Government prosecutors allege destruction of LIS database and point to Holmes’ extravagant lifestyle as evidence of fraud motive
There is a new twist in the federal criminal fraud trial of Elizabeth Holmes, co-founder and former CEO of now defunct clinical laboratory testing company Theranos. Once again, the trial has been delayed. In the meantime, however, dueling court filings between prosecutors and defense lawyers have shed additional light on the allegations against Holmes and co-defendant Ramesh Balwani, the company’s chief operating officer. The revelations will be of interest to medical laboratory leaders.
According to The Mercury News, United States District Judge Edward J. Davila cited the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in his December 18 ruling that postponed the start of Holmes’ trial to July 13, 2021.
In his ruling, Judge Davila wrote, “The court notes sadly, the impact on our lives is grim. California is in the midst of an unprecedented surge in cases and hospitalizations.”
The judge also noted the prospects for widespread public vaccination in the coming months. “All of this supports continuing the trial [of Holmes] to a time when our community is safer,” he added. “The court recognizes that a continuance of the trial will cause great inconvenience to victims who would like their day in court, as well as Defendant, who wishes a speedy opportunity to defend against the charges. All of these rights are important, but paramount to the court is the safety and health of the community.”
On February 9, Law360 reported that Balwani’s trial was delayed even further, with jury selection now set to begin on January 11, 2022.
Wall Street Journal Exposé of Theranos and its Flawed Clinical Lab Testing
In “Elizabeth Holmes: The Breakthrough of Instant Diagnosis,” the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) put Holmes squarely in the public eye. It could be credibly asserted that the paper’s fawning coverage helped boost her credibility when no one knew who she was. Thus, it is ironic that just two years later it was the WSJ that, in a series of articles, exposed the alleged misrepresentation and fraud committed by Holmes, Balwani, and Theranos.
By 2015, the company had a stock valuation of $9 billion, but it all came crashing down after WSJ investigative journalist John Carreyrou revealed serious problems with the company’s management and technology.
In a public notification from the US Attorney’s Office Northern District of California, the government alleged that Holmes and former Theranos president Balwani promoted the company’s blood-testing technology despite knowing that it was likely to produce unreliable results.
The defendants now face 12 federal felony counts related to wire fraud. They have pleaded not guilty. According to The Mercury News, if found guilty of all charges, “Holmes faces a potential 20-year prison sentence, up to $2.75 million in fines, and possible restitution to investors the government alleges lost more than $700 million.”
Elizabeth Holmes (above), former CEO of now defunct clinical laboratory testing company Theranos, will now stand trial starting in July. Due to risk of infection from the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, jurors will be required to wear masks and to socially distance during the trial, CNBC reported. What will be of great interest to clinical laboratories are statements by federal prosecutors that testing data stored on the company’s laboratory information system was destroyed before it could be accessed by investigators, even though it had been subpoenaed months earlier by a federal grand jury. (Photo copyright: Forbes/Yichuan Cao/NurPhoto via Getty Images.)
Missing Clinical Laboratory Data
Though the trial has been delayed, attorneys on both sides have been busy. Last November, after failing to have the charges dismissed, defense attorneys filed a flurry of motions seeking to exclude much of the government’s evidence, The Mercury News reported. This included expert witnesses, testimony about inaccurate test results, and numerous news articles about the company and its tests.
Prosecutors responded to the motions in January, further illuminating their case while providing more fodder for media coverage.
In a January 11 filing [doc-682], the government alleged that a Theranos laboratory information system (LIS) containing patient test results and quality control data was destroyed “on or about August 31, 2018—three months after a federal grand jury issued a subpoena requesting a working copy of this database.” News of the allegation was first reported by The Register, a UK-based IT publication.
Previously, the prosecutors alleged, Theranos, with assistance from an IT contractor, had provided a backup copy of the database to the government but without a password needed for decryption. “All subsequent efforts by the government to access the data on this hard drive have failed,” even with assistance from a computer forensics expert, they wrote.
Then, the original database was permanently destroyed in August when Theranos moved out of its facility in Newark, Calif., the government alleged in its filing. “On or about August 31, 2018—three months after a federal grand jury issued a subpoena requesting a working copy of this database—the LIS was destroyed. The government has never been provided with the complete records contained in the LIS, nor been given the tools, which were available within the database, to search for such critical evidence as all Theranos blood tests with validation errors,” the filing read.
