Supplychain shortages involving clinical laboratory products may not ease up any time soon, as China’s largest shipping province is once again in COVID-19 lockdown
Following two years of extremely high demand, pathology laboratories as well as non-medical labs in the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe are experiencing significant shortages of laboratory resources as well as rising costs. That’s according to a recently released survey by Starlab Group, a European supplier of lab products.
In its latest annual “mood barometer” survey of around 200 lab professionals in the UK, Germany, Austria, Italy, and France, Starlab Group received reports of “empty warehouses” and a current shortage of much needed lab equipment, reportedly as a result of rising costs, high demand, and stockpiling of critical materials needed by pathology laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Laboratory News.
The survey respondents, who represented both medical laboratories and research labs, noted experiencing more pressure from staff shortages and insufficient supplies required to meet testing demands in 2021 as compared to 2020. For example, only 23% of respondents said they had enough liquid handling materials—such as protective gloves and pipettes—in 2021, down from 39% who responded to the same question in 2020.
“The entire laboratory industry has been in a vicious circle for two years. While more and more materials are needed, there’s a lack of supplies. At the same time, laboratories want to stockpile material, putting additional pressure on demand, suppliers, and prices,” Denise Fane de Salis, Starlab’s UK Managing Director and Area Head for Northern Europe, told Process Engineering. “Institutes that perform important basic work cannot keep up with the price competition triggered by COVID-19 and are particularly suffering from this situation,” she added.
“COVID-19 is the largest, but by no means the only challenge facing Europe’s laboratories,” Denise Fane de Salis (above), Starlab’s UK Managing Director and Area Head for Northern Europe, told Laboratory News. “The mood barometer we commissioned once again clearly shows that we need to look at the entire range of laboratory work. The laboratory sector is not only essential in medicine and research. Diagnostics have long since encompassed almost all areas of life and the economy.” Those in this country responsible for clinical laboratory supply chains should consider what Salis is advising. (Photo copyright: Starlab UK.)
Lab Supply Shortages Worsen in 2021
With a UK office in Milton Keynes, Starlab’s network of distributors specialize in liquid handling products including pipette tips, multi-channel pipettes, and cell culture tubes, as well as PCR test consumables and nitrile and latex gloves.
According to Laboratory News, Starlab’s 2021 annual survey, released in March 2022, found that:
64% cited late deliveries contributing to supply woes.
58% noted medical labs getting preference over research labs, up from 46% in 2020.
57% said demand for liquid handling products was the same as 2020.
30% of respondents said material requirements were up 50% in 2021, compared to 2020.
76% reported dealing with rising prices in lab operations.
29% expect their need for materials to increase by 25% in 2022, and 3% said the increase may go as high as 50%.
17% of respondents said they foresee challenges stemming from staff shortages, with 8% fearing employee burnout.
UK-European Medical Laboratories on Waiting Lists for Supplies
Could import of lab equipment and consumables from Asia and other areas outside UK have contributed to the shortages?
“A substantial portion of the world’s clinical laboratory automation, analyzers, instruments, and test kits are manufactured outside UK. Thus, UK labs may face a more acute shortage of lab equipment, tests, and consumables because governments in countries that manufacture these products are taking ‘first dibs’ on production, leaving less to ship to other countries,” said Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report.
Indeed, a statement on Starlab’s website describes challenges the company faces meeting customers’ requests for supplies.
“The pandemic also has an impact on our products that are manufactured in other countries. This particularly affects goods that we ship from the Asian region to Europe by sea freight. Due to the capacity restrictions on the ships, we expect additional costs for the transport of goods at any time. Unfortunately, the situation is not expected to ease for the time-being,” Starlab said.
Furthermore, economists are forecasting probable ongoing supply chain effects from a new SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in China.
Lockdown of China’s Largest Shipping Province Threatens Supply Chains Worldwide
According to Bloomberg News, “Shenzhen’s 17.5 million residents [were] put into lockdown on [March 13] for at least a week. The city is located in Guangdong, the manufacturing powerhouse province, which has a gross domestic product of $1.96 trillion—around that of Spain and South Korea—and which accounts for 11% of China’s economy … Guangdong’s $795 billion worth of exports in 2021 accounted for 23% of China’s shipments that year, the most of any province.”
