Pathologists and clinical laboratories have an opportunity to help create newborn rWGS programs in their parent hospitals and health systems
Diagnosing disease in infants is particularly difficult using typical clinical laboratory testing and modalities. Thus, the use of rapid Whole Genome Sequencing (rWGS) is gaining acceptance when such a procedure is deemed “medically appropriate” based on the child’s symptoms.
In “Whole Genome Sequencing for Newborns Gains Favor,” Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report wrote, “Evidence is swiftly accumulating that use of rapid Whole Genome Sequencing for certain children in NICUs can enable diagnostic insights that guide effective interventions. Further, these pilot rWGS programs in children’s hospitals are showing a solid return on investment because of improved care. It is predicted that more hospitals may soon offer rWGS.”
Conducted at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, the researchers found that “Whole genome tests are nearly twice as good as narrower tests at unearthing genetic abnormalities that can cause disease in infants—the study found 49% of abnormalities, compared to 27% with more commonly used tests targeting particular types of genetic diseases,” the Associate Press reported.
The AP story follows the medical journey of a now 4-year-old who was diagnosed with a rare bleeding disorder. The nearly fatal condition was only caught because broad genetic testing found she suffered from factor XIII deficiency, a blood disorder characterized by the inability to clot properly.
“I’ve been doing clinical trials of babies for over 40 years,” neonatologist Jonathan Davis, MD (above), Chief, Division of Newborn Medicine at Tufts Children’s Hospital at Tufts Medical Center and Professor of Pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, told the AP. “It’s not often that you can do something that you feel is going to really change the world and change clinical practice for everyone.” Clinical laboratories that work with oncologists to treat children suffering from cancer will understand Davis’ enthusiasm. (Photo copyright: Tufts Medicine.)
Incorporating Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing into Infant Care
Genetic diseases are responsible for 41% of infant deaths, according to a Rady Children’s Institute press release, which goes on to say the usage of rWGS may significantly improve the odds for infants born with genetic disorders.
“Broad use of genomic sequencing during the first year of life could have a much greater impact on infant mortality than was recognized hitherto,” said Stephen Kingsmore MD, President/CEO, Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine, which was one of the additional study sites for the Tufts Medicine researchers.
Genetic testing is already used to predict infant health outcomes, but the Tufts study highlights further developments that could improve the process. Prenatal genetic testing can be utilized both through carrier testing to determine any potential genetic red flags in the parents, and during prenatal screening and diagnostic testing of the fetus.
When an infant presents symptoms after birth, rWGS can then be implemented to cast a broad net to determine the best course of treatment.
According to ScienceDaily, the Tufts study found rWGS “to be nearly twice as effective as a targeted gene sequencing test at identifying abnormalities responsible for genetic disorders in newborns and infants.”
However, the rWGS tests took an average of six days to come back, whereas the targeted tests took only four days, ScienceDaily reported. Also, there is not full consensus on whether a certain gene abnormality is actually the cause of a specific genetic disorder.
“Many neonatologists and geneticists use genome sequencing panels, but it’s clear there are a variety of different approaches and a lack of consensus among geneticists on the causes of a specific patient’s medical disorder,” Jill Maron, MD, Vice Chair of Pediatric Research, Tufts Medical Center, and a co-principal investigator of the Tufts study, told Science Daily.
rWGS Costs versus Return on Investment
Some also question the upfront cost of genetic testing. It can be high, but it’s coming down and Maron stresses the importance of the tests.
“Genome sequencing can be costly, but in this targeted, at-risk population, it proves to be highly informative. We are supportive of ongoing efforts to see these tests covered by insurance,” she told ScienceDaily.
Each of the doctors associated with the Tufts study emphasized the importance of this testing and the good that can be done for this vulnerable group. The potential value to the children, they say, far outweighs the drawbacks of the testing.
“This study provides further evidence that genetic disorders are common among newborns and infants,” Kingsmore told ScienceDaily, “The findings strengthen support for early diagnosis by rapid genomic sequencing, allowing for the use of precision medicine to better care for this vulnerable patient population.”
For clinical laboratories, there is also good news about reimbursement for rWGS. In a story published last fall KFF Health News wrote, “Since 2021, eight state Medicaid programs have added rapid whole-genome sequencing to their coverage or will soon cover it, according to GeneDX, a provider of the test. That includes Florida … The test is also under consideration for coverage in Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina, according to the nonprofit Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine, another major provider of the test.”
“Collectively, these developments are encouraging children’s hospitals, academic centers, and tertiary care centers to look at establishing their own rWGS programs,” wrote Michel in The Dark Report. “In settings where this is appropriate, hospital and health system-based clinical laboratories have an opportunity to take an active role in helping jump start a newborn rWGS program in their institutions.”