The January 11 filing was in response to a Theranos motion [doc-563] seeking to exclude evidence of “anecdotal test results.”
“The data disappeared. Defendant should be barred from arguing the government’s case is anecdotal when Theranos (and others) destroyed this data,” the prosecutors argued.
Furthermore, prosecutors wrote, “the government’s case is hardly ‘anecdotal.’ The reliability and accuracy problems in Theranos’ clinical lab were well-documented when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) investigated the lab, discovered the accuracy and reliability problems, and determined Theranos could not safely administer its tests on patients. Whistleblowers will also testify about Theranos’ accuracy and reliability problems. And patients themselves experienced these problems, receiving incorrect results that affected their treatment and deprived them of the benefit of the purportedly reliable blood tests for which they had paid.”
And Then There’s Her Lifestyle
Prosecutors also claimed in their filing that Holmes’ activities—which included “travel on private jets, stays in luxury hotels, and access to multiple assistants … [who] handled a range of non-business tasks for Defendant, including personal clothes and jewelry shopping, home decorating, food and grocery buying, and other items”—shows that Holmes was “funding an extravagant lifestyle … through company money,” CNBC reported.
And so, the saga of Theranos continues. Will Elizabeth Holmes succeed in her defense? Could a clinical laboratory phoenix bird rise from the ashes of this failed lab test company? Who knows? Probably not. But until there is a resolution, we will keep reporting on the case.
The No Surprises Act, passed as part of the COVID-19 relief package, ensures patients do not receive surprise bills after out-of-network care, including hospital-based physicians such as pathologists
Consumer demand for price transparency in healthcare has been gaining support in Congress after several high-profile cases involving surprise medical billing received widespread reporting. Dark Daily covered many of these cases over the years.
Now, after initial opposition and months of legislative wrangling, organizations representing medical laboratories and clinical pathologists have expressed support for new federal legislation that aims to protect patients from surprise medical bills, including for clinical pathology and anatomic pathology services.
The new law Congress passed is known as the No Surprises Act (H.R.3630) and is part of the $900 billion COVID relief and government funding package signed by President Trump on December 27.
The law addresses the practice of “balance billing,” in which patients receive surprise bills for out-of-network medical services even when they use in-network providers. An ASCP policy statement noted that “a patient (consumer) may receive a bill for an episode of care or service they believed to be in-network and therefore covered by their insurance, but was in fact out-of-network.” This, according to the ASCP, “occurs most often in emergency situations, but specialties like pathology, radiology, and anesthesiology are affected as well.”
Most portions of the No Surprises Act take effect on January 1, 2022. The law prohibits balance billing for emergency care, air ambulance transport, or, in most cases, non-emergency care from in-network providers. Instead, if a patient unknowingly receives services from an out-of-network provider, they are liable only for co-pays and deductibles they would have paid for in-network care.
New Law Bars Pathologists from Balance Billing without Advance Patient Consent
The law permits balance billing under some circumstances, but only if the patient gives advance consent. And some specialties, including pathologists, are barred entirely from balance billing.
The law also establishes a process for determining how healthcare providers are reimbursed when a patient receives out-of-network care. The specifics of that process proved to be a major sticking point for providers. In states that have their own surprise-billing protections, payment will generally be determined by state law. Otherwise, payers and providers have 30 days to negotiate payment. If they can’t agree, payment is determined by an arbiter as part of an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process.
Early Proposal Drew Opposition
An early proposal to prohibit surprise billing drew opposition from a wide range of medical societies, including the ASCP, CAP, and the American Medical Association (AMA).
All were signatories to a July 29, 2020, letter sent to leaders of the US Senate and House of Representatives urging them to hold off from enacting surprise billing protections as part of COVID relief legislation. Though the groups agreed in principle with the need to protect patients from surprise billing, they contended that the proposed legislation leaned too heavily in favor of insurers, an ASCP news release noted.
