With further study, this research may provide clinical laboratories with a new proteomic biomarker for dementia screenings that identifies risk more than 10 years before symptoms appear
Researchers at the University of Warwick in the UK and Fudan University in Shanghai, China, identified four protein biomarkers in blood that they say can predict dementia up to 15 years before diagnosis. They say these biomarkers may lead to clinical laboratory blood tests that offer alternatives to costly brain scans and lumbar punctures for diagnosis of dementia.
The scientists “used the largest cohort of blood proteomics and dementia to date,” according to a University of Warwick news release. This included taking blood from 52,645 “healthy” people without dementia who participated in the UK Biobank—a population-based study cohort, the new release noted.
“The proteomic biomarkers are [easy] to access and non-invasive, and they can substantially facilitate the application of large-scale population screening,” said neurovegetative disease specialist Jin-tai Yu, MD, PhD, a professor at Fudan University and co-author of the study, in the news release.
“The advent of proteomics offers an unprecedented opportunity to predict dementia onset,” the researchers wrote.
“This is a well-conducted study that adds to what we know about changes in blood that occur very early in diseases that cause dementia, which will be important for early diagnosis in the future,” said Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, in a post from the Science Media Center in the UK. “However,” she added, “it is important to note that these are still scientific research studies and that there are currently no blood tests available for routine use that can diagnose dementia with certainty.
“Based on this study, it does seem likely that blood tests will be developed that can predict risk for developing dementia over the next 10 years, although individuals at higher risk often have difficulty knowing how to respond,” Suzanne Schindler, MD, PhD (above), told Reuters. Schindler, an Associate Professor of Neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, was not involved in the research. Clinical laboratories may soon have a new blood test for dementia. (Photo copyright: VJDementia.)
Predicting Onset of Dementia with 90% Accuracy
The researchers analyzed 52,645 blood samples from the UK Biobank (UKBB). The samples were collected between 2006 and 2010 from healthy individuals who at that time were without dementia.
By March 2023, 1,417 of the study participants had developed Alzheimer’s disease or some other form of dementia. The researchers looked at 1,463 proteins and identified four that were present in high levels among those people:
“Individuals with higher GFAP levels were 2.32 times more likely to develop dementia,” the researchers wrote in Nature Aging. “Notably, GFAP and LTBP2 were highly specific for dementia prediction. GFAP and NEFL began to change at least 10 years before dementia diagnosis.”
When adding known risk factors such as age, sex, and genetics, the researchers said they could predict onset of dementia with 90% accuracy, according to the University of Warwick news release.
“Our findings strongly highlight GFAP as an optimal biomarker for dementia prediction, even more than 10 years before the diagnosis, with implications for screening people at high risk for dementia and for early intervention,” the researchers wrote.
The news release also noted that smaller studies had already identified some of the proteins as potential biomarkers, “but this new research was much larger and conducted over several years.”
Further Validation Needed
Amanda Heslegrave, PhD, of the UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London described the UKBB as “an excellent resource” in the Science Media Center (SMC) post. However, she noted, it’s “a highly curated biobank and may not capture all populations that we need to know the risk for. The new biomarkers identified will need further validation before being used as screening tools.”
Another expert raised additional questions about the University of Warwick/Fudan University study in the SMC post.
“These results may help researchers understand the biological systems involved in the development of dementia,” said David Curtis, MD, PhD, of the UCL Genetics Institute at University College London. “However in my view the strengths of the reported associations are not really strong enough to say that these would form a useful test for predicting who will get dementia in the future.”
Conversely, Curtis pointed to other studies suggesting that phosphorylated tau (p-tau) proteins are better candidates for developing a simple blood test.
P-tau “provides a very good indicator of whether the pathological processes leading to Alzheimer’s disease are present in the brain,” he said. “When effective treatments for Alzheimer’s disease are developed it will be very helpful indeed to have simple blood tests—such as measuring phosphorylated tau—available in order to identify who could benefit.”
At least two blood tests based on the p-tau217 variant—from ALZpath and C2N—are currently available to US clinicians as laboratory developed tests (LDT).
The UK Biobank continues to be used by researchers both in the UK and abroad because of the full sets of data on large numbers of patients over many years. There are few other sources of such data elsewhere in the world. The UK Biobank is a large-scale biomedical database and research resource. It contains de-identified genetic, lifestyle and health information, and biological samples from 500,000 UK participants.
On its website, the UK Biobank states, “It is the most comprehensive and widely-used dataset of its kind and is globally accessible to approved researchers who are undertaking health-related research that is in the public interest, whether they are from academic, commercial, government or charitable settings.”
Thus, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists can expect a continuing stream of published studies that identify biomarkers associated with different health conditions and to see where the data used in these analyses came from the UK’s biobank.
Millions of cancelled healthcare appointments and lengthy waits for care abound in UK, New Zealand, and in the US
Strikes continue on multiple continents as thousands of healthcare workers walk off the job. Doctors, medical laboratory scientists, nurses, phlebotomists and others around the world have taken to the picket lines complaining about low wages, inadequate staffing, and dangerous working conditions.
