID Act separately and not as part of MDUFA.
Again, please complete this survey and tell us what you think about FDA regulation of LDTs, as defined in the VALID Act, compared to continuing LDT oversight via a modernized CLIA in the VITAL Act.
—Scott Wallask
Comparison of VALID Act and VITAL Act
VALID Act
VITAL Act
Full act name
Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act
Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories Act
Bill numbers
House Bill H.R.4128 Senate Bill S.2209
Senate Bill S.1666
Sponsors
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) , Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN), Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Provisions
Developers shall apply for premarket approval of IVCTs if there is insufficient evidence of analytical validity or clinical validity or if it’s reasonably possible an IVCT will cause serious adverse health effects.
Applications shall include a summary of test data and scientific evidence to support analytical and clinical validity of the test.
Through a technology certification, developers can submit an IVCT to the FDA for review, and if granted, the certification allows them to develop similar tests without going back for review each time.
The FDA must establish a program for rapid review of breakthrough IVCTs that provide effective treatment of life-threatening diseases
The federal government should work to ensure that regulatory oversight of laboratory tests does not limit patient access, impede innovation, or limit a test’s sustainability as a result of being unduly burdensome or beyond the fiscal capacity of the laboratory to reasonably validate and perform.
No aspects of LTDs shall be regulated under the FDA.
No later than 180 days after enactment of the bill, the secretary of health and human services shall report to the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions about recommendations to update clinical lab regulations and provide an assessment of LDT use during the 2020 pandemic response.
Exemptions
IVCTs being marketed before the VALID Act goes into effect
Low-risk tests
IVCTs that are granted emergency use
No new exemptions
Review timelines
The FDA shall make a decision no later than 90 days after an application is submitted.
No new requirements noted.
Sources: VALID Act and VITAL Act bills. Information is current as of March 28, 2022.
Clinical laboratories may see increase in flu and COVID-19 specimen processing as people return to pre-pandemic social behaviors, experts predict
While SARS-CoV-2 infections continue to ravage many parts of the world, influenza (flu) cases in North America have hit a historic low. As winter approached last year, infectious disease experts warned of a “twindemic” in which the COVID-19 outbreak would combine with seasonal influenza to overwhelm the healthcare system. But this did not happen, and many doctors and medical laboratory scientists are now investigating this unexpected, but welcomed, side-effect of the pandemic.
From the start of the current flu season in September 2020, clinical laboratories in the US reported that 1,766 specimens tested positive for flu out of 931,726—just 0.2%—according to the CDC’s Weekly US Influenza Surveillance Report. That compares with about 250,000 positive specimens out of 1.5 million tested in the 2019-2020 flu season, the CDC reported. Public health laboratories reported 243 positive specimens out of 438,098 tested.
The graphic above taken from the CDC’s Weekly Influenza Surveillance Report for the week ending April 17, 2021, illustrates how “Nationwide during week 15, 1.1% of patient visits reported through ILINet were due to ILI [Influenza-like Illness].” This percentage, according to the CDC, is below the national baseline of 2.6%. “Seasonal influenza activity in the United States remains lower than usual for this time of year.” (Graphic copyright: Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Fear of COVID-19 Linked to Fewer Flu Deaths in Children
WebMD reported that just one child in the US has died from the flu this year, compared with 195 in 2020. Why the low numbers?
Precautions people take to avoid COVID-19 transmission, including masking, social distancing, and handwashing.
Reduced human mobility, including less international travel.
Higher-than-usual flu vaccination rates. As of February 26, the CDC reported that nearly 194 million doses of flu vaccine had been distributed in the US.
WebMD noted this could be a record, but that the CDC data doesn’t indicate how many doses were actually administered.
However, Schaffner told WebMD that efforts to keep kids home from school and away from social gatherings were likely a bigger factor. “Children are the great distributors of the influenza virus in our society,” he said. But due to fears about COVID-19 transmission, kids “weren’t even playing together, because mothers were keeping them off the playground and not having play dates.”
Repercussions for Fighting Flu Next Year
Public health experts welcomed the low flu levels, however, Politico reported that limited data about flu circulation this year could hamper efforts to develop an effective vaccine for next season’s flu strains.
Each February, Politico explained, experts convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) look at data from the current and previous flu seasons to predict which strains are likely to predominate in the Northern Hemisphere next winter. That includes data about which strains are currently circulating in the Southern Hemisphere. The WHO uses these predictions to recommend the composition of flu vaccines. In the US, the final decision is made by an FDA advisory committee.
A similar WHO meeting in September guides vaccine development in the Southern Hemisphere.
