In their letter, the Representatives wrote, “As you are aware, the recently enacted Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (PPPHCE Act) invests $25 billion in the [Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF)], including $11 billion for states, localities, territories, and tribes, to enhance all aspects of COVID-19 testing capacity. This funding is in addition to the funds already appropriated to the PHSSEF under the CARES Act.
“While laboratories are eligible, along with other providers, for these funds,” they continued, “there have been no federal funds specifically designated for the laboratories that have stepped up in this public health crisis and have made significant investments to expand access to COVID-19 testing despite 40-60 percent reductions in regular commercial volume due to the economic lockdowns.
“As laboratories work to maintain their investments in critical resources for testing platforms, reagents, swabs, and PPE, as well as hiring, training, and overtime pay for the laboratory workforce, we urge HHS to direct a portion of funding that has not already been allocated towards these efforts. These funds will ensure that labs can continue to rapidly scale up diagnostic and antibody testing, particularly for healthcare workers, first responders, and other Americans on the frontlines of this pandemic,” concluded the Representatives.
ACLA President Made Similar Plea for Direct Funding to Clinical Laboratories
“In order to deliver accurate, reliable results for patients at a national scale, we must allocate funding to support [clinical laboratories’] expanded efforts,” she said in a statement following an April 27 meeting at the White House.
In her letter, Khani wrote, “It is essential that HHS allocate $10 billion from the fund to support labs’ further expansion of testing capacity to fulfill the testing needs of all of the states and to protect the lives and livelihood of all Americans.
“Further,” she continued, “HHS should note that investing in the nation’s laboratories will not only enhance testing capacity in the short-term, but it also will allow the country to benefit from a robust testing infrastructure for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.”
President Trump signed H.R.266 into law on April 24. It includes $25 billion earmarked for research, development, validation, manufacturing, purchasing, administering, and expanding capacity for COVID-19 testing. According to the language of H.R.266, that includes, “tests for both active infection and prior exposure, including molecular, antigen, and serological tests, the manufacturing, procurement and distribution of tests, testing equipment and testing supplies, including personal protective equipment needed for administering tests, the development and validation of rapid, molecular point-of-care tests, and other tests, support for workforce, epidemiology, to scale up academic, commercial, public health, and hospital laboratories, to conduct surveillance and contact tracing, support development of COVID-19 testing plans, and other related activities related to COVID-19 testing.”
“As the demand for testing continues to grow, clinical laboratories need dedicated funding to plan for challenges that lie ahead. Strong federal coordination and leadership is essential, and we’re looking forward to working with HHS to ensure that laboratories have the resources necessary to continue to expand our role at the forefront of the nation’s response,” said Julie Khani (above), President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), in a press release following the June 8 letter sent to HHS by 30 members of Congress requesting funds from H.R.266 be sent directly to clinical laboratories. Khani will be speaking on federal policies now impacting clinical laboratories at the upcoming 25th annual Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management in New Orleans on July 14-15. (Photo copyright: ACLA.)
Financial Struggles for Hospitals and Clinical Laboratories
This new round of stimulus funding comes at a time when many providers and clinical laboratories are struggling financially, despite the influx of COVID-19 patients.
“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,” said Khani in an ACLA statement.
As the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic evolves, federal regulations, as well as emergency funding for COVID-19 testing that is provided by federal legislation, will evolve in unexpected ways. For that reason, clinical laboratory leaders will want to closely track announcements by such federal agencies as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Administration as decisions are made about how to assign the $25 billion authorized in H.R.266 for “testing.”
Though some experts claim widespread antibody testing is key to effective public health safety, the WHO warns positive serological tests may not indicate immunity from reinfection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2
It may be the largest program of clinical laboratory testing ever conducted in the United States. Health officials are preparing to undertake large-scale serological surveys (serosurveys) to detect and track previously undetected cases of SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus, that causes the COVID-19 illness.
Microbiologists, epidemiologists, and medical laboratory leaders will be interested in these studies, which are aimed at determining how many adults in the US with no confirmed history of SARS-CoV-2 infection actually possess antibodies to the coronavirus.
Serological screening testing may also enable employers to identify employees who can safely return to their job. And researchers may be able to identify communities and populations that have been most affected by the virus.