In England, junior doctors (the general equivalent of medical interns in the US) continue their uphill battle to have their complaints heard by the UK government. As a result, at hospitals and clinics throughout the United Kingdom, more than one million appointments have been cancelled due to strikes, according to the BBC.
“The true scale of the disruption is likely to be higher—many hospitals reduce bookings on strike days to minimize last-minute cancellations,” the BBC reported. “A total of one million hospital appointments have had to be rescheduled along with more than 60,000 community and mental health appointments since December [2022], when industrial action started in the National Health Service (NHS).”
According to The Standard, “Consultants in England are to be re-balloted over the prospect of further strike action as doctors and the government remain in talks with a view to end the dispute. The British Medical Association (BMA) said that specialist, associate specialist, and specialty (SAS) doctors will also be balloted over potential strike action.”
“We must be prepared to take the next step and ballot for industrial action if we absolutely have to—and we will do this … if upcoming negotiations fail to achieve anything for our profession,” Ujjwala Anand Mohite, DRCPath, FEBPath (above), a histopathologist at the NHS, Dudley Group of Hospitals, and the first female Chair of the SAS committee UK, told The Guardian.
New Zealand Doctors, Clinical Laboratory Workers Strike
In September, the first-ever nationwide senior doctor strike occurred in New Zealand and was then followed by another strike of about 5,000 doctors and 100 dentists from New Zealand’s public hospitals, the World Socialist Web Site reported.
Similar to the UK, the strikes reflect mounting frustration over pay not keeping up with inflation and “decades of deteriorating conditions in the public health system,” the WSWS noted.
This follows months of strikes by the island nation’s medical laboratory workers, which are ongoing.
“Our pay scales, if you compare them internationally, are not competitive. About half of our specialists come from abroad, so it’s quite important for the country’s health system to be able to attract and keep people,” Andy Davies, a lung specialist who joined the picket outside 484-bed Wellington Hospital, told the WSWS.
“We’re not asking for the world, we’re asking for an inflationary pay rise, and we haven’t had an inflationary pay rise year-on-year, and it’s beginning to show,” he added.
“What type of health system do they want?” he continued. “Do we want one that treats all people and manages what they need, or do we want a hacked down system that does less?”
The conflicts over pay and working conditions have caused many healthcare workers in New Zealand to leave the field entirely. This has led to severe shortages of qualified workers.
“Patient waiting times—for cancer, hip replacements, cardiac problems, and many other conditions—have exploded due to understaffed and overwhelmed hospitals,” the WSWS reported.
US Healthcare Workers also Striking
The US has its share of striking healthcare workers as well. Healthcare Dive tracked 23 ongoing or anticipated strikes throughout the nation’s healthcare industry since January 1, 2023. In 2022, there were 15 strikes of healthcare workers at the nation’s hospitals and health systems.
These walkouts include doctors, nurses, pharmacy workers, imaging specialists, and thousands of frontline healthcare workers striking over dangerously low staffing levels, unsafe working conditions, and low pay.
In October, 75,000 nurses, support staff, and medical technicians from Kaiser Permanente participated in a 72-hour strike comprised of hundreds of hospitals and clinics throughout California, Washington state, Oregon, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, Reuters reported.
The three-day strike, “Marked the largest work stoppage to date in the healthcare sector,” Reuters noted. Doctors, managers, and contingency workers were employed to keep hospitals and emergency departments functioning.
“The dispute is focused on workers’ demands for better pay and measures to ease chronic staff shortages and high turnover that union officials say has undermined patient care at Kaiser,” Reuters stated.
Staffing shortages following the COVID-19 pandemic are partly to blame for current struggles, but contract staffing to fill critical positions has exacerbated the problem.
“Kaiser’s outsourcing of healthcare duties to third-party vendors and subcontractors has also emerged as a major sticking point in talks that have dragged on for six months. … The clash has put Kaiser Permanente at the forefront of growing labor unrest in the healthcare industry—and across the US economy—driven by the erosion of workers’ earning power from inflation and pandemic-related disruptions in the workforce,” Reuters noted.
Across the globe, many healthcare workers—including clinical laboratory scientists in countries like New Zealand—are feeling burnt out from working in understaffed departments for inadequate pay. Hopefully, in response to these strikes, governments and healthcare leaders can come to resolutions that bring critical medical specialists back to work.
It is more than a shortage of nurses, as most clinical laboratories report the same shortages of medical technologists and increased labor costs
Just as hospital-based clinical laboratories are unable to hire and retain adequate numbers of medical technologists (MTs) and clinical laboratory scientists (CLSs), the nursing shortage is also acute. Compounding the challenge of staffing nurses is the rapid rise in the salaries of nurses because hospitals need nurses to keep their emergency departments, operating rooms, and other services open and treating patients while also generating revenue.
The nursing shortage has been blamed on burnout due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but nurses also report consistently deteriorating conditions and say they feel undervalued and under-appreciated, according to Michigan Advance, which recently covered an averted strike by nurses at 118-bed acute care McLaren Central Hospital in Mt. Pleasant and 97-bed teaching hospital MyMichigan Medical Center Alma, both in Central Michigan.
