It may not be a boom trend, but more non-invasive diagnostic tests are coming to market as clinical laboratory tests that use breath as the specimen
Here’s a development that reinforces two important trends in diagnostics: non-invasive clinical laboratory assays and patient-self testing. Recently, the FDA expanded the clearance of one diagnostic test to allow patients to collect their own breath specimen at home under the supervision of the test manufacturer’s telehealth team.
Recently, however, the FDA announced it has “expanded the approval of the company’s 13C-Spirulina Gastric Emptying Breath Test (GEBT) to now include ‘at home’ administration under virtual supervision of Cairn Diagnostics.”
Self-administration of at-home tests by patients guided virtually by healthcare professionals is a major advancement in telehealth. But will this virtual-healthcare method be popular with both patients and their physicians?
Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics and Telehealth
Spurring a far greater acceptance of telehealth among patients and healthcare providers is one of the many ways the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare.
“Telehealth, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, has emerged as a preferred option for healthcare providers,” noted Kerry Bush, President and COO of Cairn Diagnostics, in a 2021 news release.
Cairn’s GEBT detects gastroparesis, a disease which, according to the NIH National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), affects 50 people in every 100,000. According to the CDC, it is also sometimes a complication of diabetes. Symptoms include nausea, heartburn, bloating, a feeling of fullness long after eating a meal, vomiting, belching, and pain in the upper abdomen, the NIDDK notes.
In people with gastroparesis—sometimes called “delayed gastric emptying”—muscles that normally move food from the stomach to the small intestine do not work as they should, and the food remains in the stomach for too long. The traditional diagnostic tool used to diagnose gastroparesis is scintigraphy. The patient consumes a meal that has radioactive material mixed in and the digestion process is observed using a nuclear medicine camera as the material is eliminated through the bowels.
Cairn Diagnostics’ C-Spirulina Gastric Emptying Breath Test (above) recently received an expansion to its initial 2015 FDA approval that enables patients to self-administer the test at-home while being virtually guided by the company’s telehealth team. GEBTs are interpreted by CLIA-certified clinical laboratories and the results sent to patients’ doctors within 24-48 hours after testing. (Photo copyright: Cairn Diagnostics.)
Virtual Telehealth GEBT versus Scintigraphy
The telehealth process for Cairn Diagnostic’s Gastric Emptying Breath Test (GEBT) differs significantly from traditional scintigraphy testing. Once a physician prescribes the test, Cairn’s telehealth team contacts the patient to describe the virtual process. The team then ships the at-home test kit to the patient. To complete the testing, Cairn provides the patient with a web-based link to a secure audio/video platform.
During administration of the GEBT, a Cairn technician coaches the patient and supervises via video. Once the test is complete, the patient returns the breath samples to the CLIA-certified clinical laboratory by overnight courier. The test results are sent to the prescribing physician within 24-48 hours after the lab receives the samples.
Discovering New Uses for Breath as a Specimen for Clinical Laboratory Testing
For obvious reasons, patients prefer diagnostics that use specimens obtained noninvasively. GEBT is the latest in a growing list of diagnostic tests that use breath as a specimen.
For example, at Johns Hopkins clinicians employ breath testing to diagnose several conditions, including:
Each of these tests involves the patient consuming a particular substance, technicians capturing breath samples at certain intervals, and clinical laboratory personnel analyzing the samples to look for indicators of disease or intolerance.
New Types of Breath Tests
Breath samples are commonly used to diagnose gastrointestinal issues, but researchers also are seeking methods of using them to diagnose and monitor respiratory conditions as well.
In a recent study published in Nature Nanotechnology, scientists explored how breath can be used to monitor respiratory disease, noting that although breath contains numerous volatile metabolites, it is rarely used clinically because biomarkers have not been identified.
“Here we engineered breath biomarkers for respiratory disease by local delivery of protease-sensing nanoparticles to the lungs. The nanosensors shed volatile reporters upon cleavage by neutrophil elastase, an inflammation-associated protease with elevated activity in lung diseases such as bacterial infection and alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency,” the researchers wrote.
Indeed, the search for new ways to use breath as a biological sample is being pursued by numerous groups and organizations. Owlstone Medical in the UK, for example, is developing breathalyzer tests for the detection of cancer as well as inflammatory and infectious disease.
“Whilst we are still in this discovery stage it is time to refine our study designs so that we can make progress towards tailored clinical application,” they wrote. “Breathomics is perhaps at the ‘end of the beginning’ for asthma at least; it has a ‘sexy’ name, some promising and consistent findings, and the key questions are at least being recognized.”
