Infection control teams and clinical laboratory managers may want to look at this new product designed to improve the diagnosis and treatment of sepsis
Accurate and fast diagnosis of sepsis for patients arriving in emergency departments is the goal of a new product that was just cleared by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is also the newest example of how artificial intelligence (AI) continues to find its way into pathology and clinical laboratory medicine.
Sepsis is one of the deadliest killers in US hospitals. That is why there is interest in the recent action by the FDA to grant marketing authorization for an AI-powered sepsis detection software through the agency’s De Novo Classification Request. The DNCR “provides a marketing pathway to classify novel medical devices for which general controls alone, or general and special controls, provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the intended use, but for which there is no legally marketed predicate device,” the FDA’s website states.
Unlike a single analyte assay that is run in a clinical laboratory, Prenosis’ AI/ML software uses 22 diagnostic and predictive parameters, along with ML algorithms, to analyze data and produce a clinically actionable answer on sepsis.
It is important for clinical laboratory managers and pathologists to recognize that this diagnostic approach to sepsis brings together a number of data points commonly found in a patient’s electronic health record (EHR), some of which the lab generated and others the lab did not generate.
“Sepsis is a serious and sometimes deadly complication. Technologies developed to help prevent this condition have the potential to provide a significant benefit to patients,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in a statement. “The FDA’s authorization of the Prenosis Sepsis ImmunoScore software establishes specific premarket and post-market requirements for this device type.” Clinical laboratory EHRs contain some of the data points Prenosis’ diagnostic software uses. (Photo copyright: US Food and Drug Administration.)
How it Works
To assist doctors diagnose sepsis, the ImmunoScore software is first integrated into the patient’s hospital EHR. From there, it leverages 22 parameters including:
White blood cell count to produce a score that informs caregivers of the patient’s risk for sepsis within 24 hours, MedTech Dive reported.
Instead of requiring a doctor or nurse to look at each parameter separately, the SaMD tool uses AI “to evaluate all those markers at once”, CNBC noted. It then produces a risk score and four discrete risk stratification categories (low, medium, high, and very high) which correlate to “a patient’s risk of deterioration” represented by:
By sharing these details—a number from one to 100 for each of the 22 diagnostic and predictive parameters—Sepsis ImmunoScore helps doctors determine which will likely contribute most to the patient’s risk for developing sepsis, MedTech Dive reported.
“A lot of clinicians don’t trust AI products for multiple reasons. We are trying very hard to counter that skepticism by making a tool that was validated by the FDA first, and then the second piece is we’re not trying to replace the clinician,” Bobby Reddy Jr., PhD, Prenosis co-founder and CEO, told MedTech Dive.
Big Biobank and Blood Sample Data
Prenosis, which says its goal is the “enabling [of] precision medicine in acute care” developed Sepsis ImmunoScore using the company’s own biobank and a dataset of more than 100,000 blood samples from more than 25,000 patients.
AI algorithms drew on this biological/clinical dataset—the largest in the world for acute care patients suspected of having serious infections, according to Prenosis—to “elucidate patterns in rapid immune response.”
“It does not work without data, and the data started at Carle,” said critical care specialist Karen White, MD, PhD, Carle Foundation Hospital, St. Louis, MO, in the news release. “The project involved a large number of physicians, research staff, and internal medicine residents at Carle who helped recruit patients, collect data, and samples,” she said.
Opportunity for Clinical Laboratories
Sepsis is a life-threatening condition based on an “extreme response to an infection” that affects nearly 1.7 million adults in the US each year and is responsible for 350,000 deaths, according to US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data.
A non-invasive diagnostic tool like Sepsis ImmunoScore will be a boon to emergency physicians and the patients they treat. Now that the FDA has authorized the SaMD diagnostic tool to go to market, it may not be long before physicians can use the information it produces to save lives.
Clinical laboratory managers inspired by the development of Sepsis ImmunoScore may want to look for similar ways they can take certain lab test results and combine them with other data in an EHR to create intelligence that physicians can use to better treat their patients. The way forward in laboratory medicine will be combining lab test results with other relevant sets of data to create clinically actionable intelligence for physicians, patients, and payers.
