Previously unreported email messages and documents paint vivid picture of public health laboratory officials’ dismay and frustration over testing delays
Between late January and early March, Clinical laboratory leaders watched with dismay as federal government missteps crippled the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) rollout of its COVID-19 diagnostic testing in the early days of the pandemic. The resulting lack of testing capacity enabled the novel coronavirus’ spread across the United States.
This first part of Dark Daily’s two-part e-briefing covers how investigators at the Washington Post (WP) have produced a timeline describing the CDC initial failure to produce a reliable laboratory test for COVID-19 and the regulatory hurdles that blocked medical laboratories from developing their own tests for the virus. The WP’s report is based on previously unreleased email messages and other documents reviewed by the WP, as well as the newspaper’s exclusive interviews with medical laboratory scientists and officials involved.
A New York Times report on the federal government’s initial review of the testing kit failure pinned the blame on sloppy practices at CDC laboratories in Atlanta and a lack of expertise in commercial manufacturing. However, the WP reported that COVID-19 testing kits were delayed due to a “glaring scientific breakdown” at the central lab, created when the CDC facilities that assembled the kits “violated sound manufacturing practices” that resulted in cross contamination of testing compounds.
The US and other countries have criticized China for a lack of transparency about the virus’ emergence, which came to light on December 31, 2019, when China reported a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) timeline. A week later, Chinese authorities identified the pneumonia-like illness as being caused by a new novel coronavirus.
In the US, the first case of COVID-19 was found January 21 in a Washington State man who had traveled to Wuhan. But in the weeks that followed, the US government’s inability to establish a systematic testing policy became the catalyst for the virus’ ultimate spread to more than two million people, notes the CDC website.
ProPublica, which conducted its own investigation into the early stages of the government’s coronavirus response, blamed the failures on “chaos” at the CDC and “an antiquated public health system trying to adapt on the fly.”
The CDC’s first mistake may have been underestimating the danger COVID-19 posed to public health in this country. During a January 15 conference call, CDC scientists assured state and county public health officials that the agency was developing a COVID-19 diagnostic test which soon would be available, but which may not be needed “unless the scope gets much larger than we anticipate right now,” reported the WP.
A week later, an interview with CNBC, President Trump said, “We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
CDC scientists designed their test in seven days, which, according to the WP investigators, is “a stunningly short period of time for a healthcare system built around the principles of medical quality and patient safety, not speed.” But when those initial CDC-made tests arrived at a New York City public health laboratory on February 8, lab technicians discovered the COVID-19 assays often indicated the presence of the coronavirus in samples that the lab’s scientists knew did not contain the virus.
When the scientists informed Lab Director Jennifer Rakeman, PhD, Assistant Commissioner, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, her response, according to the WP, was “Oh, s—. What are we going to do now?”
That night, Director Jill Taylor, PhD, Director of New York State’s Wadsworth Center public health reference laboratory, emailed state health officials, stating, “There is a technical problem in one of the reagents which invalidates the assay and will not allow us to perform the assay,” reported the WP. “I’m sorry not to have better news.”
Scott Becker (above), Executive Director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), voiced his concerns about the CDC’s flawed COVID-19 test kits in an email to a CDC official, reported the WP. “The states and their governors are going to come unglued,” Becker wrote, adding, “If the CDC doesn’t get ahead of this, it will be a disaster.” (Photo copyright: Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post.)
‘The Silence from CDC is Deafening’
On February 10, Joanne Bartkus, PhD, then-Lab Director of the Minnesota Health of Department, wrote to APHL Executive Director Scott Becker: “The silence from CDC … is deafening. What is going on?” reported the WP.
By the end of February, the Associated Press (AP) reported that only 472 patients had been tested for COVID-19 nationwide. By comparison, South Korea, which identified its first case of COVID-19 on the same day as the US, was testing 1,000 people per day.
A WHO spokesperson told the WP that, “… no discussions occurred between WHO and CDC (or other US government agencies) about WHO providing COVID-19 tests to the US.” When the CDC’s original COVID-19 test kit failed, there may not have been a Plan B. This may explain why the opportunity to contain COVID-19 through surveillance testing was lost during the weeks it took to design a fix for the CDC test and loosen regulations so clinical laboratories could develop their own tests.
As medical laboratory scientists and clinical laboratory leaders know, the lack of early COVID-19 testing was a public health failure and painted a false picture of the virus’ spread. Nearly five months after the first case of the virus was confirmed in the US, testing capacity may only now be outpacing demand.