Pathologists should continue to monitor rWGS, as well as prenatal and carrier testing, to have a full awareness of its growing use in infant and young child cancer screening.
Some hospital organizations are pushing back, stating that the new regulations are ‘too rigid’ and interfere with doctors’ treatment of patients
In August, the Biden administration finalized provisions for hospitals to meet specific treatment metrics for all patients with suspected sepsis. Hospitals that fail to meet these requirements risk the potential loss of millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements annually. This new federal rule did not go over well with some in the hospital industry.
Sepsis kills about 350,000 people every year. One in three people who contract the deadly blood infection in hospitals die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Thus, the federal government has once again implemented a final rule that requires hospitals, clinical laboratories, and medical providers to take immediate actions to diagnose and treat sepsis patients.
The effort has elicited pushback from several healthcare organizations that say the measure is “too rigid” and “does not allow clinicians flexibility to determine how recommendations should apply to their specific patients,” according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Perform blood tests within a specific period of time to look for biomarkers in patients that may indicate sepsis, and to
Administer antibiotics within three hours after a possible case is identified.
It also mandates that certain other tests are performed, and intravenous fluids administered, to prevent blood pressure from dipping to dangerously low levels.
“These are core things that everyone should do every time they see a septic patient,” said Steven Simpson, MD, Professor of medicine at the University of Kansas told Fierce Healthcare. Simpson is also the chairman of the Sepsis Alliance, an advocacy group that works to battle sepsis.
Simpson believes there is enough evidence to prove that the SEP-1 guidelines result in improved patient care and outcomes and should be enforced.
“It is quite clear that this works better than what was present before, which was nothing,” he said. “If the current sepsis mortality rate could be cut by even 5%, we could save a lot of lives. Before, even if you were reporting 0% compliance, you didn’t lose your money. Now you actually have to do it,” Simpson noted.
“We are encouraged by the increased attention to sepsis and support CMS’ creation of a sepsis mortality measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care,” Chanu Rhee, MD (above), Infectious Disease/Critical Care Physician and Associate Hospital Epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital told Healthcare Finance. The new rule, however, requires doctors and medical laboratories to conduct tests and administer antibiotic treatment sooner than many healthcare providers deem wise. (Photo copyright: Brigham and Women’s Hospital.)
Healthcare Organizations Pushback against Final Rule
“By encouraging the use of broad spectrum antibiotics when more targeted ones will suffice, this measure promotes the overuse of the antibiotics that are our last line of defense against drug-resistant bacteria,” the AHA’s letter states.
In its recent coverage of the healthcare organizations’ pushback to CMS’ final rule, Healthcare Finance News explained, “The SEP-1 measure requires clinicians to provide a bundle of care to all patients with possible sepsis within three hours of recognition. … But the SEP-1 measure doesn’t take into account that many serious conditions present in a similar fashion to sepsis … Pushing clinicians to treat all these patients as if they have sepsis … leads to overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can be harmful to patients who are not infected, those who are infected with viruses rather than bacteria, and those who could safely be treated with narrower-spectrum antibiotics.”
CMS’ latest rule follows the same evolutionary path as previous federal guidelines. In August 2007, CMS announced that Medicare would no longer pay for additional costs associated with preventable errors, including situations known as Never Events. These are “adverse events that are serious, largely preventable, and of concern to both the public and healthcare providers for the purpose of public accountability,” according to the Leapfrog Group.
In 2014, the CDC suggested that all US hospitals have an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and utilized by patients.
Research Does Not Show Federal Sepsis Programs Work
He points to analysis which showed that though use of broad-spectrum antibiotics increased after the original 2015 SEP-1 regulations were introduced, there has been little change to patient outcomes.
“Unfortunately, we do not have good evidence that implementation of the sepsis policy has led to an improvement in sepsis mortality rates,” Rhee told Fierce Healthcare.
Rhee believes that the latest regulations are a step in the right direction, but that more needs to be done for sepsis care. “Retiring past measures and refining future ones will help stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment and ultimately improve outcomes for the many patients affected by sepsis,” he told Healthcare Finance.
Sepsis is very difficult to diagnose quickly and accurately. Delaying treatment could result in serious consequences. But clinical laboratory blood tests for blood infections can take up to three days to produce a result. During that time, a patient could be receiving the wrong antibiotic for the infection, which could lead to worse problems.
The new federal regulation is designed to ensure that patients receive the best care possible when dealing with sepsis and to lower mortality rates in those patients. It remains to be seen if it will have the desired effect.
