Pooled testing could become a critical tool for clinical laboratories to spot the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus among asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals
COVID-19 testing for individuals has expanded in the US, but the number of people actually tested remains a small proportion of the country’s total population and clinical laboratory testing supply shortages continue to hamper progress. A technique known as pooled testing may help. Federal experts hope it will substantially increase the number of individuals who are tested for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus before it makes a possible resurgence in the fall.
One-by-one, some of the nation’s largest clinical laboratory organizations are developing the capability to do pooled testing. For example, on July 18, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it had issued Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX) an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for its SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR test, and that it is valid for up to four individual samples as a pooled test.
Quest’s rRT-PCR test was the first COVID-19 diagnostic test to be authorized for use with pooled samples, the FDA noted in a new release.
In the FDA’s statement announcing Quest’s EUA for its rRT-PCR test, Stephen M. Hahn, MD (above), FDA Commissioner, said, “This EUA for sample pooling is an important step forward in getting more COVID-19 tests to more Americans more quickly while preserving testing supplies.” He added, “Sample pooling becomes especially important as infection rates decline and we begin testing larger portions of the population.” (Photo copyright: CBS News.)
Following the announcement of Quest’s EUA, on July 24 the FDA announced LabCorp’s (NYSE:LH) EUA for its COVID-19 real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test. The test, the EUA states, is intended for the “qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 in upper and lower respiratory specimens” in individuals suspected of COVID-19, using “a matrix pooling strategy (i.e., group pooling strategy), containing up to five individual upper respiratory swab specimens (nasopharyngeal, mid-turbinate, anterior nares or oropharyngeal swabs) per pool and 25 specimens per matrix.”
Exponentially Increasing Testing
In pooled testing, instead of performing a coronavirus test on every specimen received by a clinical laboratory, samples from each individual specimen are taken and then combined with samples from other specimens. A single test is then performed on the entire collection of specimen samples.
If the results of the pooled samples are negative for coronavirus, it is safe to assume that all the specimens in the batch are negative for the virus. If the pooled sample comes back positive, then it will be necessary to go back to the original specimens in that pooled sample and test each specimen individually.
In an exclusive interview with Dark Daily’s sister print publication The Dark Report, Steven H. Hinrichs, MD, Chair of the Department of Pathology and Microbiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), noted that one pitfall of pooled testing is that it works best in areas of low virus prevalence.
“For pooled testing, the ideal level of low prevalence would be an infection rate below 10%,” he said, adding, “For COVID-19 test manufacturers, pooled testing has the potential to reduce the number of standard tests labs run by roughly 40% to 60%, depending on the population being tested.
“Cutting the number of COVID-19 tests would be a disadvantage for test manufacturers, because pooled tests would identify large numbers of uninfected individuals who would not require standard testing with EUA tests.
“On the other hand, this policy would be a significant advantage for US labs because pooled testing would cut the number of standard tests,” he continued. “Clinical labs would save money on tests, reagents, and other supplies. It would also ease the burden on the lab’s technical staff,” Hinrichs concluded.
“In our study, we show that it’s reasonable to pool five samples, although we realized that some people may want to pool 10 samples at once,” noted Hinrichs. “But even if one sample is positive in a pool of five, then testing five samples at once saves 80% of our costs if all of those samples are negative. But, if one sample is positive, each of those five samples needs to be retested using the standard test,” Hinrichs explained.
During an American Society for Microbiology (ASM) virtual conference, Deborah Birx, MD, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, said, “Pooling would give us the capacity to go from a half a million tests per day to potentially five million individuals tested per day,” STAT reported.
Advantages of using pooled testing for the coronavirus include:
Expanding the number of individuals tested,
Stretching laboratory supplies, and
Reducing the costs associated with testing.
Health officials believe that individuals who have COVID-19 and are asymptomatic are largely responsible for the rising number of coronavirus cases in the US, STAT reported.
“It allows you to test more frequently in a population that may have a low prevalence of disease,” Benjamin Pinsky, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Departments of Pathology and Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine, told STAT. “That would allow you to test a lot of negatives, but also identify individuals who are then infected, before they develop symptoms.”