Click here to read part two of our coverage of the Washington Post’s investigation.
This new technology could replace needle biopsies and allow physicians to detect rejection of transplanted organs earlier, saving patients’ lives
Anatomic pathologists
may be reading fewer biopsy reports for patients with organ transplants in the
future. That’s thanks to a new technology that may be more sensitive to and
capable of detecting organ rejection earlier than traditional needle biopsies.
When clinicians can detect organ transplant rejection
earlier, patients survive longer. Unfortunately, extensive organ damage may
have already occurred by the time rejection is detected through a traditional
needle biopsy. This led a group of researchers at Emory University School of Medicine to
search for a better method for detecting organ rejection in patients with transplants.
The Emory researchers describe the method and technology
they devised in a paper published in Nature Biomedical
Engineering, titled, “Non-Invasive Early Detection of Acute Transplant
Rejection Via Nanosensors of Granzyme B Activity.” The new technology could
make it easier for clinicians to detect when a patient’s body is rejecting a
transplanted organ at an earlier time than traditional methods.
This technology also provides a running measure of processes,
so clinicians have more powerful tools for deciding on the most appropriate
dosage of immunosuppressant
drugs.
“Right now, most tests are aimed at organ dysfunction, and
sometimes they don’t signal there is a problem until organ function is below 50
percent,” Andrew
Adams, MD, PhD Co-Principal Investigator and an Associate Professor of Surgery
at Emory University School of Medicine, in a Georgia
Institute of Technology news release.
How the Technology Works
The method that Adams and his colleagues tested involves the
detection of granzyme B,
a serine protease
often found in the granules of natural killer cells
(NK cells) and cytotoxic
T cells. “Before any organ damage can happen, T cells have to produce granzyme
B, which is why this is an early detection method,” said Gabe Kwong, PhD, Assistant
Professor in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at
Georgia Tech and Emory University, in the news release.
The new technology is made up of sensor nanoparticles in the
shape of a ball with iron oxide in the middle. Amino acids stick out of the
ball like bristles. Each amino acid has a fluorescent molecule attached to the
tip.
The nanoparticles are injected into the patient. Their size
prevents them from gathering in the patient’s tissue or from being flushed out
through the kidneys. They are designed to accumulate in the tissue of the
transplanted organ.
If the T cells in the transplanted organ begin to produce
granzyme B, the amino acids break away from the nanoparticles, releasing the
fluorescent molecules attached to their tips. Those molecules are small enough
to be processed through the kidneys and can be detected in the patient’s urine.
Pathologists Play Crucial Role on Transplant Teams
Anatomical pathologists (histopathologists in the UK) are key
members of transplant teams for many reasons, including their ability to assess
biopsies. The current method for detecting organ transplant rejection involves
needle biopsies. It is considered the gold standard.
However, according to a paper published in the International
Journal of Organ Transplantation Medicine: “Although imaging studies
and laboratory findings are important and helpful in monitoring of the
transplanted liver, in many circumstances they are not sensitive enough. For
conditions such as rejection of the transplant, liver histology remains the
gold-standard test for the diagnosis of allograft dysfunction. Therefore,
histopathologic assessments of allograft liver
biopsies have an important role in managing patients who have undergone liver
transplantation.”
There are two main problems with needle biopsies. The first,
as mentioned above, is that they don’t always catch the rejection soon enough.
The second is that the needle may cause damage to the transplanted organ.
“The biggest risk of a biopsy is bleeding and injury to the transplanted organ,” noted Andrew Adams, MD, PhD (above), Co-Principal Investigator and an Associate Professor of Surgery at Emory University School of Medicine, in the Georgia Tech news release. “Then there’s the possibility of infection. You’re also just taking a tiny fraction of the transplanted organ to determine what’s going on with the whole organ, and you may miss rejection or misdiagnose it because the needle didn’t hit the right spot,” he added.
And, according to Kwong, even though biopsies are the gold
standard, the results represent one moment in time. “The biopsy is not
predictive. It’s a static snapshot. It’s like looking at a photo of people in
mid-jump. You don’t know if they’re on their way up or on their way down. With
a biopsy, you don’t know whether rejection is progressing or regressing.”
Future Directions of Emory’s Research
The research conducted by Adams and Kwong, et al, is in its
early stages, and the new technology they created won’t be ready to be used on patients
for some time. Nevertheless, there’s reason to be excited.
Nanoparticles are not nearly as invasive as a needle biopsy.