Encouraging patients—even children—to be more directly involved in their own medical care may reduce the burden on healthcare workers and might even help those clinical laboratories struggling to hire enough phlebotomists to collect specimens
Researchers at Emory University School of Medicine have concluded a study which found that school-aged children can successfully use a nasal swab to obtain their own SARS-CoV-2 test specimens. This may come as a surprise to hospital and clinical laboratory personnel who have performed nasal swabbing for COVID-19 tests. Some people, adults included, find the procedure so uncomfortable it brings tears.
And yet, after being shown a 90-second how-to video and given a handout with written instructions and pictures, 197 Atlanta children who had COVID-19 symptoms between July and August of 2021 performed their own self-swabbing. A healthcare worker then collected a second swabbed sample. All samples were submitted to a clinical laboratory for PCR analysis.
The Emory study provides another example of how the healthcare system is engaging patients to be directly involved in their own medical care. Results of the study could positively impact clinical laboratories facing a shortage of personnel, as well as schools where children have to take repeated COVID-19 tests with the assistance of trained professionals.
In a study with 197 school-age children, researchers at Emory University School of Medicine found that children could self-swab themselves for COVID-19 testing after watching a 90-second instructional video. Clinical laboratory leaders who are short on personnel may find these results intriguing. (Photo copyright: Emory University.)
How Did the Children Do?
The self-collected swabs and those collected by a healthcare worker agreed 97.8% of the time for a positive result and 98.1% of the time for a negative result. The analysis showed that both collection methods identified the 44% of symptomatic kids who were positive for COVID-19.
“Seeing how closely the results line up between the children and trained healthcare workers is a strong indicator that these age groups are fully capable of swabbing themselves if given proper instruction,” said Jesse Waggoner, MD, an Assistant Professor of Infectious Diseases with the Emory University School of Medicine and one of the lead authors on the study, in an Emory University press release.
A higher percentage of children age eight and under needed assistance, such as more instruction before correctly completing self-collection—21.8% compared to 6.1% for children older—but SARS-CoV-2 detection among the two age groups did not differ.
Does FDA Approve of Self-Swabbing?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not authorized COVID-19 tests that include self-swabbing by children under age 14. However, data from the Emory study, published in JAMA, is now available to test manufacturers seeking authorization for pediatric self-collection.
“Pediatric self-swabbing will support expanded testing access and should make it even easier to test school age populations with fewer resources,” said Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, Director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics at the FDA, in the Emory statement. “This study furthers our knowledge of test accuracy with these types of samples and provides test manufacturers with data to support their EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) requests to the FDA.”
Self-swabbing versus Clinical Laboratory Worker
While it has been longstanding medical practice to have healthcare workers collect samples for respiratory tract infection testing, the Emory researchers suggest that allowing children to collect their own COVID-19 samples could be one way to reduce the burden of a shortage of healthcare workers.
The researchers also believe pediatric self-swabbing would expand access to diagnostic tests and make it easier to test school-age populations.
“Every minute of a healthcare worker’s time is at a premium,” said senior study author Wilbur Lam, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Tech, in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) press release. “Why not allow a kid to self-swab? It’s a win-win! They would rather do it themselves and it frees up the healthcare worker to do other things,” he added.
In 2020, a Stanford University School of Medicine study published in JAMA showed test samples collected by adults who swabbed their own nasal passages were as accurate as those collected by healthcare workers. This study involved 30 participants who had previously tested positive for COVID-19.
Though the Emory University and Stamford University studies were small, they agreed in their findings which is significant. Clinical laboratory executives and pathologists should expect this trend toward direct-to-consumer and other forms of self-testing to continue, even among young patients.
New USPSTF guidelines suggest reducing the volume of Vitamin D deficiency testing in the general population, which could reduce revenue for clinical laboratories
From 2005 to 2011, the volume of clinical laboratory tests for Vitamin D soared nationally as more doctors tested more patients for Vitamin D deficiency. This became a major source of revenue growth for many clinical laboratories performing those tests. But at least a portion of lab revenue associated with Vitamin D testing may be in jeopardy.
In a recommendation statement published in JAMA Network, titled, “Screening for Vitamin D Deficiency in Adults,” the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—following up on its 2014 recommendations—stated “that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for Vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults.”
The USPSTF’s new recommendations concerning Vitamin D testing came after the federal task force performed an extensive review of the benefits and potential harm of screening for Vitamin D deficiencies in non-pregnant adults who displayed no symptoms of a deficiency. Symptoms of a Vitamin D deficiency include fatigue and tiredness, bone and back pain, depression, impaired would healing, bone loss, hair loss, and muscle pain.
