Though PCR clinical laboratory testing is widely used, some scientists are concerned its specificity may limit the ability to identify all variants of bird flu in wastewater
Wastewater testing of infectious agents appears to be here to stay. At the same time, there are differences of opinion about which methodologies and clinical laboratory tests are best suited to screen for specific contagions in wastewater. One such contagion is avian influenza, the virus that causes bird flu.
Wastewater testing by public health officials became a valuable tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and has now become a common method for detecting other diseases as well. For example, earlier this year, scientists used wastewater testing to learn how the H5N1 variant of the bird flu virus was advancing among dairy herds across the country.
In late March, the bird flu was first detected in dairy cattle in Texas, prompting scientists to begin examining wastewater samples to track the virus. Some researchers, however, expressed concerns about the ability of sewage test assays to detect all variants of certain diseases.
“Right now we are using these sort of broad tests to test for influenza A viruses,” Denis Nash, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Epidemiology at City University of New York (CUNY) and Executive Director of CUNY’s Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health (SPH), told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s possible there are some locations around the country where the primers being used in these tests might not work for H5N1.” Clinical laboratory PCR genetic testing is most commonly used to screen for viruses in wastewater. (Photo copyright: CUNY SPH.)
Effectiveness of PCR Wastewater Testing
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are most commonly used to distinguish genetic material related to a specific illness such as the flu virus. For PCR tests to correctly identify a virus, the tests must be designed to look for a specific subtype. The two most prevalent human influenza A viruses are known as H1N1 (swine flu) and H3N2, which was responsible for the 1968 pandemic that killed a million people worldwide. The “H” stands for hemagglutinin and the “N” for neuraminidase.
Hemagglutinin is a glycoprotein that assists the virus to attach to and infect host cells. Neuraminidase is an enzyme found in many pathogenic or symbiotic microorganisms that separates the links between neuraminic acids in various molecules.
Avian flu is also an influenza A virus, but it has the subtype H5N1. Although human and bird flu viruses both contain the N1 signal, they do not share an H. Some scientists fear that—in cases where a PCR test only looks for H1 and H3 in wastewater—that test could miss the bird flu altogether.
“We don’t have any evidence of that. It does seem like we’re at a broad enough level that we don’t have any evidence that we would not pick up H5,” Jonathan Yoder, Deputy Director, Infectious Disease Readiness and Innovation at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told the Los Angeles Times.
The CDC asserts current genetic testing methods are standardized and will detect the bird flu. Yoder also affirmed the tests being used at all the testing sites are the same assay, based on information the CDC has published regarding testing for influenza A viruses.
Genetic Sequencing Finds H5N1 in Texas Wastewater
In an article published on the preprint server medRxiv titled, “Virome Sequencing Identifies H5N1 Avian Influenza in Wastewater from Nine Cities,” the authors wrote, “using an agnostic, hybrid-capture sequencing approach, we report the detection of H5N1 in wastewater in nine Texas cities, with a total catchment area population in the millions, over a two-month period from March 4th to April 25th, 2024.”
The authors added, “Although human to human transmission is rare, infection has been fatal in nearly half of patients who have contracted the virus in past outbreaks. The increasing presence of the virus in domesticated animals raises substantial concerns that viral adaptation to immunologically naïve humans may result in the next flu pandemic.”
“So, it’s not just targeting one virus—or one of several viruses—as one does with PCR testing,” Eric Boerwinkle, PhD, Dean of the UTHealth Houston School of Public Health told the LA Times. “We’re actually in a very complex mixture, which is wastewater, pulling down viruses and sequencing them. What’s critical here is it’s very specific to H5N1.”
Epidemiologist Blake Hanson, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences at the UT Health Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Science, agreed with Boerwinkle that though the PCR-based methodology is highly effective at detecting avian flu in wastewater samples, the testing can do more.