Pooled testing also could be advantageous for communities where COVID-19 is not prevalent, in neighborhoods that need to be tested during an outbreak, and for schools, universities, organizations, and businesses that want to remain safely open while periodically monitoring individuals for the virus, CNN reported.
“The goal is to increase the capacity of testing in a relatively straightforward fashion,” Pinsky told STAT. “The caveat is that by pooling the sample, you’re going to reduce the sensitivity of the test.”
According to Pinsky, “pooling only makes sense in places with low rates of COVID-19, where you expect the large majority of tests to be negative. Otherwise, too many of the pools would come back positive for it to work as a useful surveillance tool,” STAT reported.
As Clinical Lab Testing Increases, Pooled Testing for COVID-19 Could Be Critical
Pooled testing has been used in other countries, including China, to test larger amounts of people for COVID-19.
“If you look around the globe, the way people are doing a million tests or 10 million tests is they’re doing pooling,” Birx said during the ASM virtual conference, CNN reported.
In a press release, the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) stated that about 300,000 tests for COVID-19 were performed per day in labs across the US in late June. That number was up from approximately 100,000 tests being performed daily in early April.
“All across the country, clinical laboratories are increasing the number of labs processing tests, purchasing additional testing platforms, and expanding the number of suppliers to provide critical testing materials,” said Julie Khani, ACLA President in the press release. “However, the reality of this ongoing global pandemic is that testing supplies are limited. Every country across the globe is in need of essential testing supplies, like pipettes and reagents, and that demand is likely to increase in the coming months.”
Clinical laboratory managers will want to keep an eye on these developments. As the need for COVID-19 testing increases, pooled testing may provide an efficient, cost-effective way to spot the coronavirus, especially among those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic and who display no symptoms.
Pooled testing could become a critical tool in the diagnosis of COVID-19 and potentially decrease the overall number of deaths.
Media reporting on disparities in COVID-19 test billing sparks renewed calls for increased transparency in medical laboratory test charges
Recent media reports of massive disparities in the prices charged for COVID-19 lab tests throughout the United States have citizens and law makers alike again calling for increased transparency in clinical laboratory test charges.
One recent example involves the New York Times (NYT), which after learning that Austin-based Gibson Diagnostic Labs (GDL) of Irving, Tex., billed a patient $2,315 for one COVID-19 test, questioned the disparity in coronavirus testing charges. The article, titled, “Most Coronavirus Tests Cost About $100. Why Did One Cost $2,315?” brought unwanted attention to the Texas clinical laboratory.
On July 16, the NYT reported that GDL, “has run some of the most expensive coronavirus tests in America.” In addition, the paper reported that health insurance companies have paid GDL $2,315 for individual COVID-19 tests, but that in “a couple of cases,” the price rose to $6,946. However, that higher amount resulted “when the lab said it mistakenly charged patients three times the base rate.”
In response to the NYT report, GDL released a statement that said, “In April 2020, a commercial insurer doing business with Gibson Diagnostic Labs inquired about the company’s pricing practices regarding COVID-19 testing. In response to the inquiry, the company conducted an internal review and identified commercial claims that were billed incorrectly by the company’s third-party biller. Because this incident did not meet our standards of quality, service, and compliance, the company terminated its relationship with the third-party biller.”
Gibson Diagnostic Labs (above) in Irving, Texas, recently drew the attention of the New York Times after, according to GDL, its third-party biller accidentally used an incorrect CPT code causing one COVID-19 test customer to receive a bill for $2,315. Further, the NYT reported that “[GDL] billed 117 tests at that price and had 23 of the claims paid in full. Some insurers paid partial reimbursements or sent back no money at all.” In a statement, GDL said it has corrected the mistake and reimbursed all affected parties. (Photo copyright: Dylan Hollingsworth/The New York Times.)
GDL Blames Third-party Biller for Errors
Responding to questions from Dark Daily, GDL provided details that were not previously reported. In an email, GDL said it worked closely with a NYT reporter by providing information about the incident, but that the reporter left out key information.
GDL also said that after the NYT’s inquiry, the lab reviewed its billing systems and learned that the CPT code for 23 COVID-19 commercial claims were transposed as a result of human error, resulting in payments totaling $53,255. The review also showed that the lab’s third-party biller had insufficient systems in place to prevent such errors.