After completing its research, the USPSTF concluded “the overall evidence on the benefits of screening for Vitamin D deficiency is lacking. Therefore, the balance of benefits and harms of screening for Vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined.”
Are USPSTF Conclusions Contrary to Current Deficiency Testing Practices?
“Among asymptomatic, community-dwelling populations with low Vitamin D levels, the evidence suggests that treatment with Vitamin D has no effect on mortality or the incidence of fractures, falls, depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or adverse events,” the JAMA Network article states.
Other studies have linked low Vitamin D levels with some health conditions and risks, however, the USPSTF review found no studies that directly evaluated any perks associated with Vitamin D screening in otherwise healthy individuals.
Everyday Health listed 10 illnesses linked to low Vitamin D deficiency. They include:
“We see a lot of associations between Vitamin D deficiency and poor health outcomes,” Mary Byrn, PhD, RN, an associate professor at Loyola University in Chicago who studies Vitamin D, told Everyday Health. “Although these are relationships and we are unable to conclude cause and effect, taking Vitamin D supplements or exposing yourself to the sun in a safe manner to increase Vitamin D naturally are easy ways to improve your health and try to reduce your risk of multiple diseases,” she said. (Photo copyright: Midwest Nursing Research Society.)
Can Vitamin D Supplementation Be Harmful?
The USPSTF study also stated that Vitamin D supplementation appears to be safe and that toxicity from too much Vitamin D would be rare. One of the USPSTF’s key concerns of screening for Vitamin D in asymptomatic individuals was the potential for misclassification and inaccurate diagnoses.
The study also revealed that more research is needed to determine what serum levels are optimal when diagnosing a Vitamin D deficiency, and whether those levels vary by subgroups, such as race, ethnicity, or gender.
The JAMA Network article states that “the evidence is inconclusive about the effect of treatment on physical functioning and infection.”
The amount of Vitamin D individuals need each day depends upon their age. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends that adults between the ages of 19 and 70 get 15 micrograms or 600 International Units (IU) of Vitamin D daily.
According to an NIH fact sheet, people can receive Vitamin D through sun exposure, supplements, and some food, such as fatty fish, mushrooms, beef liver, cheese, and egg yolks, plus foods that are fortified with Vitamin D, such as some milk products and breakfast cereals.
Vitamin D and COVID-19
It has been widely reported that approximately 42% of Americans are Vitamin D deficient. And Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and how well patients recover after COVID-19 treatment.
A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism that examined 216 COVID-19 hospitalized patients in Spain found that over 80% of those individuals were deficient in Vitamin D. The study also found that COVID-19 patients who had lower Vitamin D levels also had a higher number of inflammatory markers that have been associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. The results of this study were in March.
For several decades, experts have recommended avoiding sun exposure and using sunscreen to avoid skin cancers. This may have caused people to get less Vitamin D from sun exposure. It may also have contributed to an increase in the number of Vitamin D deficiencies and increased COVID-19 infections.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers should keep in mind that the USPSTF recommended less testing for Vitamin D deficiencies in asymptomatic individuals. This proposal may affect test volume in clinical laboratories, as Vitamin D testing has been a common and lucrative assay for many years.
Because of ‘shelter in place’ orders, many anatomic pathologists are reviewing digital images from home during the COVID-19 outbreak and demonstrating the value of whole slide imaging, digital pathology, and CMS’ recent amended remote sign-out policy
COVID-19 is already triggering many permanent changes in the way healthcare is organized and delivered in the United States. However, not until the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic eases will the full extent of these changes become visible. This will be particularly true for anatomic pathology and the profession’s expanded use of telepathology, digital pathology, and whole-slide imaging.
Since early March, specimen referrals and revenues have collapsed at anatomic pathology groups and laboratories across the nation. Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR), was first to quantify the magnitude of this collapse in tissue referrals to pathology groups. In an interview with The Dark Report, Kyle Fetter, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Diagnostic Services at XIFIN, Inc., explained that pathology clients using XIFIN’s revenue cycle management services were seeing an average 40% decrease in specimens. And, for certain pathology sub-specialties, the drop-off in specimen referrals was as much as 90%. (See TDR, “From Mid-March, Labs Saw Big Drop in Revenue,” April 20, 2020.)
The College of American Pathologists (CAP) appealed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to allow pathologists to work remotely. In response, CMS issued a memorandum which stated, “Due to the public health emergency posed by COVID-19 and the urgent need to expand laboratory capacity, CMS is exercising its enforcement discretion to adopt a temporary policy of relaxed enforcement in connection with laboratories located at temporary testing sites under the conditions outlined herein.”
Since then, many physicians, including pathologists, have quickly adapted to working remotely in some form.