“We have the ability to look at the representation of the entire genome, not just a marker component of it. And so that has allowed us to look at H5N1, differentiate it from some of our seasonal fluids like H1N1 and H3N2,” Hanson told the LA Times. “It’s what gave us high confidence that it is entirely H5N1, whereas the other papers are using a part of the H5 gene as a marker for H5.”
Human or Animal Sources
Both Boerwinkle and Hanson are epidemiologists in the team studying wastewater samples for H5N1 in Texas. They are not sure where the virus originated but are fairly certain it did not come from humans.
“Texas is really a confluence of a couple of different flyways for migratory birds, and Texas is also an agricultural state, despite having quite large cities,” Boerwinkle noted. “It’s probably correct that if you had to put your dime and gamble what was happening, it’s probably coming from not just one source but from multiple sources. We have no reason to think that one source is more likely any one of those things.”
“Because we are looking at the entirety of the genome, when we look at the single human H5N1 case, the genomic sequence has a hallmark amino acid change, compared to all of the cattle from that same time point,” Hanson said. “We do not see that hallmark amino acid present in any of our sequencing data. And we’ve looked very carefully for that, which gives us some confidence that we’re not seeing human-human transmission.”
CDC Updates on Bird Flu
In its weekly updates on the bird flu situation, the CDC reported that 48 states have outbreaks in poultry and 14 states have avian flu outbreaks in dairy cows. More than 238 dairy herds have been affected and, as of September 20, over 100 million poultry have been affected by the disease.
In addition, the CDC monitored more than 4,900 people who came into contact with an infected animal. Though about 230 of those individuals have been tested for the disease, there have only been a total of 14 reported human cases in the US.
The CDC posts information specifically for laboratory workers, healthcare providers, and veterinarians on its website.
The CDC also states that the threat from avian flu to the general public is low. Individuals at an increased risk for infection include people who work around infected animals and those who consume products containing raw, unpasteurized cow’s milk.
Symptoms of H5N1 in humans may include fever or chills, cough, headaches, muscle or body aches, runny or stuffy nose, tiredness and shortness of breath. Symptoms typically surface two to eight days after exposure.
Scientists and researchers have been seeking a reliable clinical laboratory test for disease organisms in a fast, accurate, and cost-effective manner. Wastewater testing of infectious agents could fulfill those goals and appears to be a technology that will continue to be used for tracking disease.
Federal prosecutors build the new healthcare-related fraud cases on previous nationwide enforcement actions from 2022
Federal charges have once again been brought against a number of physicians and clinical laboratory owners in what the US Department of Justice described as the “largest ever” coordinated nationwide law enforcement effort against COVID-19 pandemic-related healthcare fraud.
In total, the DOJ filed criminal charges against 18 defendants in five states plus the territory of Puerto Rico, according to an April 20 press release.
The highest dollar amount of these frauds involved ENT physician Anthony Hao Dinh, DO, who allegedly defrauded the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) COVID-19 Uninsured Program for millions of dollars, and Lourdes Navarro, owner of Matias Clinical Laboratory, for allegedly “submitting over $358 million in false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, HRSA, and a private insurance company for laboratory testing” while performing “COVID-19 screening testing for nursing homes and other facilities with vulnerable elderly populations, as well as primary and secondary schools,” the press release states. Both court cases are being conducted in Southern California courtrooms.
The DOJ’s filing of charges came rather speedily, compared to other cases involving fraudulent clinical laboratory testing schemes pre-pandemic. The amount of money each defendant managed to generate in reimbursement from the fraud represents tens of thousands of patients. If feds were paying $100 per COVID-19 test, then the $153 million represents 153,000 patients, in just 18 to 24 months.
“Today’s announcement marks the largest-ever coordinated law enforcement action in the United States targeting healthcare fraud schemes that exploit the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. (above), in an April 20 DOJ press release. “The Criminal Division’s Health Care Fraud Unit and our partners are committed to rooting out pandemic-related fraud and holding accountable anyone seeking to profit from a public health emergency.” Clinical laboratory managers may want to pay close attention to the DOJ’s prosecution of these newest cases of alleged COVID-19 fraud. (Photo copyright: Department of Justice.)