“Upon learning this, we made the decision to terminate our contract with our third-party biller,” GDL said. “Finally, within 24-hours of identifying the billing error—and prior to the story being published—we rebilled all the claims, refunded payments to the respective payers, and followed up with each payer to ensure receipt of the corrected claims.
“Immediately after the claims were rebilled, we contacted all 205 patients who may have received an incorrect EOB [explanation of benefits], explained what happened, and apologized,” GDL stated.
Going forward, GDL said it will require its new biller to conduct regular audits each quarter and to maintain certain levels of automation and staffing to manage higher volume without disruption. GDL also said it regrets the disruption and inconvenience the billing error caused to its clients and patients.
Lessons for Clinical Laboratories
For clinical laboratories, there are at least four lessons that can be learned from GDL’s experience:
First, labs should be aware of how their own charges for all tests compare with what other labs charge, particularly when charging patients for high-profile tests, such as those for the new coronavirus. What Medicare and other payers charge for these tests has been reported widely, so that many patients are likely aware of the reasonable and customary charges for such tests.
Second, clinical labs may want to note that charging high prices for these tests could lead health insurers to increase their scrutiny of lab charges. The NYT article quoted Angela Meoli, a senior vice president at Aetna, saying, “We’ve seen a small number of laboratories that are charging egregious prices for COVID-19 tests.”
Third, coverage in the NYT often leads other publications to cover the same story. In this case, Kaiser Health News (KHN) and other news organizations have reported on what GDL charged and linked that story to their coverage of surprise medical bills.
Fourth, GDL recommends responding appropriately to journalists’ inquiries. However, lab should be aware that, even then, the news media may not report the facts as labs would prefer.
All of these lessons are important during the COVID-19 pandemic, because newspapers and other news organizations have encouraged consumers to submit copies of their lab tests and other bills. Such examples of charges above normal rates often generate unwanted coverage for hospitals, health systems, healthcare providers, and in this case, a clinical diagnostic laboratory.
All of this may be academic for those clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who scrupulously follow appropriate laws and guidelines for coding, billing, and collecting for clinical lab tests of all types—not just the COVID-19 test. But, year after year, there are individuals who operate certain clinical laboratories and who are willing to push their compliance with long-established laws and regulations for short-term profit. When these abusive lab practices surface and attract the attention of both federal prosecutors and national news media, it is the entire clinical laboratory profession that gets characterized in negative ways.
Certainly, many medical laboratory professionals would agree that the system of enforcing federal and state laws and pursuing obvious cases of fraudulent practices involving clinical lab testing leaves much to be desired. However, there are already several examples of federal prosecutors charging lab owners and managers for violating fraud and anti-kickback statutes in their marketing of COVID-19 tests. Hopefully the national news media will be effective in spotting illegal practices involving COVID-19 testing and bring more transparency to the lab testing marketplace.
One medical testing company was led by a convicted felon, another was accused of delays and unreliable results
Like many states, Florida has worked hard to quickly ramp up diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness. For the most part this has been a good thing. However, local media in that state reported problems with two no-bid contracts for clinical laboratory testing, including one with a Dallas-based company whose founder pleaded guilty last year to two felonies involving insurance fraud.
In a press conference announcing the two deals, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said, “We have two contracts in place with two new labs that will increase our lab capacity by 18,000 samples per day.” He added that he expected a 24- to 48-hour turnaround.
“That’s a lot better than we’ve been getting from Quest and LabCorp,” he said. “These labs will be primarily where we send our samples that we collect in the long-term-care and assisted-living facilities and at the community-based walk-up sites.”
The announcement followed DeSantis’ March 9 emergency decree, which allowed state agencies to award contracts to companies without undergoing formal bidding processes, reported Florida Bulldog, an independent non-profit news site.
In his announcement, DeSantis did not identify the companies that had received the lab test contracts. However, Florida Bulldog reported that those companies were:
Indur Services, a Dallas-based health-coaching company, and
Southwest Regional PCR, a CAP-accredited lab in Lubbock, Texas, that does business as MicroGenDX Laboratory (MicroGen Diagnostics, LLC).
The Indur contract—initially valued at $11.3 million—included $10.2 million for 140,000 COVID-19 RT-qPCR test kits, plus additional payment for supplies, Florida Bulldog reported based on information from the state contract database. Later, the contract was reduced to $2.2 million solely for supplies.