The WHO issued this year’s Northern Hemisphere recommendations on Feb. 26. The advisory includes recommendations for egg-based and cell- or recombinant-based vaccines, and for quadrivalent (four-strain) or trivalent (three-strain) vaccines.
In a document accompanying the recommendations, the WHO acknowledged concerns about this year’s limited pool of data.
“The volume of data available from recently circulating influenza viruses, and the geographic representation, have been significantly lower for this northern hemisphere vaccine recommendation meeting than is typical,” the document stated. “The reduced number of viruses available for characterization raises uncertainties regarding the full extent of the genetic and antigenic diversity of circulating influenza viruses and those likely to pose a threat in forthcoming seasons.”
The report notes that experts identified changes in circulating Influenza A(H3N2) viruses this year, and that the changes are reflected in the new vaccine recommendation.
But Paul A. Offit, MD, who serves on the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel, downplayed worries about the vaccine. “The belief is that there was enough circulating virus to be able to pick what is likely to be the strains that are associated with next year’s flu outbreak,” he told Politico. Offit is a Professor of Vaccinology and Pediatrics at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Pediatrician and internationally recognized expert in the fields of virology and immunology, Paul A. Offit, MD (above), told Politico that the low level of flu circulation this year, along with the resulting uncertainty, “is unprecedented.” Clinical laboratories might not have noticed the severe decrease in influenza specimens sent for processing due to being hyper-focused on COVID-19 testing. But as the pandemic subsides, loss of flu testing revenues will likely become more apparent. (Photo copyright: University of Pennsylvania.)
Offit suggests that efforts to mitigate the COVID-19 outbreak could be useful to combat other infectious disease outbreaks. However, both Offit and Gostin expressed doubt about that prospect.
“I mean, could we reasonably in a winter month, wear masks just at least when we’re outside in large crowds? … Or are we comfortable having hundreds of 1000s of cases of hospitalizations for flu and 10s of 1000s [of] deaths? I suspect the answer is B. We’re comfortable with that, we’re willing to have that even though we just learned, there’s a way to prevent it,” Offit told Politico.
“Remember after the 1918 flu pandemic, most people don’t realize what happened when that was over. But what happened was the roaring ‘20s,” Gostin told Politico. “People started congregating, mingling, hugging, kissing. All the things they missed. They crowded into theaters and stadiums and went back to church. That’s what’s likely to happen this fall and that makes the influenza virus very happy.”
So, what should clinical laboratories expect in future flu and COVID-19 vaccines? That is not yet clear. One thing is certain, though. New lab test panels that test for influenza and the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus will be arriving in the marketplace.
Federal regulators continue to recognize value of clinical laboratory testing in near-patient settings
To help in the diagnosis and management of two sexually-transmitted diseases, another point-of-care diagnostic test will soon be available for use in physician’s offices, urgent care clinics, and other healthcare settings. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it granted a CLIA waiver for the binx health io CT/NG assay, a molecular platform used to detect sexually transmitted diseases—chlamydia and gonorrhea—at the point of care (POC).
This will be welcome news to many medical professionals, as it indicates federal regulators recognize the value of diagnostic testing in near-patient settings.
Allows Non-Laboratorian Processing at Point of Care
In 2019, binx health received FDA 510k clearance to market its binx io rapid point-of-care (POC) platform for women’s health. “The binx io platform is a rapid, qualitative, fully-automated test, designed to be easy to use, and intended for use in POC or clinical laboratory settings … In the company’s recently completed 1,523-person, multi-center clinical study, 96% of patient samples were processed on the binx io by non-laboratorians in a POC setting,” a binx press release noted.
According to the Boston-based biotech company’s website, the binx io platform (above) combines ultra-rapid, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification with binx health’s proprietary and highly sensitive electrochemical detection technology. The io instrument processes a single-use, CT/NG cartridge that contains all reagents for testing self- or clinician-collected vaginal swabs and male urine samples. No sample preparation is required. Test results are available in less than 30 minutes. (Photo copyright: binx health.)
“With ever-increasing sexually transmitted infection rates, point-of-care and CLIA-waived platforms like the binx io are essential additions to our sexually-transmitted-infection-control toolbox, which will increase accessibility and decrease the burden on traditional healthcare settings,” Barbara Van Der Pol, PhD, Professor of Medicine and Public Health at University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a binx press release.
According to binx, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that one in five people in the US has a sexually-transmitted disease (STD), with an estimated 108 million Americans potentially in need of routine STD testing. Additionally, chlamydia and gonorrhea are the two most treated STDs globally.