Bloomberg noted that “restrictions in Shenzhen could inflict the heaviest coronavirus-related blow to growth since a nationwide lockdown in 2020, with the additional threat of sending supply shocks rippling around the world.”
“Given that China is a major global manufacturing hub and one of the most important links in global supply chains, the country’s COVID policy can have notably spillovers to its trading partners’ activity and the global economy,” Tuuli McCully, Head of Asia-Pacific Economies, Scotiabank, told Bloomberg News.
Wise medical laboratory leaders will remain apprised of supply chain developments and possible lockdowns in Asia while also locating and possibly securing new sources for test materials and laboratory equipment in anticipation of future supply shortages.
The technology is similar to the concept of a liquid biopsy, which uses blood specimens to identify cancer by capturing tumor cells circulating in the blood.
According to the American Cancer Society, lung cancer is responsible for approximately 25% of cancer deaths in the US and is the leading cause of cancer deaths in both men and women. The ACS estimates there will be about 236,740 new cases of lung cancer diagnosed in the US this year, and about 130,180 deaths due to the disease.
Early-stage lung cancer is typically asymptomatic which leads to later stage diagnoses and lowers survival rates, largely due to a lack of early disease detection tools. The current method used to detect early lung cancer lesions is low-dose spiral CT imaging, which is costly and can be risky due to the radiation hazards of repeated screenings, the news release noted.
MGH’s newly developed diagnostic tool detects lung cancer from alterations in blood metabolites and may lead to clinical laboratory tests that could dramatically improve survival rates of the deadly disease, the MGH scientist noted in a news release.
“Our study demonstrates the potential for developing a sensitive screening tool for the early detection of lung cancer,” said Leo Cheng, PhD (above), in the news release. Cheng is Associate Professor of Radiology at Harvard Medical School and Associate Biophysicist in Radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital. “The predictive model we constructed can identify which people may be harboring lung cancer. Individuals with suspicious findings would then be referred for further evaluation by imaging tests, such as low-dose CT, for a definitive diagnosis,” he added. Oncologists may soon have a clinical laboratory test for screening patients with early-stage lung cancer. (Photo copyright: OCSMRM.)
Detecting Lung Cancer in Blood Metabolomic Profiles
The MGH scientists created their lung-cancer predictive model based on magnetic resonance spectroscopy which can detect the presence of lung cancer from alterations in blood metabolites.
The researchers screened tens of thousands of stored blood specimens and found 25 patients who had been diagnosed with non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), and who had blood specimens collected both at the time of their diagnosis and at least six months prior to the diagnosis. They then matched these individuals with 25 healthy controls.
The scientists first trained their statistical model to recognize lung cancer by measuring metabolomic profiles in the blood samples obtained from the patients when they were first diagnosed with lung cancer. They then compared those samples to those of the healthy controls and validated their model by comparing the samples that had been obtained from the same patients prior to the lung cancer diagnosis.
The predictive model yielded values between the healthy controls and the patients at the time of their diagnoses.
“This was very encouraging, because screening for early disease should detect changes in blood metabolomic profiles that are intermediate between healthy and disease states,” Cheng noted.
The MGH scientists then tested their model with a different group of 54 patients who had been diagnosed with NSCLC using blood samples collected before their diagnosis. The second test confirmed the accuracy of their model.
Predicting Five-Year Survival Rates for Lung Cancer Patients
Values derived from the MGH predictive model measured from blood samples obtained prior to a lung cancer diagnosis also could enable oncologists to predict five-year survival rates for patients. This discovery could prove to be useful in determining clinical strategies and personalized treatment decisions.
The researchers plan to analyze the metabolomic profiles of the clinical characteristics of lung cancer to understand the entire metabolic spectrum of the disease. They hope to create similar models for other illnesses and have already created a model that can distinguish aggressive prostate cancer by measuring the metabolomics profiles of more than 400 patients with that disease.
In addition, they are working on a similar model to screen for Alzheimer’s disease using blood samples and cerebrospinal fluid.
More research and clinical studies are needed to validate the utilization of blood metabolomics models as early screening tools in clinical practice. However, this technology might provide pathologists and clinical laboratories with diagnostic tests for the screening of early-stage lung cancer that could save thousands of lives each year.