Serological Study of COVID-19 Taking Place in Five States
In an interview with Science, Michael Busch, MD, PhD, Senior Vice President, Research and Scientific Affairs of Vitalant (formerly Blood Systems), one of the nation’s oldest and largest nonprofit community blood service providers, and Director of the Vitalant Research Institute, discussed several serological studies in which he is involved. The first study, which he said is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is taking place in six metropolitan regions in the US: Seattle, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis.
The interesting twist in these studies is that they will test blood samples from people donating blood. In March, participating blood centers in each region started saving 1,000 donor samples per month. Six thousand samples will be assessed monthly for a six-month period using an antibody testing algorithm that enables researchers to monitor how people develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies over time.
Busch told Science this regional study will evolve into three “national, fully representative serosurveys of the US population using blood donors.” This particular national serosurvey will study 50,000 donations in September and December of 2020 and in November 2021.
“We’re going to be estimating overall antibody prevalence to SARS-CoV-2 within each state, but also map it down within the states to regions and metropolitan urban areas, and look at the differences,” Busch told Science, which called the serosurvey “unprecedented.”
“It’s certainly the largest serosurvey I’ve ever been involved with,” Busch said.
In the third NIH serosurvey, according to Busch, NIH blood-donor serosurveys will be compared with results from population serosurveys taking place through the University of Washington and University of California San Francisco, which involve neighborhood door knocking and sampling from hematology labs.
“An antibody test is looking back into the immune system’s history with a rearview mirror,” said Matthew J. Memoli, MD (above,) an infection disease specialist with the NIH and Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), in a news release. “By analyzing an individual’s blood, we can determine if that person has encountered SARS-CoV-2 previously.” (Photo copyright: National Institutes of Health.)
Some of the SARS-CoV-2 serological surveys underway include:
The National Institutes of Health serosurvey involving as many as 10,000 adults in the US who have no confirmed history of infection with SARS-CoV-2, which will analyze blood samples for two types of antibodies—anti-SARS-CoV-2 protein IgG and IgM. Researchers also may perform additional tests to evaluate volunteers’ immune responses to the virus.
A World Health Organization (WHO) coordinated follow-up study to its Solidarity Trial named Solidarity 2, which will “pool data from research groups in different countries to compare rates of infection,” which WHO officials say is ‘critical’ to understanding the true extent of the pandemic and to inform policy, Research Professionals News reported.
In Germany, the Robert Koch Institute, the country’s disease control and prevention agency, is tackling Europe’s first large-scale COVID-19 antibody testing. Its three-phase study will include serological testing on blood from donation centers, followed by testing on blood samples from coronavirus regional hotspots and then the country’s broader population.
But Can Serological Testing Prove Immunity to COVID-19?
However, whether having COVID-19 antibodies will make people immune to reinfection or unable to spread the disease is not yet known.
“We don’t have nearly the immunological or biological data at this point to say that if someone has a strong enough immune response that they are protected from symptoms, … that they cannot be transmitters,” Michael Mina, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Associate Medical Director in Clinical Microbiology (molecular diagnostics) in the Department of Pathology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told STAT.
The Times of Sweden reported the WHO warned in mid-April that there is no proof recovering from COVID-19 provides immunity.
“There are a lot of countries that are suggesting using rapid diagnostic serological tests to be able to capture what they think will be a measure of immunity,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s Technical Lead for COVID-19, at a news conference in Geneva, Switzerland, the Times of Sweden reported.
“Right now, we have no evidence that the use of a serological test can show that an individual has immunity or is protected from reinfection,” she said, adding, “These antibody tests will be able to measure that level of seroprevalence—that level of antibodies—but that does not mean that somebody with antibodies [is] immune.”
In addition, the reliability and quality of some serological tests produced in China, as well as some being manufactured in the US, have come into question, the Financial Times reported.
Nevertheless, as serological testing for COVID-19 becomes more widespread, clinical laboratories should plan to play an ever-increasing role in the battle to stop a second wave of the epidemic in this country.
Researchers are discovering it’s possible to determine a person’s age based on the amount of protein in the blood, but the technology isn’t always correct
Mass spectrometry is increasingly finding its way into clinical laboratories and with it—proteomics—the study of proteins in the human body. And like the human genome, scientists are discovering that protein plays an integral part in the aging process.
This is a most interesting research finding. Might medical laboratories someday use proteomic biomarkers to help physicians gauge the aging progression in patients? Might this diagnostic capability give pathologists and laboratory leaders a new product line for direct-to-consumer testing that would be a cash-paying, fast-growing, profitable clinical laboratory testing service? If so, proteomics could be a boon to clinical laboratories worldwide.