Trifecta of forces at work that will affect the clinical laboratory and pathology industries have been described as a ‘perfect storm’ requiring lab and practice managers to be well informed
Digital pathology, artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, and the perfect storm of changing federal regulations, took centerstage at the 29th Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management in New Orleans this week, where more than 1,000 clinical laboratory and pathology leaders convened over three days.
This was the largest number of people ever onsite for what has become the world’s largest event focused exclusively on lab management topics and solutions. Perhaps the highlight of the week was the federal Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) announcement of its final rule on Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs). Overall, the conference featured more than 120 speakers, many of them national thought leaders on the topic of clinical lab and pathology management. More than 65% of the audience onsite were executive level lab managers.
“The level of interest in the annual Executive War College is testimony to the ongoing need for dynamic, engaging, and highly relevant conference events,” said Robert Michel (above), Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, and founder of the Executive War College. “These in-person gatherings present great opportunities for clinical laboratory and pathology managers and leaders to network and speak with people they otherwise might not meet.” (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group.)
Demonstrating Clinical Value
For those who missed the action onsite, the following is a synopsis of the highlights this week.
Lâle White, Executive Chair and CEO of XiFin, spoke about the future of clinical laboratory testing and the factors reshaping the industry. There are multiple dynamics impacting healthcare economics and outcomes—namely rising costs, decreasing reimbursements, and the move to a more consumer-focused healthcare. But it is up to labs, she said, to ensure their services are not simply viewed as a commodity.
“Laboratory diagnostics have the potential to change the economics of healthcare by really gaining efficiencies,” she noted. “And it’s up to labs to demonstrate clinical value by helping physicians manage two key diagnostic decision points—what tests to order, and what to do with the results.”
But even as labs find ways to increase the value offered to clinicians, there are other disruptive factors in play. Consumer-oriented tech companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon are democratizing access to patient data in unforeseen ways, and Medicare Advantage plans are changing the way claims are processed and paid.
Clinical labs are fundamental components of the public health infrastructure. So, the CDC plans on focusing on delivering high-quality laboratory science, supported by reliable diagnostics and informatics for disease outbreaks and exposures, and engaging with public and private sector partners.
The history of MolDX and Z-Codes were the topics discussed by Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer for healthcare claims and transaction processing company Palmetto GBA. Molecular testing is highly complex, and the lack of well-defined billing codes and standardization makes it difficult to know if a given test is reasonable and necessary.
Z-Codes were established to clarify what molecular testing was performed—and why—prompting payers to require both Z-Codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes when processing molecular test claims. Medicare’s MolDX program further streamlines the claims process by utilizing expertise in the molecular diagnostics space to help payers develop coverage policies and reimbursement for these tests.
FDA Final Rule on LDT Regulation
Timothy Stenzel, MD, PhD, CEO of Grey Haven Consulting and former director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics reviewed the latest updates from the FDA’s Final Rule on LDT (laboratory developed test) regulation. Prior to the FDA releasing its final rule, some experts suggested that the new regulations could result in up to 90% of labs discontinuing their LDT programs, impacting innovation, and patient care.
However, the final rule on LDTs is very different from the original proposed rule which created controversy. The final rule actually lowers the regulatory burden to the point that some labs may not have to submit their LDTs at all. The FDA is reviewing dozens of multi-cancer detection assays, some of which have launched clinically as LDTs. The agency is likely to approve those that accurately detect cancers for which there is no formal screening program.
Stenzel explained the FDA’s plan to down-classify most in vitro diagnostic tests, changing them from Class III to Class II, and exempting more than 1,000 assays from FDA review. He also discussed the highlights of the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR). Launched in January, the QMSR bought FDA requirements in line with ISO 13485, making compliance easier for medical device manufacturers and test developers working internationally.
Looming Perfect Storm of Regulatory Changes
To close out Day 1, Michel took to the stage again with a warning to clinical laboratories about the looming “Perfect Storm” trifecta—the final FDA ruling on LDTs, Z-Code requirements for genetic testing, and updates to CLIA ’92 that could result in patient data being considered a specimen.
Laboratory leaders must think strategically if their labs are to survive the fallout, because the financial stress felt by labs in recent years will only be exacerbated by macroeconomic trends such as:
Staff shortages,
Rising costs,
Decreasing and delayed reimbursements, and
Tightening supply chains.
Lab administrators looking for ways to remain profitable and prosperous should look beyond the transactional Clinical Lab 1.0 fee-for-service model and adopt Clinical Lab 2.0, which embraces HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) scores and STAR ratings to offer more value to Medicare Advantage and other payers.