Better for Patients, Clinicians, and Clinical Laboratories
Virtual telehealth tests, ordered by physicians, administered at home, and interpreted in CLIA-certified clinical laboratories, is a trend pathologists may want to watch carefully, along with the development of other tests that use human breath as the specimen.
Less invasive, more personalized diagnostic tools that can be administered at home are better for patients. When those tools also provide detailed information, clinicians can make better decisions regarding care. Clinical laboratories that approach the use of at-home tests creatively, and which can accurately and quickly process these new types of tests, may have a market advantage and an opportunity to expand and grow.
The discovery is yet another factor that must be considered when developing a liquid biopsy test clinical laboratories can use to detect cancer
How often do disruptive elements present in Liquid biopsies result in misdiagnoses and unhelpful drug therapies for cancer? Researchers at the University of Washington School of Medicine (UW Medicine) in Seattle wanted to know. And the results of their study provide another useful insight for pathologists about the elements that circulate in human blood which must be understood so that liquid biopsy tests can be developed that are not affected by that factor.
Based on their case series study of 69 men with advanced prostate cancer, the UW Medicine researchers determined that 10% of men have a clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) that can “interfere” with liquid biopsies and cause incorrect reports and unneeded prostate cancer treatment, according to their paper published in the journal JAMA Oncology.
The UW Medicine researchers advised testing for “variants in the cell-free DNA (cfDNA)” shed in blood plasma to enable appropriate treatment for people with already diagnosed prostate cancer, noted to a UW Medicine news release.
According to pathologist Colin Pritchard, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at the UW Medicine, who led the research team, “clonal hematopoiesis can interfere with liquid biopsies. For example, mutations in the genes BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM have been closely linked to cancer development.
“The good news is that, by looking at the blood cellular compartment, you can tell with pretty good certainty whether something is cancer, or something is hematopoiesis,” he said in the news release.
What Does CHIP Interference Mean to a Clinical Laboratory Blood Test?
In their published study, the UW Medicine researchers stressed the “urgent need to understand cfDNA testing performance and sources of test interferences” in light of recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance of two PARP inhibitors (PARPi) for prostate cancer:
“We found that a strikingly high proportion of DNA repair gene variants in the plasma of patients with advanced prostate cancer are attributable to CHIP,” the researchers wrote. “The CHIP variants were strongly correlated with increased age, and even higher than expected by age group.
“The high rate of CHIP may also be influenced by prior exposure to chemotherapy,” they added. “We are concerned that CHIP interference is causing false-positive cfDNA biomarker assessments that may result in patient harm from inappropriate treatment, and delays in delivering alternative effective treatment options.
“Without performing a whole-blood control, seven of 69 patients (10%) would have been misdiagnosed and incorrectly deemed eligible for PARP-inhibitor therapy based on CHIP interference in plasma. In fact, one patient in this series had a BRCA2 CHIP clone that had been previously reported by a commercial laboratory testing company with the recommendation to use a PARPi. To mitigate these risks, cfDNA results should be compared to results from whole-blood control or tumor tissue,” the researchers concluded.
To find the clinically relevant CHIP interference in prostate cancer cfDNA testing, researchers used the UW-OncoPlex assay (developed and clinically available at UW Medicine). The assay is a multiplexed next-generation sequencing panel aimed at detecting mutations in tumor tissues in more than 350 genes, according to the UW Medicine Laboratory and Pathology website.
“To improve cfDNA assay performance, we developed an approach that simultaneously analyzes plasma and paired whole-blood control samples. Using this paired testing approach, we sought to determine to what degree CHIP interferes with the results of prostate cancer cfDNA testing,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Oncology.
Men May Receive Unhelpful Prostate Cancer Drug Therapies
The research team studied test results from 69 men with advanced prostate cancer. They analyzed patients’ plasma cfDNA and whole-blood control samples.
Tumor sequencing enabled detection of germline (cells relating to preceding cells) variants from CHIP clones.
The UW Medicine study suggested CHIP variants “accounted for almost half of the somatic (non-germline) DNA repair mutations” detected by liquid biopsy, according to the news release.
> “About half the time when the plasma is thought to contain a mutation that would guide therapy with these drugs, it actually contains CHIP variants, not prostate cancer DNA variants. That means that in about half of those tested, a patient could be told that he should be administered a drug that is not indicated to treat to his cancer,” said Colin Pritchard, MD, PhD, pathologist and Associate Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at UW Medicine in the new release. (Photo copyright: University of Washington School of Medicine.)