“Legislative proposals that would dictate a set payment rate for unanticipated out-of-network care are neither market-based nor equitable, and do not account for the myriad inputs that factor into payment negotiations between insurers and providers,” the letter stated. “These proposals will only incentivize insurers to further narrow their provider networks and would also result in a massive financial windfall for insurers. As such, we oppose the setting of a payment rate in statute and are particularly concerned by proposals that would undermine hospitals and front-line caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
On December 11, leaders of key House and Senate committees announced agreement on a bipartisan draft of the bill that appeared to address these concerns, including establishment of the arbitration process for resolving payment disputes.
However, in a letter sent to the committee chairs and ranking members, the AHA asked for changes in the dispute-resolution provisions, including a prohibition on considering Medicare or Medicaid rates during arbitration. “We are concerned that the IDR process may be skewed if the arbiter is able to consider public payer reimbursement rates, which are well known to be below the cost of providing care,” the association stated. However, legislators agreed to the change after last-minute negotiations.
“The AHA is pleased that Congress rejected approaches that would impose arbitrary rates on providers, which could have significant consequences far beyond the scope of surprise medical bills and impact access to hospital care,” AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack (above) said in a statement. “We also applaud Congress for rejecting attempts to base rates on public payers.” (Photo copyright: American Hospital Association.)
Dispute Resolution for Pathologists
The CAP also expressed support for the final bill. In a statement, CAP noted that “As the legislation evolved during the 116th Congress, CAP members met with their federal lawmakers to discuss the CAP’s policy priorities.
“Through the CAP’s engagement and collaboration with other physician associations, the legislation improved drastically,” the CAP stated. “Specifically, the CAP lobbied Congress to hold patients harmless, establish a fair reimbursement formula for services provided, deny insurers the ability to dictate payment, create an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process that pathologists can participate in, and require network adequacy standards for health insurers.”
As laboratory testing was identified by thousands of respondents to the University of Chicago survey as the top surprise bill, it is likely that billing and transparency in charges for clinical pathologist and anatomic pathologist will continue to be scrutinized by law makers and healthcare associations.
Pathologists may be interested to learn that though a substitute for horseshoe crab blood has been available for nearly 20 years, it has not been widely adopted in the US
Since the 1970s, the blue blood of the horseshoe crab has saved countless human lives by detecting deadly toxins in medical products, as well as its use in a number of medical laboratory tests. Now, that unique blood is playing a vital role in the fight against COVID-19 as well, by enabling pharma companies to ensure the coronavirus vaccines they are giving are free of bacterial contaminants—such as endotoxins—that can harm or kill patients.
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory scientists are familiar with the Endotoxin Activity Assay (EAA), which uses LAL as a way to detect if a critically-ill patient may have whole blood endotoxemia. Published studies show that the detection of elevated endotoxin activity levels is associated with an increased disease severity in patients with sepsis and septic shock.
Horseshoe crab blood is an opaque blue color due to its high copper content. The blood contains limulus amebocyte lysate or LAL (pronounced “el-ay-el”), which either clots or changes color in the presence of bacterial endotoxins. LAL has become the standard to test the safety of many medical devices and pharmaceuticals—including coronavirus vaccines. There are currently no other tests that can analyze the purity of medications and cleanliness of medical devices with the same accuracy as the LAL test.
“The crabs live only on the east coasts of Asia and North America,” Yahoo News reported. “The world’s largest population of American horseshoes winters off Maryland shores and spawns each spring in Delaware Bay. The latest trawl survey puts this population at more than 14 million mature crabs.”
Futuristic Clean Rooms for Extracting Blood
After the crabs are dredged from the ocean floor, or captured as they come ashore for breeding, they are transported to one of a handful of facilities authorized to perform the bleeding process. Once there, the horseshoe crabs are cleaned and sterilized, suspended upside down, and inserted with a needle which extracts approximately one third of their blood.
“These things are being produced in ‘clean rooms’ that look like the stuff they make microchips in,” Glenn Gauvry, Founder and President of the Ecological Research and Development Group Inc. (ERDG) told Yahoo News. ERDG is a 501(c)3 non-profit wildlife conservation organization. Its primary focus is the conservation of the world’s four horseshoe crab species.
In futuristic-looking labs (above), technicians withdraw the prized blood cells from the tubular heart of the crab and then spin the blood in a centrifuge to isolate the LAL. The resulting product is then sold as endotoxin test kits to pharmaceutical companies that test medical and clinical laboratory supplies, including COVID-19 vaccines. (Photo copyright: Popular Mechanics.)