Thus, risk of infection or damaging the transplanted organ is much lower. And Emory’s
technology would allow for much earlier detection, as well as giving clinicians
a better way to adjust the dose of immunosuppressant drugs the patient takes.
“Adjusting the dose is very difficult but very important
because heavy immunosuppression increases occurrence of infections and patients
who receive it also get cancer more often,” said Kwong. The new technology
provides a method of measuring biological activity rates, which would give
clinicians a clearer picture of what’s happening.
The Emory team’s plan is to enhance the new sensors to
detect at least one other major cause of transplant rejection—antibodies. When
a patient’s body rejects a transplanted organ, it produces antibodies to
neutralize what it sees as a foreign entity.
“Antibodies kill their target cells through similar types of
enzymes. In the future, we envision a single sensor to detect both types of
rejection,” said Kwong.
Adams adds, “This method could be adapted to tease out
multiple problems like rejection, infection, or injury to the transplanted
organ. The treatments for all of those are different, so we could select the
proper treatment or combination of treatments and also use the test to measure
how effective treatment is.”
This line of research at Emory University demonstrates how
expanding knowledge in a variety of fields can be combined in new ways. As this
happens, medical laboratories not only get new biomarkers that can be
clinically useful without the need for invasive procedures like needle biopsies,
but these same biomarkers can guide the selection of more effective therapies.
November workshop to teach Clinical Lab 2.0 to forward-thinkers among clinical laboratories, IVD manufacturers, and lab IT vendors offered many examples where clinical laboratory diagnostics can add value and improve patient outcomes
DATELINE: ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico—Here in this mile-high city, a special Project Santa Fe Workshop devoted to teaching the principles of Clinical Lab 2.0 attracted an impressive roster of innovators and forward-thinkers in clinical laboratory medicine. In attendance were leaders from a select number of the nation’s first-rank health systems and hospitals, along with executives from In Vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers, lab IT companies, other lab service companies, attendees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from institutions in Canada, Germany, Israel, India, and the UK.
Their common goal was to learn more about the emerging clinical and business model for medical laboratories known as “Clinical Lab 2.0.” A key objective of the workshop was to help those lab leaders in attendance develop strategic action plans for their own lab organizations, so as to take advantage of the insights coming from the vast information streams generated by their clinical laboratories. These services would be in support the evolving needs of health systems, hospitals physicians, and health insurers to more effectively provide integrated patient-centered clinical care.
Medical Laboratories Can Use Clinical Lab 2.0 as a Path to Adding Value
Clinical Lab 2.0 is the clinical and business model of the future for medical laboratories, assert the developers of this concept. “Clinical Lab 2.0 describes the attributes needed by all medical laboratories that want to succeed in a healthcare system organized to provide precision medicine, keep people out of hospitals, and where providers—including labs—are reimbursed based on the value they provide,” stated Khosrow Shotorbani, CEO of TriCore Reference Laboratories, one of the organizers of the Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop.
“Clinical Lab 2.0 is the path medical labs will need to follow if they are to continue providing relevant lab testing services and generate the reimbursement necessary for them to maintain a high level of clinical excellence and financial stability going forward,” he added. “This is the next generation of medical laboratory organization and operation.”
Lab 1.0 Was Lab Clinical/Business Model for 50 Years
For more than 50 years, Clinical Lab 1.0 was the model for labs,” noted James Crawford, MD, PhD, Executive Director and Senior Vice President of Laboratory Services at Northwell Health Laboratories and an organizer of the Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop. “Lab 1.0 is transactional, focusing on generating high quality analytical data on specimens received, but without assembling these data into integrative clinical care programs. In the simplest sense, Clinical Lab 1.0 focused on generating ever-greater numbers of specimens to drive down average cost-per-test, while maximizing revenue in a fee-for-service system.
This chart shows the attributes of Clinical Lab 1.0 and compares those to the attributes of Clinical Lab 2.0. Lab 1.0 is transactional and based on increasing test volume to lower costs and maximize fee-for-service revenue. Clinical Lab 2.0 is integrative in ways that add value to lab testing services. (Graphic copyright Project Santa Fe.)
“But fee-for-service payment is going away,” he said. “Increasingly, clinical laboratories will be paid based on the value they provide. This payment can be in the form of bundled reimbursement, as a per-member-per-month payment, or as a share of the budgeted payment made to a health system, an accountable care organization (ACO), or a multispecialty provider network. As these alternative forms of provider payment become dominant, to earn a fair share of reimbursement, all medical laboratories will need a clinical strategy to deliver lab testing services that measurably contribute to improved patient outcomes while reducing the overall cost of care. This requires looking at medical laboratories’ contribution to effective delivery of the full dollar of the healthcare spend, not just the three-cents-on-the-dollar representing laboratory testing.”