The MicroGenDX contract—valued at $11 million—called for 8,000 tests per day for 14 days at a cost of $99 per test, Florida Bulldog reported. That contract was later cancelled due to concerns about reliability and processing speed.
Indur’s Legal Troubles
Indur is a self-described “health and wellness lifestyle and products company” founded in 2017 by Brandt Beal, according to Business Insider. In 2019, Beal pleaded guilty to two felonies involving insurance fraud in Texas and was given 10 years’ probation in each case, Florida Bulldog reported. He also was required to pay restitution. He pleaded guilty to a separate charge of felony theft in 2017 and was sentenced to nine years’ probation.
In an interview with Florida Bulldog, Beal claimed that “the man who pleaded guilty to those charges is actually his cousin with the same name.” However, Beal “would not provide requested contact information for his cousin,” the Florida Bulldog reported, which posted photos demonstrating that the Indur founder and the person who pleaded guilty to the felonies were the same individual.
Jason Mahon, Communications Director at the Florida Division of Emergency Management (above), told Florida Bulldog that Indur’s COVID-19 testing contract was scaled back in May “because Indur Services did not provide testing directly, but rather was providing testing services through another company.” The state then contracted directly with that clinical laboratory company to obtain the COVID-19 testing services. “Time is of the essence when securing these critical testing supplies for Floridians, and that limited time does not allow for the Division to vet every company’s executive leadership or board of directors,” Mahon told Florida Bulldog. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
The amended contract, valued at $2.2 million, called for Indur to deliver swabs and vials. “To date, everything that’s been ordered they’ve delivered on,” said Jared Moskowitz, Director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management department.
Testing Delays Snag MicroGen Diagnostics
The state cancelled its contract with MicroGenDX on May 15, Florida Bulldog reported.
“As with any lab, we do our due diligence to ensure the company will be able to provide reliable services before sending any samples,” said Jason Mahon, Communications Director at the Florida Division of Emergency Management. “Upon further interaction with this vendor, the Division determined that the state could not be 100% confident in the results that would come from this vendor, or with the processing speed, which is critical for COVID-19 testing.”
This came as AdventHealth, a non-profit health system based in Altamonte Springs, Fla., was having its own difficulties with MicroGenDX.
On May 16, AdventHealth announced that it had terminated a COVID-19 testing contract with an unnamed third-party lab, claiming that the provider was “unable to fulfill its obligation.” Multiple media outlets later revealed MicroGenDX as the third-party lab, and USA Today reported that the FDA had launched an investigation.
“This issue impacts more than 25,000 people throughout Central Florida,” stated an AdventHealth press release. “This situation has created unacceptable delays and we do not have confidence in the reliability of the tests.” AdventHealth said it would contact affected individuals about the need for retesting.
However, MicroGenDX CEO Rick Martin refuted the health system’s claims. “You can go after me because I didn’t meet your capacity and I couldn’t deliver on your drive-through testing because of things that I couldn’t control, but don’t attack the reliability of my test,” he told the Orlando Sentinel.
According to MicroGenDX, the company received an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA on April 23 for an internally-developed RT-PCR test that can be performed on nasal swabs or sputum samples, noted a press release. The tests are run in the company’s lab facility in Lubbock, Texas.
One factor in the dispute was the handling of patient samples, USA Today reported. Martin told reporters that representatives from AdventHealth had visited the lab and observed samples that were stored at room temperature. “[Martin] maintains the samples were still valid and that the delays were due to AdventHealth not providing proper patient data and the lab running out of plastic parts used in its equipment,” noted USA Today.
Mahon told Florida Bulldog that the state did not send samples to MicroGenDX for processing. And the Florida Bulldog reported that Martin said his lab was so “hammered with huge volumes of samples” that he would have turned down any requests, adding that Martin “stood by the reliability and accuracy of his firm’s testing and said he looks forward to a day of vindication after federal inspectors conduct any inquiries.”
Collectively, these news stories scratch the surface of a bigger situation involving COVID-19 laboratory testing. The fact that Congress authorized billions of dollars to fund COVID-19 testing was noticed by some individuals who saw the funding as an opportunity to “make a quick buck” if they could get contracts to provide COVID-19 testing—whether they owned a CLIA-certified complex laboratory or not.