When research into genomics was brand-new, virtually no one imagined that someday the direct-to-consumer lab testing model would offer genetic testing to the public and create a huge stream of revenue for clinical laboratories that process genetic tests. Now, research into protein and aging might point to a similar possibility for proteomics.
For example, through proteomics, researchers led by Benoit Lehallier, PhD, Biostatistician, Instructor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, and senior author Tony Wyss-Coray, PhD, Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences and co-director of the Stanford Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center at Stanford University in California, gained an understanding of aging that suggest intriguing possibilities for clinical laboratories.
In their study, published in Nature, titled, “Undulating Changes in Human Plasma Proteome Profiles Across the Lifespan,” the scientists stated that aging doesn’t happen in a consistent process over time, reported Science Alert.
The Stanford researchers also found that they can accurately
determine a person’s age based on the levels of certain proteins in his or her
blood.
Additionally, the study of proteomics may finally explain why blood from young people can have a rejuvenating effect on elderly people’s brains, noted Scientific American.
Each of these findings is important on its own, but taken
together, they may have interesting implications for pathologists who follow
the research. And medical laboratory leaders may find opportunities in mass
spectrometry in the near future, rather than decades from now.
Three Distinct Stages in Aging and Other Findings
The Stanford study found that aging appears to happen at
three distinct points in a person’s life—around the ages 34, 60, and 78—rather
than being a slow, steady process.
The researchers measured and compared levels of nearly 3,000
specific proteins in blood plasma taken from healthy people between the ages of
18 and 95 years. In the published study, the authors wrote, “This new approach
to the study of aging led to the identification of unexpected signatures and
pathways that might offer potential targets for age-related diseases.”
Along with the findings regarding the timeline for aging, the researchers found that about two-thirds of the proteins that change with age differ significantly between men and women. “This supports the idea that men and women age differently and highlights the need to include both sexes in clinical studies for a wide range of diseases,” noted a National Institutes of Health (NIH) report.
“We’ve known for a long time that measuring certain proteins in the blood can give you information about a person’s health status—lipoproteins for cardiovascular health, for example,” stated Wyss-Coray in the NIH report. “But it hasn’t been appreciated that so many different proteins’ levels—roughly a third of all the ones we looked at—change markedly with advancing age.”
Tony Wyss-Coray, PhD (above), Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences at Stanford University, was senior author of the proteomics study that analyzed blood plasma from 4,263 people between the ages 18-95. “Proteins are the workhorses of the body’s constituent cells, and when their relative levels undergo substantial changes, it means you’ve changed, too,” he said in a Stanford Medicine news article. “Looking at thousands of them in plasma gives you a snapshot of what’s going on throughout the body.” (Photo copyright: Stanford University.)
Differentiating Aging from Disease
Previous research studies also found it is indeed possible
to measure a person’s age from his or her “proteomic signature.”
The researchers published their findings in Aging Cell, a peer-reviewed open-access journal of the Anatomical Society in the UK, titled, “Plasma Proteomic Signature of Age in Healthy Humans.” In it, the authors wrote, “Our results suggest that there are stereotypical biological changes that occur with aging that are reflected by circulating proteins.”
The fact that chronological age can be determined through a
person’s proteomic signature suggests researchers could separate aging from
various diseases. “Older age is the main risk factor for a myriad of chronic
diseases, and it is invariably associated with progressive loss of function in
multiple physiological systems,” wrote the researchers, adding, “A challenge in
the field is the need to differentiate between aging and diseases.”
Can Proteins Cause Aging?
Additionally, the Stanford study found that changes in protein levels might not simply be a characteristic of aging, but may actually cause it, a Stanford Medicine news article notes.
“Changes in the levels of numerous proteins that migrate
from the body’s tissues into circulating blood not only characterize, but quite
possibly cause, the phenomenon of aging,” Wyss-Coray said.
Can Proteins Accurately Predict Age? Not Always
There were, however, some instances where the protein levels inaccurately predicted a person’s age. Some of the samples the Stanford researchers used were from the LonGenity research study conducted by the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, which investigated “why some people enjoy extremely long life spans, with physical health and brain function far better than expected in the 9th and 10th decades of life,” the study’s website notes.