Study Finds Binx Health POC Assay Comparable to Traditional Clinical Laboratory NAATs
Van Der Pol led a team of researchers who compared the binx io chlamydia/gonorrhea POC assay to three commercially-available nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs). The binx-funded study, published in JAMA Network Open, analyzed swab samples from 1,523 women (53.6% with symptoms) and urine samples from 922 men (33.4% symptomatic) who presented to 11 clinics in nine cities across the US.
The molecular point-of-care assay proved on par with laboratory-based molecular diagnostics for vaginal swab samples, while male urine samples were associated with “good performance.”
For chlamydia:
Sensitivity of the new POC assay was 96.1% (95% CI, 91.2%-98.3%) for women and 92.5% (95% CI, 86.4%-96.0%) for men.
Specificity of the new POC assay was 99.1% (95% CI, 98.4%-99.5%) for women and 99.3% (95% CI, 98.4%-99.7%) for men.
For gonorrhea:
Sensitivity estimates were 100.0% (95% CI, 92.1%-100.0%) for women and 97.3% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.3%) for men.
Specificity estimates were 99.9% (95% CI, 99.5%-100%) for women and 100% (95% CI, 95.5%-100%) for men.
Van Der Pol told Reuters News, “The bottom line is that chlamydia and gonorrhea are still the most frequently reported notifiable diseases in the US, and it costs us in the $5 billion to $6 billion range to manage the consequences of untreated infections. Unfortunately, about 70% of women who are infected don’t have any symptoms, so they don’t know they need to be tested.”
“The ability to diagnose at a point-of-care setting will help with more quickly and appropriately treating sexually-transmitted infections, which is a major milestone in helping patients,” said Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD (above), Director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in the FDA announcement. “More convenient testing with quicker results can help patients get access to the most appropriate treatment. According to the CDC, one in five Americans are diagnosed with sexually-transmitted infections every year, which is why access to faster diagnostic results and faster, more appropriate treatments will make significant strides in combatting these infections,” he added. As point-of-care testing for specific diseases increases, clinical laboratories that process these tests may see a decrease in specimen processing orders. (Photo copyright: Duke University.)
The CLIA waiver allows binx to distribute the chlamydia/gonorrhea test to 220,000 CLIA-waived locations across the US through the company’s national commercial distribution partnership with McKesson. Obstetrician/gynecologist and primary care offices, urgent care facilities, community health clinics, STD clinics, and retail settings are all potential testing sites.
Binx says its testing platform can improve health outcomes by:
Increasing treatment compliance,
Limiting onward transmission,
Minimizing the risk of untreated conditions, and
Ensuring the right treatment is provided.
In the binx health press release, binx CEO Jeffrey Luber, JD, said, “The io instrument’s demonstrated clinical effectiveness, ease of operation, and patient convenience make it a much-needed tool with transformative implications for public health, especially now during the COVID-19 pandemic, where STI [sexually-transmitted infection] prevention services nationwide have been dramatically reduced or cut altogether as resources have been allocated to focus on the COVID response.”
Should Clinical Laboratories Be Concerned about POCT?
It happens often: after consulting with his or her doctor, a patient visits a clinical laboratory and leaves a specimen. The test results arrive at the doctor’s office in a few days, but the patient never returns for treatment. That is why point-of-care tests (POCTs) came to be developed in the first place. With the patient in the clinic, a positive test result means treatment can begin immediately.
As the US healthcare system continues toward more integration of care and reimbursement based on value, rather than fee-for-service, point-of-care testing enables physicians and other healthcare providers to diagnose, test, and prescribe treatment all in one visit.
Thus, it is a positive step for healthcare providers. However, clinical laboratories may view the FDA’s increasing endorsement of waived point-of-care testing as a trend that is unfavorable because it diverts specimens away from central laboratories.
There also are critics within the medical laboratory profession who point out that waived tests—often performed by individuals with little or no training in laboratory medicine—have much greater potential for an inaccurate or unreliable result, when compared to the same assay run in a complex, CLIA-certified clinical laboratory.
Dozens of Chicago-area schools were reopened with the help of an $11 COVID-19 saliva test, but the qualifications of the clinical laboratory, and whether it complied with federal regulations, were called into question
It was only a matter of time when newly-formed clinical laboratories—taking advantage of the federal government’s loosening of regulations to promote COVID-19 testing—drew the attention of state regulators and the national news media. This is what happened at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Ill.