Thus, it’s no surprise that more companies are bidding on COVID-19 testing contracts. What remains unknown is how many of those companies are actively soliciting COVID-19 testing contracts throughout the United States.
Given this situation, and the facts recounted above, it is reasonable to ask an obvious question: Why did Florida state officials not do a more rigorous check into the credentials of the clinical laboratory entities they were preparing to award no-competitive-bid contracts to for COVID-19 testing?
Questions remain, however, over how much of the funding will actually reach hospital and health system clinical laboratories
For many cash-strapped clinical laboratories in America, the second round of stimulus funds cannot come soon enough. Thus, lab leaders are encouraged by news that Congress’ $484-billion Paycheck Protection Program and Healthcare Enhancement Act (H.R.266) includes almost $11 billion that will go to states for COVID-19 testing. But how much of that funding will reach the nation’s hospital and health system clinical laboratories?
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the new influx of money to the states on May 18. In a news release outlining the initiative, the HHS said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will deliver $10.25 billion to states, territories, and local jurisdictions to expand testing capacity and testing-related activities.
To qualify for the additional funding, governors or “designee of each State, locality, territory, tribe, or tribal organization receiving funds” must submit to HHS its plan for COVID-19 testing, including goals for the remainder of calendar year 2020, to include:
“Number of tests needed, month-by-month to include diagnostic, serological, and other tests, as appropriate;
“Month-by-month estimates of laboratory and testing capacity, including related to workforce, equipment and supplies, and available tests;
“Description of how the resources will be used for testing, including easing any COVID-19 community mitigation policies.”
“As the nation cautiously begins the phased approach to reopening, this considerable investment in expanding both testing and contact tracing capacity for states, localities, territories, and tribal communities is essential,” said CDC Director Robert R. Redfield, MD, in the HHS statement. “Readily accessible testing is a critical component of a four-pronged public health strategy—including rigorous contact tracing, isolation of confirmed cases, and quarantine.” (Photo copyright: Center for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Funding Should Go Directly to Clinical Laboratories, Says ACLA
The American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), argues the funding needs to go directly to clinical laboratories to help offset the “significant investments” labs have made to ramp up testing capacity during the pandemic.
“Direct federal funding for laboratories performing COVID-19 testing is critical to meet the continued demand for testing,” ACLA President Julie Khani, MPA, said in a statement. “Across the country, laboratories have made significant investments to expand capacity, including purchasing new platforms, retraining staff, and managing the skyrocketing cost of supplies. To continue to make these investments and expand patient access to high-quality testing in every community, laboratories will need designated resources. Without sustainable funding, we cannot achieve sustainable testing.”
Some States Are Increasing Testing, While Others Are Not
Since the first cases of COVID-19 were reported in January, the United States has slowly but significantly ramped up testing capacity. As reported in the Washington Post, states such as Georgia, Oklahoma, and Utah are encouraging residents to get tested even if they are not experiencing coronavirus symptoms. But other states have maintained more restrictive testing policies, even as their testing capacity has increased.
“A lot of states put in very, very restrictive testing policies … because they didn’t have any tests. And they’ve either not relaxed those or the word is not getting out,” Ashish Jha, MD, MPA, Director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told the Washington Post. “We want to be at a point where everybody who has mild symptoms is tested. That is critical. That is still not happening in a lot of places.”
Meanwhile, Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp continue to expand their diagnostic and antibody testing capabilities.
On May 18, Quest announced it had performed approximately 2.15 million COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tests since March 9 and had a diagnostic capability of 70,000 test each day. The company said it expected to have the capacity to perform 100,000 tests a day in June.
LabCorp’s website lists its molecular test capacity at more than 75,000 tests per day as of May 22, with a capacity for conducting at least 200,000 antibody tests per day. Unlike molecular testing that detects the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, antibody tests detect proteins produced by the body in response to a COVID-19 infection.
As states reopen, and hospitals and healthcare systems resume elective surgeries and routine office visits, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should begin to see a return to normal specimen flow. Nonetheless, the federal government should continue to compensate laboratories performing COVID-19 testing for the added costs associated with meeting the ongoing and growing demand.