Other detailed findings of the UW Medicine Study:
CHIP variants of 2% or more were detected in cfDNA from 13 of 69 men.
Seven men, or 10%, having advanced prostate cancer “had CHIP variants in DNA repair genes used to determine PARPi candidacy.
CHIP variants rose with age: 0% in those 40 to 50; 12.5% in men 51 to 60; 6.3% in those 61 to 70; 20.8% in men 71 to 80; and 71% in men 81 to 90.
Whole-blood control made it possible to distinguish prostate cancer variants from CHIP interference variants.
“Men with prostate cancer are at high risk of being misdiagnosed as being eligible for PARPi therapy using current cfDNA tests; assays should use a whole-blood control sample to distinguish CHIP variants from prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Oncology.
Liquid Biopsies Are ‘Here to Stay’
Surgical oncologist William Cance, MD, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, American Cancer Society (ACS) in Atlanta, recognizes the challenge of tumor biology to liquid biopsies.
“Genetic abnormalities are only one piece of the puzzle. We need to look comprehensively at tumors for the best therapy, from their metabolic changes and protein signatures in the blood to the epigenetic modifications that may occur, as cancers take hold,” he told Oncology Times. “It’s not just shed DNA in the blood.”
The UW Medicine study demonstrates the importance of understanding how all elements in liquid biopsies interact to affect clinical laboratory test results.
“I think liquid biopsies are here to stay,” Cance told Oncology Times. “They’re all part of precision medicine, tailored to the individual.”
Four-star general Jim Mattis testified that he eventually “didn’t know what to believe about Theranos anymore,” The Wall Street Journal reported
Former-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was known for her obsession with Steve Jobs, imitating not only the late Apple CEO’s well-known management style, but also his wardrobe choices. However, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists will not be surprised to learn that—in testimony during Holmes’ federal fraud trial—Theranos’ former laboratory director told jurors Holmes’ “confident demeanor” disappeared when she was told her revolutionary blood-testing technology “didn’t work,” KPIX5 TV reported.
During two days of testimony in San Jose, Calif., pathologist Adam Rosendorff, MD, told jurors that in the days leading up to the 2013 launch of the Edison blood-testing device he warned Holmes in emails and in person that the product wasn’t ready to be deployed commercially.
“I told her that the potassium was unreliable, the sodium was unreliable, the glucose was unreliable, [and] explained why,” testified the clinical pathologist. “She was very nervous. She was not her usual composed self. She was trembling a bit, her knee was tapping, her voice was breaking up. She was clearly upset,” he added.
KPIX5 TV reported that Holmes had told Rosendorff the laboratory could substitute conventional federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved devices as needed.
Rosendorff left his position with Theranos in November 2014. According to KPIX5, he told jurors, “I felt pressured to vouch for [medical laboratory] tests that I did not have confidence in. I came to believe that the company believed more about PR and fundraising than about patient care. The platform was not allowing me to function effectively as a lab director.”
Former Theranos Laboratory Director Adam Rosendorff, MD (above), testified in the federal fraud trial of Theranos founder and ex-CEO Elizabeth Holmes that he considered filing a whistleblower lawsuit against his employer because of his concerns about the Edison blood-testing device’s lack of reliability and accuracy of test results. “I wanted to get the word out about what was happening at Theranos,” the clinical pathologist told jurors, the Wall Street Journal reported. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
In continuing testimony, Rosendorff acknowledged that tension increased between himself and Holmes and Theranos’ Chief Operating Officer Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani over Rosendorff’s concerns about the reliability and accuracy of the lab’s test results. At one point, he asked Balwani in an email if his name could be removed from the Theranos CLIA lab license so he would not be legally responsible for the lab’s problems.
Balwani’s own fraud trial begins in January 2022.
Former Theranos Lab Director Considered Filing a Qui Tam Lawsuit
According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Rosendorff testified he forwarded work emails to his personal email account to protect himself in case the federal government investigated Theranos. He also considered filing a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.
“I wanted to get the word out about what was happening at Theranos,” he testified, the Wall Street Journal reported.
The government’s first witnesses were former Theranos employees:
Gangakehedkar testified that Holmes knew about reliability issues with the Edison blood-testing device, yet pressured staff to move forward with the Walgreens roll out.
Theranos’ partnership with Walgreens ended in 2016, after Theranos voided years of test results performed on its machines.