Certain laboratory tests developed from horseshoe crab blood are used to detect bacterial contamination in everything from heart stents, saline drips, and flu shots, to surgical implants such as pacemakers and prosthetic devices.
Federal law mandates that any medical device that is inserted or injected into a human body must pass the LAL test for contamination. This makes horseshoe crab blood vital for ensuring the new COVID-19 vaccinations are free of potentially-deadly toxins.
“Without LAL, you’re not going to be able to produce the billions of inoculations that are going to have to come about to handle this pandemic,” John Tanacredi, PhD, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Department of Biology, Chemistry and Environmental Studies at Molloy College, told CBS News.
A $60 Million/Year Industry
Once the LAL has been withdrawn, the crabs are returned to the wild. The horseshoe crabs typically spend one to three days in the lab while the LAL is extracted. They can survive out of water for up to four days, as long as their gills stay moist.
The crabs are then returned to the fishermen who originally caught them, to be gently placed back into the sea. “We treat these crabs like babies,” Yahoo News reported one fisherman saying. “Blue bloods save lives,” said another fisherman.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission estimates that in 2019 labs extracted blood from approximately 640,000 horseshoe crabs in the US. Researchers estimate the industry makes about $60 million per year and that the coveted blue blood is worth about $60,000 per gallon, Yahoo News reported.
There are only four labs in the US authorized to extract blood from the horseshoe crabs. They are located in Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, and Cape Cod. In Maryland, only three trawlers hold permits to catch the horseshoe crabs from the waters surrounding that state.
“We have a 450 million-year-old creature that for the last 45 years has improved the safety of medicines for humans and animals,” John Dubczak, Director of Operations at Charles River Laboratories, told CBS News.
Allen Burgenson, Global Subject Matter Expert-Testing Solutions, Lonza Walkersville, a division of Lonza Bioscience, told Yahoo News “the [pharmaceutical] industry produces enough tests in one day to screen five billion doses of coronavirus vaccine.”
Synthetic Substitute for Horseshoe Crab Blood Available, But Not Widely Used in US
In response to pressure from conservation groups, researchers in Singapore successfully cloned the blood of horseshoe crabs and developed a synthetic test for endotoxins. The synthetic test, known as Recombinant Factor C (rFC), has been commercially available since 2003 and in some countries in Europe is accepted as equal to tests using horseshoe crab blood. However, rFC has not yet been approved for widespread use in the US.
“You’ve got a very large, biomedical bleeding industry with a vested interest in keeping those horseshoes crabs coming in and basically protecting this monopoly,” Ryan Phelan, co-founder and Executive Director of Revive and Restore, a wildlife conservation group based in California that lobbied for the synthetic, told Yahoo News.
In 2017, Dark Daily reported on the potential threat to horseshoe crabs due to blood harvesting. In “Medical Laboratories Could Be Threatening the Survival of Horseshoe Crabs,” we noted growing concerns that the biomedical industry was having a negative impact on the horseshoe crab population. Since then, not much movement has been made toward establishing the synthetic as the standard test in the US.
Recombinant Factor C might eventually eliminate the need to harvest blood from living creatures. But for now, horseshoe crabs continue to provide a critical component for safeguarding humans against contaminants in medical supplies and pharmaceuticals, including COVID-19 vaccinations.
According to Dubczak, the LAL test “has unequivocally elevated the quality and safety of injectable pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices, and that includes all of the vaccines that protect us,” he told USA Today.
As mandatory screenings for private industry workers increases, some states launch free COVID-19 testing for state employees, while engaging medical laboratories to provide such testing
Amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, welcoming employees back to work is not as simple as opening the company’s doors. Businesses based in some areas of the US and Canada are being required by state and provincial governments to conduct employee COVID-19 screenings. For clinical laboratories, the increase in mandatory screening programs could mean an expanding market for employee testing programs and opportunities for lab outreach programs.
But companies and medical laboratories may also face legal and regulatory risks as workplaces reopen and people return.
For example, how do clinical laboratory managers ensure their labs have the information they need to respond to new rules and regulations, and do employers have recourse should an employee receive a COVID-19 test report with an incorrect result?
Not COVID-19 Screening Can Lead to Fines, Imprisonment
Is there existence of “new or worsening symptoms,” such as fever or chills, difficulty breathing, and cough?