Prosecutors allege that Navarro and her husband, Imran Shams, who operated Matias—also known as Health Care Providers Laboratory—perpetrated a scheme to perform medically unnecessary respiratory pathogen panel (RPP) tests on specimens collected for COVID-19 testing, even though physicians had not ordered the RPP tests and the specimens were collected from asymptomatic individuals.
In some cases, the indictment alleges, Navarro and Shams paid kickbacks and bribes to obtain the samples.
The indictment notes that reimbursement for RPP and other respiratory pathogen tests is generally “several times higher” than reimbursement for COVID-19 testing. Claims for the tests were submitted to Medicare and an unidentified private insurer, as well as the HRSA COVID-19 Uninsured Program, which provided support for COVID-19 testing and treatment for uninsured patients.
Claims to the HRSA falsely represented that “the tested individuals had been diagnosed with COVID-19, when in truth and in fact, the individuals had not been diagnosed with COVID-19 and the tests were for screening purposes only,” the First Superseding Indictment states.
The indictment further states that both Navarro and Shams had previously been barred from participating in Medicare and other federal healthcare programs due to past fraud convictions. Navarro, the indictment alleges, was reinstated in December 2018 after submitting a “false and fraudulent” application to the HHS Office of Inspector General.
It also alleges that Navarro and Shams concealed their ownership role in Matias so the lab could maintain billing privileges.
More Alleged Abuse of HRSA Uninsured Program
In a separate case, Federal prosecutors alleged that Anthony Hao Dinh, DO, an ear, nose, and throat physician in Orange County, California, engaged in a scheme to defraud the HRSA COVID-19 Uninsured Program as well.
Dinh, prosecutors allege, “submitted fraudulent claims for treatment of patients who were insured, billed for services that were not rendered, and billed for services that were not medically necessary.”
The criminal complaint, filed on April 10, alleges that Dinh submitted claims for approximately $230 million, enough to make him the program’s second-highest biller. He was paid more than $153 million, prosecutors allege, and “used fraud proceeds for high-risk options trading, losing over $100 million from November 2020 through February 2022,” states the US Attorney’s Office, Central District of California press release.
Dinh was also charged for allegedly attempting to defraud the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program. He faces a maximum sentence of 50 years in federal prison, the press release states.
Dinh’s sister, Hang Trinh Dinh, 64, of Lake Forest, California, and Matthew Hoang Ho, 65, of Melbourne, Florida, are also charged in the complaint, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Both of these cases are notable because of the size of the fraud each defendant pulled off involving COVID-19 lab testing. Clinical laboratory managers may want to review the original court indictments. The documents show the brazenness of these fraudsters and detail how they may have induced other doctors to refer them testing specimens.
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.
A 1999 case involving California phlebotomist charged with reusing needles resulted in similar widespread testing of thousands of patients
Because of possible exposure to HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C from a healthcare worker, thousands of patients treated in multiple hospitals in different states are being offered free clinical laboratory testing. This situation is attracting national media attention and is a reminder to pathologists and medical laboratory professionals of the increased transparency that is being given to different types of medical errors that expose patients to risk.
Increased accuracy in listings should benefit in-network medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups
Regional and smaller medical laboratories will welcome a new enforcement initiative by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Health insurers now will face fines as high as $25,000 per beneficiary as a sanction from regulators in many states for errors in provider directories that can result in patients receiving surprise out-of-network bills.
As the number of consumers with high-deductible health plans has grown, the demand for more price transparency by physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers has increased, with states such as New Hampshire and Colorado legislating public price transparency websites.
Now the federal government is taking another step toward increased transparency in healthcare by fining payers whose provider directories are not current and include inaccurate listings that may cause consumers to unknowingly select out-of-network providers. This is especially important as insurance providers continue to narrow their provider networks. Increased accuracy in provider directories should help clinical laboratories and pathology groups that participate in insurance networks. (more…)