Wednesday’s General Session agenda was packed with information about the rise of artificial intelligence, big data, and precision medicine in healthcare. Taking centerstage on the program’s final day was Michael Simpson, President and CEO of Clinisys. Simpson gave a global perspective on healthcare data as the new driver of innovation in diagnostics and patient care.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concluded its review of the final rule on April 22. Former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, and other regulatory experts expect the White House to send the final rule to Congress as early as late April and no later than May 22.
On Tuesday morning, Lâle White, executive chair and CEO of San Diego’s XiFin, Inc., will present a keynote on new regulations and diagnostics players that are “poised to reshape lab testing.” Her presentation is followed by a general session on Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) regulations featuring Salerno Reynolds, PhD., acting director at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Center for Laboratory Systems and Response.
Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report will wrap day one with a general session on the regulatory trifecta coming soon to all labs, from LDT to CLIA to private payers’ policies for genetic claims.
Innovation in the spotlight
“It’s a rich mix of expert speakers, lab leaders who are doing innovative things in their own organizations, along with the consultants and the lab vendors who are pushing the front edge of laboratory management, operations, and clinical service delivery,” says Michel, who each year creates the agenda for EWC.
Several sessions, master classes, and speakers will look to the future with discussions about how healthcare data drives innovations in diagnostics and patient care, digital pathology adoption around the world, and hot topics such as artificial intelligence (AI), big data and precision medicine.
Panels offer a variety of viewpoints
“One valuable benefit of participating at the Executive War College is the various panel discussions,” Michel says. “Each panel brings together national experts in a specific area of the laboratory profession. As an example, our lab legal panel this year brings together four prominent and experienced attorneys who share opinions, insights, and commentary about relevant issues in compliance, regulations, and contractual issues with health plans and others.”
This allows attendees to experience a breadth of opinions from multiple respected experts in this area, he adds.
For example, a digital pathology panel will bring together representatives from labs, service providers, and the consultants that are helping labs implement digital pathology. The session will be especially helpful to labs that are deciding when to acquire digital pathology tools and how to deploy them effectively to improve diagnostic accuracy, Michel says.
And a managed care panel will feature executives from some of the nation’s biggest health plans—the ones that sit on the other side of the table from labs—to provide insights and guidance on how labs can work more effectively with them.
Networking opportunities abound
The event is about much more than politics and policy, however. There’s also a distinct social aspect.
“Everyone is welcome, and everyone appreciates the camaraderie, so don’t be shy about going up and introducing yourself to someone. The quality of the crowd is top-notch, yet I’ve always experienced a willingness for those of us who have been to this rodeo to always be welcoming,” she notes.
Michel agrees. “One of the special benefits of participation at the EWC is the superb networking interactions and collaboration that takes place,” he says.
“From the first moments that attendees walk into our opening reception on Monday night until the close of the optional workshops on Thursday, one can see a rich exchange happening amongst circles of attendees. Introductions are being made. Connections are developing into business opportunities. The sum of an attendee’s experience at the Executive War College is to gain as much knowledge from the networking and collaboration as they do from the sessions.”
Clinical laboratory managers should note that this company’s new diagnostic offering involving screening embryos for specific genetic conditions is not without controversy
Is the world ready for whole genome sequencing (WGS) of preimplantation embryos to help couples undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments know if their embryos have potential genetic health problems? Orchid Health, a clinical preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) laboratory that conducts genetic screening in San Francisco, believes the answer is yes! But the cost is high, and the process is not without controversy.
According to an article in Science, Orchid’s service—a sequencings of the whole human genome of preimplantation embryos at $2,500 per embryo tested—“will look not just for single-gene mutations that cause disorders such as cystic fibrosis, but also more extensively for medleys of common and rare gene variants known to predispose people to neurodevelopmental disorders, severe obesity, and certain psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia.”
However, Science also noted that some genomics researchers “claim the company inappropriately uses their data to generate some of its risk estimates,” adding that the “Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC), an international group of more than 800 researchers working to decode the genetic and molecular underpinnings of mental health conditions, says Orchid’s new test relies on data [PGC] produced over the past decade, and that the company has violated restrictions against the data’s use for embryo screening.”