That study included a group of exceptionally long-lived Ashkenazi Jews, who have a “genetic proclivity toward exceptionally good health in what for most of us is advanced old age,” according to the Stanford Medicine news article.
“We had data on hand-grip strength and cognitive function
for that group of people. Those with stronger hand grips and better measured
cognition were estimated by our plasma-protein clock to be younger than they
actually were,” said Wyss-Coray. So, physical condition is a factor in
proteomics’ ability to accurately prediction age.
Although understanding the connections between protein in
the blood, aging, and disease is in early stages, it is clear additional
research is warranted. Not too long ago the idea of consumers having their DNA
sequenced from a home kit for fun seemed like fantasy.
However, after multiple FDA approvals, and the success of
companies like Ancestry, 23andMe, and the clinical laboratories that serve them,
the possibility that proteomics might go the same route does not seem so
far-fetched.
The UE study sheds light on the types of bacteria in
wastewater that goes down hospital pipes to sewage treatment plants. The study
also revealed that not all infectious agents are killed after passing through
waste treatment plants. Some bacteria with antimicrobial (or antibiotic)
resistance survive to enter local food sources.
The scientists concluded that the amount of AMR genes found
in hospital wastewater was linked to patients’ length-of-stays and consumption
of antimicrobial resistant bacteria while in the hospital.
In a paper the University of Edinburgh published on medRxiv, the researchers wrote: “There was a higher abundance of antimicrobial-resistance genes in the hospital wastewater samples when compared to Seafield community sewage works … Sewage treatment does not completely eradicate antimicrobial-resistance genes and thus antimicrobial-resistance genes can enter the food chain through water and the use of [processed] sewage sludge in agriculture. As hospital wastewater contains inpatient bodily waste, we hypothesized that it could be used as a representation of inpatient community carriage of antimicrobial resistance and as such may be a useful surveillance tool.”
Additionally, they wrote, “Using metagenomics to identify
the full range of AMR genes in hospital wastewater could represent a useful
surveillance tool to monitor hospital AMR gene outflow and guide environmental
policy on AMR.”
Antimicrobial stewardship programs are becoming increasingly critical to preventing the spread of AMR bacteria. “By having those programs, [there are] documented cases of decreased antibiotic resistance within organisms causing these infections,” Paul Fey, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, told MedPage Today. “This is another indicator of how all hospitals need to implement stewardship programs to have a good handle on decreasing antibiotic use.” [Photo copyright: University of Nebraska.]
Don’t Waste the Wastewater
Antibiotic resistance occurs when bacteria change in response to medications to prevent and treat bacterial infections, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) fact sheet. The CDC estimates that more than 23,000 people die annually from two million antibiotic-resistance infections.
Wastewater, the UE scientists suggest, should not go to
waste. It could be leveraged to improve hospitals’ detection of patients with antimicrobial
resistance, as well as to boost environment antimicrobial-resistance polices.
They used metagenomics (the study of genetic material
relative to environmental samples) to compare the antimicrobial-resistance
genes in hospital wastewater against wastewater from community sewage
points.
The UE researchers:
First collected samples over a 24-hour period from various areas in a tertiary hospital;
They then obtained community sewage samples from various locations around Seafield, Scotland;
Antimicrobial-resistance genes increased with longer length of patient stays, which “likely reflects transmission amongst hospital inpatients,” researchers noted.
Fey suggests that further research into using sequencing
technology to monitor patients is warranted.
“I think that monitoring each patient and sequencing their
bowel flora is more likely where we’ll be able to see if there’s a significant
carriage of antibiotic-resistant organisms,” Fey told MedPage Today. “In
five years or so, sequencing could become so cheap that we could monitor every
patient like that.”
Fey was not involved in the University of Edinburgh
research.
Given the rate at which AMR bacteria spreads, finding antibiotic-resistance
genes in hospital wastewater may not be all that surprising. Still, the University
of Edinburgh study could lead to cost-effective ways to test the genes of
bacteria, which then could enable researchers to explore different sources of
infection and determine how bacteria move through the environment.
And, perhaps most important, the study suggests clinical
laboratories have many opportunities to help eliminate infections and slow
antibiotic resistance. Microbiologists can help move their organizations forward
too, along with infection control colleagues.