In “Former Theranos Chemist Says Elizabeth Holmes Was Aware of Testing Failures,” the WSJ reported that Gangakhedkar resigned from Theranos in September 2013, taking with her Theranos documents and copies of emails in which she expressed her concerns to Holmes and others about continuing problems with Theranos’ lab tests.
“I was scared that things would not go well,” Gangakhedkar testified, her voice breaking at one point. “I was afraid I would be blamed.”
As foreshadowed during the trial’s opening statements, Holmes’ defense team plans to argue that their client did not intend to defraud investors but believed her blood-testing technology—portrayed as capable of running more than 200 tests using a finger-stick sample of blood—would revolutionize the healthcare industry.
In his opening remarks to the jury, Lance Wade, JD, a member of the Holmes defense team from Williams and Connolly LLP, told jurors that evidence will show Theranos investors were “incredibly sophisticated and knew the risks” and were actually pushing to invest in Theranos. The reality of the case, he said, is “far more human and real, and oftentimes, I hate to say it, technical and complicated and boring” than what the federal government has suggested, Forbes reported.
Four-star General Jim Mattis (ret.) Testifies
According to the Wall Street Journal, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis testified he joined the Theranos board in the summer of 2013, at which time he invested $85,000 in the company. He said he had first met Holmes in San Francisco in 2011. At the time, Mattis, a Marine Corps four-star general, was leading the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) and that, according to testimony, he recognized the Edison device’s potential for use on the battlefield.
Mattis testified he and other Theranos board members were surprised to learn in 2015 that Theranos was using blooding testing equipment from competing companies.
“There came a time when I didn’t know what to believe about Theranos anymore,” he told jurors, according to the WSJ. Mattis resigned from the board in 2016, after learning he would be nominated as Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration.
The courtroom sketch above shows former Defense Secretary four-star general Jim Mattis testifying Wednesday at the criminal trial of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes in San Jose, Calif. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer.)
The trial is expected to last until mid-December, with jurors hearing testimony on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. For clinical laboratory scientists, each day of testimony should bring a new round of surprises so stay tuned.
As the worldwide demand for histopathology services increases faster than the increase in the number of anatomic pathologist and histopathologists, a DP platform that suggests courses of treatments may be a boon to cancer diagnostics
Europe may become Ground Zero for the widespread adoption of whole-slide imaging (WSI), digital pathology (DP) workflow, and the use of image-analysis algorithms to make primary diagnoses of cancer. Several forward-looking histopathology laboratories in different European countries are moving swiftly to adopt these innovative technologies.
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups worldwide have watched digital pathology tools evolve into powerful diagnostic aids. And though not yet employed for primary diagnoses, thanks to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning many DP platforms are moving closer to daily clinical use and new collaborations with pathologists who utilize the technology to confirm cancer and other chronic diseases.
Now, Swiss company Unilabs, one of the largest laboratory, imaging, and pathology diagnostic developers in Europe, and Israel-based Ibex Medical Analytics, developer of AI-based digital pathology and cancer diagnostics, have teamed together to deploy “Ibex’s multi-tissue AI-powered Galen platform” across 16 European nations, according to a Unilabs press release.
Though not cleared by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical use in the US, the FDA recently granted Breakthrough Device Designation to Ibex’s Galen platform. This designation is part of the FDA’s Breakthrough Device Program which was created to help expedite the development, assessment, and review of certain medical devices and products that promise to provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions.
Benefits of AI-Digital Pathology to Pathologists, Clinical Labs, and Patients
According to Ibex’s website, the Galen DP platform uses AI algorithms to analyze images from breast and prostate tissue biopsies and provide insights that help pathologists and physicians determine the best treatment options for cancer patients.
This will, Ibex says, give pathologists “More time to dedicate to complex cases and research,” and will make reading biopsies “Less tedious, tiring, and stressful.”
Patients, according to Ibex, benefit from “Increased diagnostic accuracy” and “More objective results.”
And pathology laboratories benefit from “Increased efficiency, decreased turnaround time, and improved quality of service,” Ibex claims.
According to the press release, AI-generated insights can include “case prioritization worklists, cancer heatmaps, tumor grading and measurements, streamlined reporting tools and more.”
This more collaborative approach between pathologists and AI is a somewhat different use of digital pathology, which primarily has been used to confirm pathologists’ diagnoses, rather than helping to identify cancer and suggest courses of treatment to pathologists.