There are some who assert that a whole genome sequence of an embryo—given today’s state of genetic technology and knowledge—could generate information that cannot be interpreted accurately in ways that help parents and doctors make informed prenatal testing decisions. At the same time, criticisms expressed by the PGC raise reasonable points.
Perhaps this is a sign of the times. Orchid Health is the latest genetic testing company that is looking to get ahead of genetic testing competitors with its diagnostics offerings. Meanwhile, knowledgeable and credible experts question the appropriateness of this testing, given the genetic knowledge that exists today.
“This is a major advance in the amount of information parents can have,” Orchid’s founder and CEO Noor Siddiqui (above) told CNBC. “The way that you can use that information is really up to you, but it gives a lot more control and confidence into a process that, for all of history, has just been totally left to chance.” Should Orchid Health’s analysis prove useful, pediatricians could order further clinical laboratory prenatal testing to confirm and diagnose potential genetic diseases for parents. (Photo copyright: General Assembly.)
Orchid Receives World-class Support
Regardless of the pushback from some genetic researchers, Orchid has attracted several world-class geneticists and genetics investors to its board of advisors. They include:
Jacques Cohen, PhD, embryologist, co-founder and former director for genetics laboratory Reprogenetics LLC (now CooperGenomics).
Anne Wojcicki, co-founder and CEO of direct-to-consumer genetic testing company 23andMe.
and others.
The WGS test, according to Orchid, detects genetic errors in embryos that are linked to severe illnesses before a pregnancy even begins. And by sequencing 99% of an embryo’s DNA, the test can spot potential health risks that could affect a future baby.
According to its website, the PGT lab company uses the WGS data to identify both monogenic (single-gene) and polygenic (multiple-gene) diseases, including:
Orchid is not without its critics. Knowledgeable, credible experts have questioned the appropriateness of this type of genetic testing. They fear it could become a modern-day form of eugenics.
Andrew McQuillin, PhD, Professor of Molecular Psychiatry at University College London, has concerns about Orchid’s preimplantation genetic testing. He maintains that it is difficult to control how such data is used, and that even the most accurate sequencing techniques do not predict disease risk very well.
“[Polygenic risk scores are] useful in the research context, but at the individual level, they’re not actually terribly useful to predict who’s going to develop schizophrenia or not,” McQuillin told Science. “We can come up with guidance on how these things should be used. The difficulty is that official guidance like that doesn’t feature anywhere in the marketing from these companies.”
McQuillin also stated that researchers must have an extensive discussion regarding the implications of this type of embryo screening.
“We need to take a look at whether this is really something we should be doing. It’s the type of thing that, if it becomes widespread, in 40 years’ time, we will ask, ‘What on Earth have we done?’” McQuillin emphasized.
Redefining Reproduction
It takes about three weeks for couples to receive their report back from Orchid after completing the whole genome sequence of a preimplantation embryo. A board-certified genetic counselor then consults with the parents to help them understand the results.
Founder and CEO Noor Siddiqui hopes Orchid will be able to scale up its operations and introduce more automation to the testing process to the cost per embryo.
“We want to make this something that’s accessible to everyone,” she told CNBC.
“I think this has the potential to totally redefine reproduction,” she added. “I just think that’s really exciting to be able to make people more confident about one of the most important decisions of their life, and to give them a little bit more control.”
Clinical laboratories have long been involved in prenatal screening to gain insight into risk levels associated with certain genetic disorders. Even some of that testing comes with controversy and ambiguous findings. Whether Orchid Health’s PGT process delivers accurate, reliable diagnostic insights regarding preimplantation embryos remains to be seen.
Research findings could lead to new biomarkers for genetic tests and give clinical laboratories new capabilities to diagnose different health conditions
New insights continue to emerge about “junk DNA” (aka, non-coding DNA). For pathologists and clinical laboratories, these discoveries may have value and eventually lead to new biomarkers for genetic testing.
One recent example comes from researchers at Stanford Medicine in California who recently learned how non-coding DNA—which makes up 98% of the human genome—affects gene expression, the function that leads to observable characteristics in an organism (phenotypes).
The research also could lead to a better understanding of how short tandem repeats (STRs)—the number of times a gene is copied into RNA for protein use—affect gene expression as well, according to Stanford.