In March, the New York Times published an article, titled, “Why Virus Tests at One Elite School Ran Afoul of Regulators.” The article highlighted the coronavirus screening program implemented at New Trier High School and suggested that “New Trier may have inadvertently violated federal regulations on testing,” adding that “the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) opened an investigation into the lab.”
SafeGuard Surveillance of Brookfield, Ill., was contracted to perform the routine saliva-based testing. SafeGuard analyzed saliva samples from students, teachers, and school staff to detect the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. New Trier was just one of several school districts that contracted with SafeGuard for the testing, which costs $11 per test. The samples were typically processed the same day.
“This has been a really valuable safety mitigation for our district to make our staff, students, and community feel safer,” Chris McClain, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations at Glenbard High School District 87, told the Chicago Tribune. “We’ve been very pleased with the program.” Glenbard also contracted with SafeGuard for the COVID-19 surveillance screening.
COVID-19 Surveillance or Screening?
Though the surveillance screening testing was working as intended for multiple Chicago areas school systems, the New York Times article called into question whether SafeGuard—which at the time lacked CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments) certification—was qualified to conduct COVID-19 screening testing.
The article also alleged that SafeGuard was led by a scientist who was not qualified under the federal guidelines to run a diagnostic laboratory, and that the saliva test being used was not authorized for COVID-19 testing by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
It came down to whether SafeGuard was conducting “surveillance” testing, which does not require CLIA-certification, or “screening” which does.
SafeGuard was founded by Edward Campbell, PhD, Assistant Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Loyola University in Chicago. Campbell, a virologist with decades of experience developing tests for HIV, “adapted a saliva-based coronavirus test last summer and first established a [COVID-19] lab for the suburban school district where he serves on the board,” Patch News reported.
Microbiologist Edward M. Campbell, PhD (above), founded SafeGuard Surveillance toward the end of 2020 after demand for COVID-19 screening he had been conducting for various local school systems increased dramatically. In January, the startup clinical laboratory was running about 25,000 tests per week, the Riverside/Brookfield Landmark reported. (Photo copyright: Loyola University.)
SafeGuard Claims It Complied with Federal Regulations
SafeGuard’s COVID-19 screening tool utilizes RT-LAMP (reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification) to look for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in saliva samples. This test is less sensitive than the more commonly used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that uses a nasal swab to detect the virus. However, the RT-LAMP test is considered reliable, particularly in individuals with a high viral load. The RT-LAMP test also is less expensive than the PCR test, which makes it appealing for public school systems.
To use the RT-LAMP test, faculty, staff, and students spit into test tubes at home and then take the sample to their school or other drop-off location. Campbell’s lab then processes the samples.
After the New York Times article came out, both New Trier and SafeGuard denied they had done anything wrong, and that their screening program complied with government regulations for COVID-19 testing. Campbell maintained that he did not need the CLIA certification to operate his lab for testing and that SafeGuard complied with all federal regulations. Nevertheless, in March, SafeGuard applied for and received CLIA-certification to “conduct ‘screening’ testing, instead of just ‘surveillance’ testing,” Patch News reported.
“We’re doing everything we can to operate in good faith under the guidance that clearly exists,” Campbell told The Chicago Tribune.
In a statement, New Trier district officials said, “New Trier has also met with local and state health authorities to review our use of the program and they have not directed us to change our use of it. From the time the program began, New Trier has been clear that the saliva program is non-diagnostic and must be confirmed by a lab test. To suggest otherwise is false,” Patch News reported.
Surveillance Testing versus Screening
In August, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which oversees CLIA labs, released guidelines that stated COVID-19 testing could be performed in clinical laboratories that were not CLIA-certified so long as patient-specific results are not reported.
This “surveillance testing” is intended to identify the disease within a population group and not diagnose individuals. If a person tests positive for COVID-19 via SafeGuard’s saliva test, the individual is directed to get an FDA-approved test to confirm the diagnosis.
“We do definitely see the value of surveillance testing and how that can be used to help schools make informed decisions about remote, in-person, or hybrid learning,” Melaney Arnold, State Public Information Officer for the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) told the Chicago Tribune. She added that the IDPH wants to provide schools with the tools they need to navigate the pandemic.
Following the New York Times article about New Trier High School and SafeGuard’s COVID-19 screening program, the Illinois Department of Public Health opened an investigation into the company. However, the investigation has ended, and the state agency is not taking any further action against SafeGuard, Patch News reported.
It’s worth noting that it was the FDA’s relaxing of federal regulations that encouraged the development of startup clinical laboratories like SafeGuard in the first place. There is, apparently, a fine line between surveillance and screening, and clinical laboratories engaged in one or the other should confirm they have the required certifications.