Innovators in Clinical Laboratory Industry Identify New Ways to Add Value
There are already a handful of innovative clinical laboratory organizations that have clinical experience in moving past the Lab 1.0 paradigm of reporting an accurate test result within the accepted turnaround time. Leaders within these labs are collaborating with physicians and frontline care givers specifically to help them better utilize lab tests in ways that directly improve the speed and accuracy of the overall diagnostic sequence, as well as achieving therapeutic optimization as rapidly as possible. These collaborations are tracking the improvement in patient outcomes while demonstrating how better use of lab tests can lower the total cost per episode of care.
During the Clinical Lab 2.0 workshop, case studies were presented demonstrating how clinical laboratory leaders are taking the first steps to practice Clinical Lab 2.0 so as to achieve added value with medical laboratory tests. The case studies included:
· A project at Henry Ford Health to collaborate with physicians to more appropriately utilize lab tests and build consensus in support of a new lab test formulary.
· A multi-hospital initiative at Northwell Health to collaborate with physicians and nurses in the use of creating testing to make earlier, more accurate diagnoses of acute kidney injury during inpatient admissions, and better guide decisions to treat.
· A partnership involving TriCore Reference Laboratory and certain health insurers in New Mexico where the laboratory—using lab test data (some generated by emergency room testing) and other clinical data—alerts the insurers to women who are pregnant, thus allowing the insurers to provide timely guidance to the women’s care teams with the goal of improving prenatal care.
The Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop convened on November 13-14 in Albuquerque, N.M. A broad spectrum of innovative professionals from the five Project Santa Fe member laboratories (above) were there to teach the lessons learned from their first successful efforts to collaborate with physicians and create added value from medical laboratory diagnostics. Other attendees included progressive lab leaders from several of the nation’s most prominent health systems, along with thought leaders from the IVD, lab software, and lab association sectors. (Photo copyright Project Santa Fe.)
Project Santa Fe Workshop: A Well-Attended Lab ‘Think Tank’
Participants attending the Clinical Lab 2.0 workshop included hospital lab administrators, pathologists, and clinical laboratory industry executives. The importance of this workshop is reflected in the educational grants and financial support provided by leading in vitro diagnostics manufacturers, lab IT companies, and other lab industry vendors. The lab industry vendors included:
Described as a think-tank venture, the organizers are committed to implementing projects that demonstrate how lab tests can be used in ways that add value, and then publish the resulting projects, along with data about improved patient outcomes and reductions in healthcare costs, in peer-reviewed journals. Multi-institutional studies will be required to validate the findings and outcomes from the added-value clinical collaborations initiated at the different medical laboratory organizations participating in Project Santa Fe.
Another primary goal is to share the lessons learned from these innovative projects with other like-minded pathologists, lab administrators, and lab managers. In May, Project Santa Fe organizers led a one-day workshop to teach Clinical Lab 2.0 at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management. The workshop in Albuquerque on November 13-14 was the second learning opportunity available to medical laboratory professionals. A November 2018 workshop is planned.
Since most patients do not accurately report what they eat, a new medical laboratory test could provide doctors and researchers with the ‘first independent indicator of the quality of a person’s diet’
It may soon be possible to measure the health of a person’s diet by use of a 5-minute diagnostic test recently developed by British scientists. The test can reveal the facts about how well a person eats and has the potential to find clinical value among medical professionals and in clinical laboratories.
What adds to the interest in this test is the widespread incidence of obesity in most developed nations around the world. It would be a useful tool for medical professionals who have wanted better ways to manage this health problem. (more…)
Clinical laboratory assays on a USB stick could become a powerful tool in the treatment and containment of HIV-1 in low-resource regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa
Imagine a small USB device that plugs into a computer and, using a small sample of blood, is capable of detecting the presence of HIV and measuring its viral load in that individual. Such technology exists and was created by a team of scientists in the United Kingdom (UK). However, it is not yet ready for use by clinical laboratories.
A story published on the mobile technology news blog Quartz pointed out that more than 24-million of the 37-million people worldwide infected with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa. It is widely recognized that high cost and lack of access to medical care and clinical laboratory services remain a barrier to diagnosis, treatment, and containment of the disease. “[I]mproving diagnostics is now a key part of global strategies to combat [HIV],” wrote the study authors in a paper published in Nature Research journal Scientific Reports. (more…)