“We’ve known for a while that short tandem repeats or STRs, aren’t junk because their presence or absence correlates with changes in gene expression. But we haven’t known how they exert these effects,” said study lead Polly Fordyce, PhD (above), Associate Professor of Bioengineering and Genetics at Stanford University, in a news release. The research could lead to new clinical laboratory biomarkers for genetic testing. (Photo copyright: Stanford University.)
To Bind or Not to Bind
In their Science paper, the Stanford researchers described an opportunity to explore a new angle to transcription factors binding to some sequences, also known as sequence motifs.
“Researchers have spent a lot of time characterizing these transcription factors and figuring out which sequences—called motifs—they like to bind to the most,” said the study lead Polly Fordyce, PhD, Associate Professor of Bioengineering and Genetics at Stanford University, in a Stanford Medicine news release.
“But current models don’t adequately explain where and when transcription factors bind to non-coding DNA to regulate gene expression. Sometimes, no transcription factor is attached to something that looks like a perfect motif. Other times, transcription factors bind to stretches of DNA that aren’t motifs,” the news release explains.
Transcription factors are “like light switches that can turn genes on or off depending on what cells need,” notes a King’s College LondonEDIT Labblog post.
But why do transcription factors target some places in the genome and not others?
“To solve the puzzle of why transcription factors go to some places in the genome and not to others, we needed to look beyond the highly preferred motifs,” Fordyce added. “In this study, we’re showing that the STR sequence around the motif can have a really big effect on transcription factor binding, providing clues as to what these repeated sequences might be doing.”
Such information could aid in understanding certain hereditary conditions and diseases.
“Variations in STR length have been associated with changes in gene expression and implicated in several complex phenotypes such as schizophrenia, cancer, autism, and Crohn’s disease. However, the mechanism by which STRs affect transcription remains unknown,” the researchers wrote in Science.
Special Assays Explore Binding
According to their paper, the research team turned to the Fordyce Lab’s previously developed microfluidic binding assays (MITOMI, k–MITOMI, and STAMMP) to analyze the impact of different DNA sequences on transcription factor binding.
“In the experiment we asked, ‘How do these changes impact the strength of transcription factor binding?’ We saw a surprisingly large effect. Varying the STR sequence around a motif can have a 70-fold impact on the binding,” Fordyce wrote.
In an accompanying Science article titled, “Repetitive DNA Regulates Gene Expression,” Thomas Kuhlman, PhD, Assistant Professor, Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Riverside, wrote that the study “demonstrates that STRs exert their effects by directly binding transcription factor proteins, thus explaining how STRs might influence gene expression in both normal and diseased states.”
“This research unveils, for the first time, the intricate connection between how variants in the non-coding genome affect genes that are associated with blood pressure and with hypertension. What we’ve created is a kind of functional map of the regulators of blood pressure genes, “said Philipp Maass, PhD, Lead Researcher and Assistant Professor Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, in a news release.
The research team used massively parallel reporter assay (MPRA) technology to analyze 4,608 genetic variants associated with blood pressure.
The findings could aid precision medicine for cardiovascular health and may possibly be adopted to other conditions, according to The Hospital for Sick Children.
“The variants we have characterized in the non-coding genome could be used as genomic markers for hypertension, laying the groundwork for future genetic research and potential therapeutic targets for cardiovascular disease,” Maass noted.
Why All the ‘Junk’ DNA?
Clinical laboratory scientists may wonder why genetic research has primarily focused on 20,000 genes within the genome, leaving the “junk” DNA for later investigation. So did researchers at Harvard University.
“After the Human Genome Project, scientists found that there were around 20,000 genes within the genome, a number that some researchers had already predicted. Remarkably, these genes comprise only about 1-2% of the three billion base pairs of DNA. This means that anywhere from 98-99% of our entire genome must be doing something other than coding for proteins,” they wrote in a blog post.
“Imagine being given multiple volumes of encyclopedias that contained a coherent sentence in English every 100 pages, where the rest of the space contained a smattering of uninterpretable random letters and characters. You would probably start to wonder why all those random letters and characters were there in the first place, which is the exact problem that has plagued scientists for decades,” they added.
Not only is junk DNA an interesting study subject, but ongoing research may also produce useful new biomarkers for genetic diagnostics and other clinical laboratory testing. Thus, medical lab professionals may want to keep an eye on new developments involving non-coding DNA.