Has the employee travelled outside Canada in the past 14 days?
Has the employee had close contact with other confirmed or “probable” COVID-19 cases?
A “probable” case is “a person with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 AND in whom laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is inconclusive,” according to a blog post by Justin P’ng, Employment and Labor Lawyer/Associate at international law firm Fasken in Toronto.
“Employers [in Ontario] must now specifically comply with the requirements of the Screening Tool and to implement such screening at any physical workplaces it operates in the province,” P’ng wrote. “Failure to comply can lead to significant penalties, including potentially fines and imprisonment under the legislation.”
It is possible the new requirements may ease Ontario workers’ minds about heading back to work during the pandemic. A Canadian workforce survey of employers and employees during July 2020 by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Canada found:
Most employers (78%) expect a return to the workplace in 2020.
Just one in five employees indicated they want to go back to the workplace full-time.
Michigan Makes Remote Work Mandatory
In the US, state rules enforced by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) require employers—for infection prevention reasons—to establish remote work programs for employees, unless it is not feasible for employees to work away from the workplace.
“The employer shall create a policy prohibiting in-person work for employees to the extent that their work activities can feasibly be completed remotely,” MIOSHA said.
Similar to the Ontario law, Michigan employers are also required to establish COVID-19 screenings. The MIOSHA rules direct employers to “conduct a daily entry self-screening protocol for all employees or contractors entering the workplace, including, at a minimum, a questionnaire covering symptoms and suspected or confirmed exposure to people with possible COVID-19, together with, if possible, a temperature screening.”
Michigan employers not in compliance with the state’s requirements for office work may be fined up to $7,000 per violation, a McDonald Hopkins Insights article noted.
Furthermore, anti-retaliation law in Michigan prohibits employers from terminating or “retaliating against” employees who oppose violation of the law or report COVID-19 “health violations,” the McDonald Hopkins Insights article added.
However, Michigan businesses may have protection under the COVID-19 Response and Reopening Liability Assurance Act. The law states a “person who acts in compliance with all federal, state, and local statutes, rules, regulations, executive orders, and agency orders related to COVID-19 that had not been denied legal effect at the time of the conduct or risk that allegedly caused harm is immune from liability for a COVID-19 claim.”
The law defines a “person” as “an individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity, including, but not limited to, a school, a college or university, an institution of higher education, and a nonprofit charitable organization. Person includes an employee, agent, or independent contractor of the person, regardless of whether the individual is paid or an unpaid volunteer.”
New York Launches Free RT-PCR Tests for Transit Employees
Meanwhile, in New York, free COVID-19 tests are now available on a voluntary basis to 2,000 frontline employees of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a news release states.
“Quality COVID-19 testing is critical to helping our nation’s frontline workers do their jobs as safely as possible,” Wendi Mader, Executive Director of Employer Population Health at Quest Diagnostics, said in the news release.
New Special Report Available on COVID-19 Employee Testing Programs
As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic progresses, laws, regulations, and rules pertaining to COVID-19 employee testing and screening will likely continue to develop—and they will vary by area and by test type—making them a challenge to interpret, track, and ensure compliance.
This exclusive report offers guidance, best practices, and insights necessary to launch and operate high quality, compliant COVID-19 employee testing programs. Clinical laboratories and employers tasked with developing and maintaining coronavirus testing programs will gain critical insights and data from this invaluable special report. (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group.)
Included in the report:
Ten regulatory essentials for launching a COVID-19 testing program
Researchers conducted antibody testing on ‘remainder plasma,’ which could inform strategies for ongoing SARS-CoV-2 clinical laboratory surveillance testing
In a clever use of stored clinical laboratory specimens, researchers in California conducted a nationwide seroprevalence survey—serology testing to determine the number of people in a population that carry a specific disease—that used “remainder plasma” from dialysis patients to look for antibodies to the COVID-19 infection. They found that—as of July—fewer than one in 10 adults tested had acquired antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
According to Julie Parsonnet, MD, Stanford Professor of Medicine and of Epidemiology and Population Health, and a study author, this indicates that the US population is a long way from herd immunity to COVID-19. “This is the largest study to date to confirm that we are nowhere near herd immunity,” she said in a Stanford Medicine press release.