“This cutting-edge AI technology will help our teams quickly prioritize urgent cases, speed up diagnosis, and improve quality by adding an extra set of digital eyes,” said Christian Rebhan, MD, PhD (above), Chief Medical and Operations Officer at Unilabs, in the press release. “When it comes to cancer, the earlier you catch it, the better the prognosis—so getting us critical results faster will help save lives.” (Photo copyright: Unilabs.)
AI-based First and Second Reads
The utilization of the Galen platform will first be rolled out nationally in Sweden and then deployed in sixteen other countries. The AI-based DP platform is CE marked in the European Union for breast and prostate cancer detection in multiple workflows.
“The partnership with Ibex underlines Unilabs’ pioneering role in Digital Pathology and represents yet another step in our ambition to become the most digitally-enabled provider of diagnostic services in Europe,” Rebhan stated.
The Ibex website explains that the Galen platform is divided into two parts—First Read and Second Read:
The First Read “is an AI-based diagnostics application that aims to help pathologists significantly reduce turnaround time and improve diagnostic accuracy. The application uses a highly accurate AI algorithm to analyze slides prior to the pathologist and provides decision support tools that enable focusing on cancerous slides and areas of interest, streamline reporting, improve lab efficiency, and increase diagnostic confidence.”
The Second Read “is an AI-based diagnostics and quality control application that helps pathologists enhance diagnostic accuracy with no impact on routine workflow. The application analyzes slides in parallel with the pathologist and alerts in case of discrepancies with high clinical significance (e.g., a missed cancer), thereby providing a safety net that reduces error rates and enables a more efficient workflow.”
“Ibex is transforming cancer diagnosis with innovative AI solutions across the diagnostic pathway,” said Joseph Mossel, Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of Ibex, in the press release. “We are excited to partner with Unilabs to deploy our AI solutions and empower their pathologists with faster turnaround times and quality diagnosis. This cooperation follows a thorough evaluation of our technology at Unilabs and demonstrates the robustness and utility of our platform for everyday clinical practice.”
Use of AI in Pathology Increases as Number of Actual Pathologists Declines
Developers like Unilabs and Ibex believe that DP platforms driven by AI image analysis algorithms can help pathologists be more productive and can shorten the time it takes for physicians to make diagnoses and issue reports to patients.
This may be coming at a critical time. As nations around the globe face increasing shortages of pathologists and histopathologists, the use of AI in digital pathology could become more critical for disease diagnosis and treatment.
A 2019 Medscape survey stated that “One-third of active pathologists are burned out,” and that many pathologists are on the road to retirement.
And in the same year, Fierce Healthcare noted that in a 2013 study, “researchers found that more than 40% of pathologists were 55 or older. They predicted that retirements would reach their apex in 2021. Consequently, by the end of next decade, the United States will be short more than 5,700 pathologists.”
Dark Daily previously reported on the growing global shortage of pathologists going back to 2011.
Even China is struggling to keep up with demand for anatomic pathologists. In 2017, Dark Daily wrote, “China is currently facing a severe shortage of anatomic pathologists, which blocks patients’ access to quality care. The relatively small number of pathologists are often overworked, even as more patients want access to specialty care for illnesses. Some hospitals in China do not even have pathologists on staff. Thus, they rely on understaffed anatomic pathology departments at other facilities, or they use imaging only for diagnoses.”
Thus, it may be time for an AI-driven digital platform to arrive that can speed up and increase the accuracy of the cancer diagnostics process for pathologists, clinical laboratories, and patients alike.
There are multiple companies rapidly developing AI, machine learning, and image analysis products for diagnosing diseases. Pathologists should expect progress in this field to be ongoing and new capabilities regularly introduced into the market.
FDA cites ‘risk of false results’ and concerns about labeling and ‘performance claims’ in its official warning letter to Innova, a company with connections to Chinese firms
By many standards, the US government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been phenomenal. However, the many emergency use authorizations (EUAs) awarded by the US federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to bring as many COVID-19 tests to market as quickly as possible means some of those tests in use today at clinical laboratories nationwide have not undergone the normal pre-market review and clearance typically required by the FDA.
But in its recall announcement, the FDA described Innova’s recall of its SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test as a “Class 1 recall” and gave the stern warning, “Use of these devices may cause serious injuries or death.”
And in its public Safety Communication, the federal agency wrote, “The FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health. In addition, labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests. Finally, the test has not been authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA for commercial distribution or use in the United States, as required by law.”