Push for Remote Pathology Services Acknowledges Anatomic Pathologist Shortage
The CMS memorandum (QSO-20-21-CLIA), which the federal agency issued to laboratory surveyors on March 26, 2020, notes that CMS will exercise “enforcement discretion to ensure pathologists may review pathology slides remotely” if certain defined conditions are met.
CMS’ decision, which “is applicable only during the COVID-19 public health emergency,” is intended to increase capacity by allowing remote site review of clinical laboratory data, results, and pathology slides.
Ordinarily, CLIA regulations for cytology (a branch of study that focuses on the biological structure of cells) state that cytology slide preparations must be evaluated on the premises of a laboratory that is certified to conduct testing in the subspecialty of cytology. However, a fast-acting Congressional letter sent by 37 members of Congress to US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar II, MD, states, “it is unwise and unnecessary to overburden the remaining pathologists with excess work due to staffing shortages, thereby increasing the risk of burnout, medical error, and further shortages in staffing due to exposure. The number of COVID-19 cases will increase and peak over the next two months and will stretch existing healthcare systems to their limits.”
Decreasing Number of ‘Active Pathologists’ Drives Adoption of Telepathology, Digital Pathology, and Whole-slide Imaging
The current COVID-19 outbreak is just the latest factor in support of enabling remote review of anatomic pathology images and cases. The trend of using telepathology, whole-slide imaging (WSI), and digital pathology systems has been gathering momentum for several years. Powerful economic forces support this trend.
The Dark Report devoted its June 10, 2019, issue to a deep dive of the challenges currently facing the anatomic pathology profession. In particular, TDR noted a study published May 31, 2019, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network Open, titled, “Trends in the US and Canadian Pathologist Workforces from 2007 to 2017.” The study’s authors—pathologists in the United States and Canada—reported that between 2007 and 2017 the number of active pathologists in the United States decreased from 15,568 to 12,839—a 17.53% decline.
TDR noted that these findings imply there are fewer pathologists in the United States today in active practice to handle the steady increase in the number of cases requiring diagnostic review. In turn, this situation could lead to delays in diagnoses detrimental to patient care.
In the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic created an “immediate need for remote sign-outs, reviews, and consults,” said Mike Bonham, MD, PhD (above), Chief Medical Officer for Proscia, a digital pathology software developer, in an interview with Dark Daily. “In the context of highly relevant workflow and workforce challenges, it reinforces the opportunity for wider adoption of digital pathology.” Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, several distinct forces were driving adoption and use of digital pathology in combination with traditional microscopy, he said. (Photo copyright: Proscia.)
Distinct Forces Beginning to Reshape Anatomic Pathology
In recent years, the anatomic pathology profession has faced growing financial pressure, a shrinking workforce, and a surge in the global demand for pathology—issues that come at a time when biopsies and cancer diagnostics require greater expertise.
The UCSF School of Medicine started with frozen slide sections and moved to the broader volume of pathology slides. Since 2015, UCSF’s School of Medicine has moved toward a fully digital pathology operation and has serialized the adoption by specialty, according to Zoltan Laszik, MD, PhD, attending physician at UCSF and Professor of Clinical Pathology in UCSF’s Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.
Laszik is among a handful of specialists and digital pathology early adopters who collaborated on the new Dark Daily white paper, which is available for free download.
Through the adoption of digital pathology, glass slides are digitized using a whole-slide image scanner, then analyzed through image viewing software. Although the basic viewing functionality is not drastically different than that provided by a microscope, digitization does bring improvements in lab efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, image management, workflows, and revenue enhancements.
Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI)-based computational applications have emerged as an integral part of the digital pathology workflow in some settings, the white paper explains.
“These developments are important to anatomic pathologists because the traditional pathology business model continues to transform at a steady pace,” noted Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report.
Anthony Magliocco, MD, FRCPC, FCAP, President and CEO of Protean BioDiagnostics and former Professor and Chair of Pathology at Moffitt Cancer Center, is featured in the white paper as well. His new pathology service model provides routine pathology services, precision oncology, second opinions, liquid biopsies, genetics, and genomics to cancer centers from a Florida-based specialty laboratory.
To register for this important learning opportunity, click here or place this URL in your web browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/streamlined-operations-increased-revenue-higher-quality-of-care-conclusive-evidence-on-the-value-of-adopting-digital-pathology-in-your-lab/.
These digital pathology technologies represent an innovative movement shaping the present and future of pathology services. Pathologists wanting to learn more are encouraged to sign up for the May 13 webinar, which will build on the body of evidence and commentary that is included in the new white paper, and which will be available for free on-demand download following the live broadcast.