Researchers say their method can trace ancestry back 100,000 years and could lay groundwork for identifying new genetic markers for diseases that could be used in clinical laboratory tests
Cheaper, faster, and more accurate genomic sequencing technologies are deepening scientific knowledge of the human genome. Now, UK researchers at the University of Oxford have used this genomic data to create the largest-ever human family tree, enabling individuals to trace their ancestry back 100,000 years. And, they say, it could lead to new methods for predicting disease.
This new database also will enable genealogists and medical laboratory scientists to track when, where, and in what populations specific genetic mutations emerged that may be involved in different diseases and health conditions.
New Genetic Markers That Could Be Used for Clinical Laboratory Testing
As this happens, it may be possible to identify new diagnostic biomarkers and genetic indicators associated with specific health conditions that could be incorporated into clinical laboratory tests and precision medicine treatments for chronic diseases.
“We have basically built a huge family tree—a genealogy for all of humanity—that models as exactly as we can the history that generated all the genetic variation we find in humans today,” said Yan Wong, DPhil, an evolutionary geneticist at the Big Data Institute (BDI) at the University of Oxford, in a news release. “This genealogy allows us to see how every person’s genetic sequence relates to every other, along all the points of the genome.”
Researchers from University of Oxford’s BDI in London, in collaboration with scientists from the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; Harvard University, and University of Vienna, Austria, developed algorithms for combining different databases and scaling to accommodate millions of gene sequences from both ancient and modern genomes.
“Essentially, we are reconstructing the genomes of our ancestors and using them to form a series of linked evolutionary trees that we call a ‘tree sequence,’” said geneticist Anthony Wilder Wohns, PhD (above), in the Oxford news release. Wohns, a postdoctoral researcher in statistical and population genetics at the Broad Institute, led the study. “We can then estimate when and where these ancestors lived. The power of our approach is that it makes very few assumptions about the underlying data and can also include both modern and ancient DNA samples.” The study may result in new genetic biomarkers that lead to advances in clinical laboratory diagnostics for today’s diseases. (Photo copyright: Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.)
Tracking Genetic Markers of Disease
The BDI team overcame the major obstacle to tracing the origins of human genetic diversity when they developed algorithms to handle the massive amount of data created when combining genome sequences from many different databases. In total, they compiled the genomic sequences of 3,601 modern and eight high-coverage ancient people from 215 populations in eight datasets.
The ancient genomes included three Neanderthal genomes, a Denisovan genome, and a family of four people who lived in Siberia around 4,600 years ago.
The University of Oxford researchers noted in their news release that their method could be scaled to “accommodate millions of genome sequences.”
“This structure is a lossless and compact representation of 27 million ancestral haplotype fragments and 231 million ancestral lineages linking genomes from these datasets back in time. The tree sequence also benefits from the use of an additional 3,589 ancient samples compiled from more than 100 publications to constrain and date relationships,” the researchers wrote in their published study.
Wong believes his research team has laid the groundwork for the next generation of DNA sequencing.
“As the quality of genome sequences from modern and ancient DNA samples improves, the tree will become even more accurate and we will eventually be able to generate a single, unified map that explains the descent of all the human genetic variation we see today,” he said in the news release.
Developing New Clinical Laboratory Biomarkers for Modern Diagnostics
In a video illustrating the study’s findings, evolutionary geneticist Yan Wong, DPhil, a member of the BDI team, said, “If you wanted to know why some people have some sort of medical conditions, or are more predisposed to heart attacks or, for example, are more susceptible to coronavirus, then there’s a huge amount of that described by their ancestry because they’ve inherited their DNA from other people.”
Wohns agrees that the significance of their tree-recording methods extends beyond simply a better understanding of human evolution.
“[This study] could be particularly beneficial in medical genetics, in separating out true associations between genetic regions and diseases from spurious connections arising from our shared ancestral history,” he said.
The underlying methods developed by Wohns’ team could have widespread applications in medical research and lay the groundwork for identifying genetic predictors of disease risk, including future pandemics.
Clinical laboratory scientists will also note that those genetic indicators may become new biomarkers for clinical laboratory diagnostics for all sorts of diseases currently plaguing mankind.