New discoveries about the genetics of prostate cancer could lead to better tools for diagnosing the disease and selecting effective therapies based on each patient’s specific physiology
In recent decades, the biggest challenge for urologists, and for the pathologists who diagnosed the prostate tissue specimens they referred, has been how to accurately differentiate between non-aggressive prostate cancer, which can exist for decades with no apparent symptoms, and aggressive prostate cancer that kills quickly.
Thus, a research study that has identified unique genetic features within prostate cancer that can help determine if the cancer is aggressive or not, and whether certain drugs may be effective, is good news for men, for urologists, and for the clinical laboratories that will be called upon to perform testing.
These types of breakthroughs bring precision medicine ever closer to having viable tools for effective diagnosis of different types of cancer.
Genetic Fingerprints of Cancer Tumor Types
One such study into the genetic pathways of prostate cancer is bringing precision medicine ever-closer to the anatomic pathology laboratory. Researchers from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, which is associated with the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, have discovered that some tumors in prostate cancer have a genetic fingerprint that may indicate whether or not the disease will become more aggressive and less responsive to treatment.
Robert Bristow, MD, PhD, and Paul Boutros, PhD, conducted a study of nearly 500 Canadian men who had prostate cancer. Published in the journal Nature, the researchers examined the genetic sequences of those tumors, looking for differences between those that responded to surgery or radiation and those that did not.
In the video above, Dr. Robert Bristow, clinician-scientist at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, discusses the findings of a key piece in the genetic puzzle that explains why men born with a BRCA2 mutation develop aggressive prostate cancer. (Caption and photo copyright: University Health Network/Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.)
According to a FierceBiotech article, approximately 30% of men who have a type of prostate cancer thought to be curable eventually develop an aggressive metastatic type of the disease. About half of the men who developed a metastatic form of cancer had mutations to three specific genes:
“This information gives us new precision about the treatment response of men with prostate cancer and important clues about how to better treat one set of men versus the other to improve cure rates overall,” stated Bristow in a University Health Network (UHN) press release.
In another study, researchers looked at 15 patients with BRCA2-inheritied prostate cancer and compared the genomic sequences of those tumors to a large group of sequences from tumors in less-aggressive cancer cases. According to a ScienceDaily news release, they found that only 2% of men with prostate cancer have the BRCA2-inherited type.
Knowing what type of cancer a man has could be critically important for clinicians tasked with prescribing the most efficient therapies.
“The pathways that we discovered to be abnormal in the localized BRCA2-associated cancers are usually only found in general population cancers when they become resistant to hormone therapy and spread through the body,” noted Bristow in the ScienceDaily release. If clinicians knew from diagnosis that the cancer is likely to become aggressive, they could choose a more appropriate therapy from the beginning of treatment.
Genetic Mutations Also Could Lead to Breast and Brain Cancer Treatments
BRCA mutations have also been implicated in breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers, among some other types. The knowledge that BRCA1 and BRACA2 mutations could indicate a more aggressive cancer is likely to spark investigation into whether poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors could be used as an effective therapy.
Researchers of the study published in the journal Science Translational Medicine stated that they “demonstrate mutant IDH1-dependent PARP inhibitor sensitivity in a range of clinically relevant models, including primary patient-derived glioma cells in culture and genetically matched tumor xenografts in vivo.”
According to the UHN press release, the next step in using the knowledge that BRCA1 and BRCA2 may indicate a more aggressive prostate cancer is for researchers to create a diagnostic tool that can be used to determine what type of prostate cancer a man has. They expect the process to take several years. “This work really gives us a map to what is going on inside a prostate cancer cell, and will become the scaffold on which precision therapy will be built,” Boutros stated in a Prostate Cancer Canada news release.
Unlocking Knowledge That Leads to Accurate Diagnoses and Treatments
Research that furthers precision medicine and allows clinicians to choose the most appropriate treatment for individuals shows how quickly scientists are applying new discoveries. Every new understanding of metabolic pathways that leads to a new diagnostic tool gives clinicians and the patients they treat more information about the best therapies to select.
For the anatomic pathology profession, this shows how ongoing research into the genetic makeup of prostate cancer is unlocking knowledge about the genetic and metabolic pathways involved in this type of cancer. Not only does this help in diagnosis, but it can guide the selection of appropriate therapies.
On the wider picture, the research at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre is one more example of how scientists are rapidly applying new knowledge about molecular and genetic processes in the human body to identify new ways to more accurately diagnose disease and select therapies.