In May 2021, Innova Medical Group of Pasadena, Calif., announced it would start producing millions of its COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid test kits (above) per day in the United Kingdom by opening a production facility in Rhymney, South Wales. (Photo copyright: Innova Medical Group, Inc.)
FDA Warns Public to Stop Using Innova’s Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Test
Widescale COVID-19 testing has been viewed as key to containing community spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and fast, inexpensive rapid COVID-19 testing is a necessity in that fight.
However, as clinical laboratory scientists know, rapid tests are not as specific as molecular polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, which means there is a higher chance of false negatives and false positives with a COVID-19 rapid test than with a molecular test. When diagnosing COVID-19, a PCR test is considered the gold-standard, though results can take multiple days to produce.
Nevertheless, according to the Innova Europe website, the Innova rapid antigen test has a sensitivity on symptomatic individuals of 97% and a specificity of 99% and is the most widely used test in the world. More than 500 million units are in circulation.
Regardless, in its June 10th warning, the FDA called for the public to stop using the Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid test for diagnostic use.
“The FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health,” the FDA stated. “In addition, labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests. Finally, the test has not been authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA for commercial distribution or use in the United States, as required by law.”
In its warning, the FDA recommended anyone in possession of Innova tests “destroy the tests by placing them in the trash” or return the tests to Innova.
The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid test is also distributed under the names:
Innova COVID-19 Self-Test Kit (3T Configuration),
Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Test (7T Configuration), and
Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Test (25T Configuration).
Innova Medical Group was formed in March 2020 by Charles Huang, PhD, founder and chairman of private-equity firm Pasaca Capital. The Pasaca website states Innova worked with its primary contract manufacturer, China-based Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology Co., for several months to design “a highly accurate rapid antigen test for COVID-19.”
“The simple test takes less than five minutes to administer and generates results in as little as 20 minutes without the need for a machine,” the website states. “Equally important, Innova and its partner have been able to manufacture the product at scale, presently in excess of ten million kits per day.”
However, The Los Angeles Times claims that in September 2020 Innova “secured a vast supply of rapid coronavirus tests from an obscure Chinese manufacturer before established pharmaceutical companies could do so.” The LA Times adds that Innova distributed more than 70,000 tests in the United States even though the FDA had not acted on Innova’s application to sell its tests domestically.
This may have contributed to the FDA’s dire warning to discontinue use and discard the Innova tests.
UK’s MHRA Disagrees with FDA Warning
But in the UK, it is a different story. According to The Guardian, Innova’s lateral flow tests are the cornerstone of “Operation Moonshot”, the government’s mass testing plan aimed at reducing community transmission by identifying asymptomatic COVID-19 positive people using an inexpensive, quick-response test distributed for home use and to workplaces, schools, and test centers.
In “Rapid COVID Tests Used in Mass UK Programme Get Scathing US Report,” The Guardian reports that “criticism of the Innova test has been fierce” in the UK following the FDA’s “scathing review” of its rapid antigen test. However, after investigating the concerns raised by the FDA, the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) reiterated that the Innova lateral flow tests were safe to use.
“We have now concluded our review of the risk assessment and are satisfied that no further action is necessary or advisable at this time,” said Graeme Tunbridge, MHRA Director of Devices, in a UK government response statement which announced that the MHRA was extending the Exceptional Use Authorization (EUA) for the tests use in its national asymptomatic testing program through Aug. 28, 2021. “This has allowed us to extend the EUA to allow ongoing supply of these [lateral flow devices] over the coming months. People can be assured of the MHRA’s work to continuously monitor the tests in use; as is our standard process.”
Innova Defends Its Test, FDA Repeats Its Warning
An Innova spokesperson told The Guardian: “The Innova rapid antigen test has been widely used, studied, tested, scrutinized and analyzed with data supporting the efficacy of the test from the largest mass testing program out of the UK. Innova is confident about the quality of its product.”
However, the FDA maintains Innova’s COVID-19 lateral flow test included labeling that provided “false and misleading” estimates of the test’s clinical performance. In its warning letter to Innova, the FDA also pointed out that the clinical study data Innova submitted as part of its EUA request was “identical to data previously provided by other manufacturers in their EUA requests. The data reliability and accuracy issues noted herein raise significant concerns that the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test has not been adequately established, and that the products distributed by Innova without FDA approval, clearance, or authorization could present a serious risk to the public health.”
Pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals in this country will want to watch carefully to see if efforts to increase regulatory scrutiny of diagnostic tests in the UK spills across the Atlantic.