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 laboratory scientists should also know experts warn that ‘herd resistance’ is more likely than ‘herd immunity’ due to low vaccination rates in many parts of the world
Scientists estimate 73% of the US population may be immune to the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. Whether the nation is approaching “herd immunity” against the disease, however, remains open to debate, the Associated Press (AP) reported. These estimates are relevant to medical laboratories doing serology tests for COVID-19, as different individuals will have different immune system responses to COVID-19 infections and vaccines.
More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker shows the number of daily cases dropped to fewer than 50,000 as of March 4, 2022, after reaching a high of 928,125 on January 3, 2022.
Meanwhile, the seven-day death rate per 100,000 people stands at 2.78. That’s significantly above the seven-day death rate reached last July of .45, but well below the 7.21 mark recorded on January 13, 2021.
“We’re clearly entering a new phase of the pandemic,” William Morice, II, MD, PhD, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told KARE11, an NBC affiliate.
Is Herd Immunity Achievable?
According to the AP, an estimated 73% of the US population is likely to be immune to the Omicron variant due to vaccination or natural immunity from contracting the disease. That calculation was done for the media outlet by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle. The IHME anticipates immunity to Omicron could rise to 80% this month, as more people receive vaccination booster shots or become vaccinated.
“Herd immunity is an elusive concept and doesn’t apply to coronavirus,” he told the Associated Press (AP).
Milton maintains populations are moving toward “herd resistance,” rather than “herd immunity.” This will transform COVID-19 into a permanent fixture with seasonal outbreaks similar to influenza.
Epidemiologist, Ali Mokdad, PhD (above), Chief Strategy Officer for Population Health and Professor of Health Metrics Science at the University of Washington in Seattle, believes the US is now much better positioned to withstand the next wave of COVID-19 cases. “I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” he told the Associated Press (AP). Mokdad worked on the IHME model that calculated the 73% Omicron-immunity figure for the AP. However, he recommends continued vigilance toward COVID-19. “We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity we shouldn’t take it for granted,” he added. And so, clinical laboratories can expect to continue to play a vital role in the fight against the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. (Photo copyright: University of Washington.)
Herd Immunity Varies, according to the WHO
Because antibodies that developed from vaccines—or natural immunity from a previous infection—diminish over time, waning protection means even those boosted or recently recovered from COVID-19 could be reinfected. In addition, vaccination rates vary widely around the world. Our World in Data estimates only 13.6% of people in low-income countries had received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine as of March 7, 2022.
The World Health Organization (WHO) points out that herd immunity levels vary with different diseases. Herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated, while the threshold for polio is about 80%.
“The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known. This is an important area of research and will likely vary according to the community, the vaccine, the populations prioritized for vaccination, and other factors,” the WHO website states.
Living with COVID-19
Nonetheless, the US appears to be moving into a new “normal” phase of living with the disease.
In an interview with Reuters, US infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) acknowledged a need for returning to normal living even though portions of the population—immunocompromised individuals and the unvaccinated, including children under age five who are not eligible for vaccination—remain vulnerable to more severe COVID-19.
“The fact that the world and the United States—and particularly certain parts of the United States—are just up to here with COVID, they just really need to somehow get their life back,” Fauci said. “You don’t want to be reckless and throw everything aside, but you’ve got to start inching towards that. There’s no perfect solution to this.”
Most states have lifted coronavirus-related restrictions, including masking requirements. As COVID-19 cases drop in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom put in motion a plan called SMARTER (Shots, Masks, Awareness, Readiness, Testing, Education, and Rx) that no longer responds to COVID-19 as a crisis, but instead emphasizes prevention, surveillance, and rapid response to future variant-based surges in cases.
“We have all come to understand what was not understood at the beginning of this crisis, that there’s no ending, that there’s not a moment where we declare victory,” Newsom told USA Today.
Mayo Clinic’s Morice agrees. “It can’t be out of sight, out of mind, per se, but it at least gives us hope that we can get back to some level of normalcy here over the course of the year,” he said.
Since clinical laboratories played a critical role in assay development and COVID-19 testing, medical laboratory leaders should continue monitoring COVID-19 as it moves from pandemic to endemic status due to high vaccination rates and advances in treatment options.
The COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness among healthcare consumers as well, about the critical role laboratory medicine plays in modern medicine and healthcare. Medical laboratory leaders and pathologists would be wise to amplify this message and stress the importance of clinical laboratory testing for many diseases and healthcare conditions.