Report’s authors claim the US needs to be testing 20-million people per day in order to achieve ‘full pandemic resilience’ by August
Medical laboratory scientists and clinical laboratory leaders know that the US’ inability to provide widespread diagnostic testing to detect SARS-CoV-2—the novel coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness—in the early stages of the outbreak was a major public health failure. Now a Harvard University report argues the US will need to deliver five million tests per day by early June—more than the total number of people tested nationwide to date—to safely begin reopening the economy.
“We need to deliver five million tests per day by early June to deliver a safe social reopening,” the report’s authors state. “This number will need to increase over time (ideally by late July) to 20 million a day to fully remobilize the economy. We acknowledge that even this number may not be high enough to protect public health. In that considerably less likely eventuality, we will need to scale-up testing much further. By the time we know if we need to do that, we should be in a better position to know how to do it. In any situation, achieving these numbers depends on testing innovation.”
The report is the work of a diverse group of experts in economics, public health, technology, and ethics, from major universities and big technology companies (Apple, Microsoft) with support from The Rockefeller Foundation.
“This is the first plan to show operationally how we can scale up COVID-19 testing sufficiently to safely reopen the economy—while safeguarding fundamental American democratic principles of protecting civil rights and liberties,” Danielle Allen, PhD (above), Director of Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, said in a statement that noted it was “in response to the US Department of Health and Human Service’s Report to Congress on its COVID-19 strategic testing plan.” (Photo copyright: Harvard University.)
Under Harvard’s Roadmap plan, massive-scale testing would involve rapid development of:
Streamlined sample collection (for example) involving saliva samples (spit kits) rather than deep nasal swabs that have to be taken by healthcare workers;
Transportation logistics systems able to rapidly collect and distribute samples for testing;
Mega-testing labs, each able to perform in the range of one million tests per day, with automation, streamlined methods, and tightly managed supply chains;
Information systems to rapidly transmit test results; and
Technology necessary to certify testing status.
“The unique value of this approach is that it will prevent cycles of opening up and shutting down,” Anne-Marie Slaughter, CEO of New America, said in the statement. “It allows us to mobilize and re-open progressively the parts of the economy that have been shut down, protect our frontline workers, and contain the virus to levels where it can be effectively managed and treated until we can find a vaccine.”
Is Expanding Clinical Laboratory Testing Even Possible?
But is such a plan realistic? Perhaps not. When questioned by NBC News about the timeline for “broad-based coronavirus testing” that was suggested as part of the Trump Administration’s three-phase plan to reopen the states, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said, “We’re not going to be there. We’re not going to be there in May, we’re not going to be there in June, hopefully, we’ll be there by September.”
In recent weeks, however, US testing capabilities have improved. Quest Diagnostics, which had come under fire for its testing backlog in California, announced it now has the capacity to perform 50,000 diagnostic COVID-19 tests per day or 350,000 tests per week with less than a two-day turnaround for results. “Our test capacity outpaces demand and we have not experienced a test backlog for about a week,” Quest said in a statement.
CDC ‘Modifies’ Its Guidelines for Declaring a Person ‘Recovered’ from COVID-19
Furthermore, the CDC modified its guidance on the medical and testing criteria that must be met for a person to be considered recovered from COVID-19, which initially required two negative test results before a patient could be declared “confirmed recovered” from the virus. The CDC added a non-testing strategy that allowed states to begin counting “discharged” patients who did not have easy access to additional testing as recovered from the virus.
Under the non-test-based strategy, a person may be considered recovered if:
At least three days (72 hours) have passed since recovery, defined as resolution of fever without the use of fever-reducing medications;
Improvement in respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath); and,
At least seven days have passed since symptoms first appeared.
For now, however, the focus will likely remain on testing for those who are infected, rather than for finding those who have recovered. As of May 30, the COVID Tracking Project reported that only 16,495,443 million tests had been conducted in the US, with 1,759,693 of those test showing positive for COVID-19. That’s closing in on the 10% “test-positivity rate” recommended by the WHO for controlling a pandemic, but it’s not quite there.
As testing for COVID-19 grows exponentially, clinical laboratories should anticipate playing an increasingly important role in the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