Herd immunity is the point at which a large part of the population becomes immune to a specific disease. Scientists, according to the Stanford press release, estimate that 60%-70% of the population must have antibodies to the coronavirus before COVID-19 fades.
The graphic above taken from Stanford Medicine’s published study illustrates the “prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in sampled population, by state. Bolded borders represent states with more than 100 patients in the sample. The median number of patients sampled by state was 176 (IQR 83–536). States in white were not sampled.” (Graphic copyright: Stanford University.)
Dense Urban Populations at Greater Risk for COVID-19
The Stanford researchers analyzed samples of remainder plasma from 28,503 randomly selected patients receiving dialysis in July at more than 1,300 dialysis facilities in 46 states. They found that 8% of people were positive for COVID-19 antibodies, which when standardized to the US adult population, equals 9.3% nationwide, the study notes.
However, they also found that people living in densely populated areas were 10 times more likely to show evidence of past COVID-19 infection, and that people living in predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods were two to three times more likely to be seropositive than those in white neighborhoods, the researchers wrote.
Of the use of remainder plasma for their study, the researchers wrote, “Testing remainder plasma from monthly samples obtained for routine care of patients on dialysis for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies therefore represents a practical approach to a population-representative surveillance strategy, informing risks faced by a susceptible population while ensuring representation from racial and ethnic minorities.
“In addition, seroprevalence surveys in patients receiving dialysis can be linked to patient-level and community-level data to enable evaluation and quantification of differences in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence by demographic and neighborhood strata, and thus facilitate effective mitigation strategies targeting the highest-risk individuals and communities,” added the researchers.
When standardized to the US dialysis population, seroprevalence ranged from 3.5% (95% CI, 3.1-3.9) in the West to 27.2% (95% CI, 25.9-28.5) in the Northeast.
Large variations in seroprevalence by state were seen, with early COVID-19 hot spots such as New York (33.6%), Louisiana (17.6%), and Illinois (17.5%) having higher rates than neighboring states—Pennsylvania (6.4%), Arkansas (1.9%), and Missouri (1.9%).
When compared with other measures of SARS-CoV-2 spread, seroprevalence correlated best with deaths per 100,000 population.
“With this survey, we were able to provide a very rich picture of the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. that can hopefully help inform strategies to curb the epidemic moving forward by targeting vulnerable populations,” said Shuchi Anand, MD (above left, with fellow Nephrologists Colin Lenihan and Michelle O’Shaughnessy), Director of Stanford’s Center for Tubulointerstitial Kidney Disease and lead author of the study. (Photo copyright: Stanford Medicine.)
Nearly 10% of COVID-Positives Are Undiagnosed
In another important finding that compared seroprevalence and case counts per 100,000 population as of June 15, the study reports that only 9.2% of the COVID-19 seropositives had been diagnosed with the disease.
Because dialysis patients get monthly laboratory blood tests that generate leftover blood plasma samples, researchers believe this remainder plasma can serve an important role in tracking COVID-19’s prevalence in the general population.
“Not only is this patient population representative of the US population, but they are one of the few groups of people who can be repeatedly tested,” said Anand in the Stanford press release. “This is a potential strategy for ongoing SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing and surveillance.”
“Questions remain around the longevity of the immune response and correlates of protection, but high-quality longitudinal serosurveillance with accompanying clinical data can help to provide the answers,” they wrote. “Anand and colleagues deserve credit for pioneering a scalable sampling strategy that offers a blueprint for standardized national serosurveillance in the USA and other countries with a large haemodialysing population.”
Pandemic Fatigue and the Vaccine
While the promised vaccine provides hope for an end to the pandemic, experts say the battle is far from won.
“We are still in the middle of the fight,” epidemiologist Eli Rosenberg, PhD, Associate Professor at the University at Albany in New York, who was not part of the Stanford study, told the Washington Post, “We’re all tired, and we’re all hoping for a vaccine. This shows us how it’s not over here, not even by a long shot.”
What is obvious is that clinical laboratories will continue to play a vital role in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, just as the management and scientific team at Ascend Clinical Laboratories recognized that remainder plasma from testing dialysis patients could be the foundation of a national seroprevalence survey for COVID-19, other clinical laboratories in different regions of the United States may have similar resources that can be adapted as tools to study and understand the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