“Nurses are leaving the bedside because the conditions that hospital corporations are creating are unbearable. The more nurses leave, the worse it becomes. This was a problem before the pandemic, and the situation has only deteriorated over the last three years,” said Jamie Brown, RN, President of the Michigan Nurses Association (MNA) and a critical care nurse at Ascension Borgess Hospital in Kalamazoo, Michigan Advance reported.
“The staffing crisis will never be adequately addressed until working conditions at hospitals are improved,” said Jamie Brown, RN (above), President of the Michigan Nurses Association in a press release. Brown’s statement correlates with claims by laboratory technicians about working conditions in clinical laboratories all over the country that are experiencing similar shortages of critical staff. (Photo copyright: Michigan Nurses Association.)
Nurse Understaffing Dangerous to Patients
In the lead up to the Michigan nurses’ strike, NPR reported on a poll conducted by market research firm Emma White Research LLC on behalf of the MNA that found 42% of nurses surveyed claimed “they know of a patient death due to nurses being assigned too many patients.” The same poll in 2016 found only 22% of nurses making the same claim.
And yet, according to an MNA news release, “There is no law that sets safe RN-to-patient ratios in hospitals, leading to RNs having too many patients at one time too often. This puts patients in danger and drives nurses out of the profession.”
Seven in 10 RNs working in direct care say they are assigned an unsafe patient load in half or more of their shifts.
Over nine in 10 RNs say requiring nurses to care for too many patients at once is affecting the quality of patient care.
Requiring set nurse-to-patient ratios could also make a difference in retention and in returning qualified nurses to the field.
According to NPR, “Nurses across the state say dangerous levels of understaffing are becoming the norm, even though hospitals are no longer overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients.”
Thus, nursing organizations in Michigan, and the legislators who support change, have proposed the Safe Patient Care Act which sets out to “to increase patient safety in Michigan hospitals by establishing minimum nurse staffing levels, limiting mandatory overtime for RNs, and adding transparency,” according to an MNA news release.
Huge Increase in Nursing Costs
Another pressure on hospitals is the rise in the cost of replacing nurses with temporary or travel nurses to maintain adequate staffing levels.
In “Hospital Temporary Labor Costs: a Staggering $1.52 Billion in FY2022,” the Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association noted that “To fill gaps in staffing, hospitals hire registered nurses and other staff through ‘traveler’ agencies. Traveler workers, especially RNs in high demand, command higher hourly wages—at least two or three times more than what an on-staff clinician would earn. Many often receive signing bonuses. In Fiscal Year 2019, [Massachusetts] hospitals spent $204 million on temporary staff. In FY2022, they spent $1.52 billion—a 610% increase. According to the MHA survey, approximately 77% of the $1.52 billion went to hiring temporary RNs.”
It’s likely this same scenario is playing out in hospitals all across America.
Are Nursing Strikes a Symptom of a Larger Healthcare Problem?
“But the problem is much bigger,” Fortune wrote. “Care workers—physicians, home health aides, early childhood care workers, physician assistants, and more—face critical challenges as a result of America’s immense care gap that may soon touch every corner of the American economy.”
Clinical laboratories are experiencing the same shortages of critical staff due in large part to the same workplace issues affecting nurses. Dark Daily covered this growing crisis in several ebriefings.
We also covered in that ebrief how the so-called “Great Resignation” caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on clinical laboratory staffs, creating shortages of pathologists as well as of medical technologists, medical laboratory technicians, and other lab scientists who are vital to the nation’s network of clinical laboratories.
Hospitals across the United States—and in the UK, according to Reuters—are facing worker strikes, staff shortages, rising costs, and uncertainty about the future. Just like clinical laboratories and other segments of the healthcare industry, worker burnout and exhaustion in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic are being cited as culprits for these woes.
But was it predictable and could it have been avoided?
“One of the big things to clear up for the public is that … we saw the writing on the wall that vacancies were going to be a problem for us, before the pandemic hit our shores,” Christopher Friese, PhD, professor of Nursing and Health Management Policy at the University of Michigan (UM), told NPR. Friese is also Director of the Center for Improving Patient and Population Health at UM.
Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and staffing shortages exasperated by it, will be felt by clinical laboratories, pathology groups, and the healthcare industry in general for years to come. Creative solutions must be employed to avoid more staff shortages and increase employee retention and recruitment.
Two former FDA commissioners who support changing oversight of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) say FDA’s regulatory playbook is ‘outdated’
Congress’ attempts to avoid a government shutdown due to a lack of funding presents a final chance this year for two different clinical laboratory bills to be pushed through.
As Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report, noted in “VALID and SALSA Acts Still Pending in Congress,” a standalone vote on either bill is unlikely this year. Instead, they would need to be attached to the larger spending bill. (If you’re not a subscriber to The Dark Report, check out our free trial.)
In an article for STAT, former FDA Commissioners Scott Gottlieb, MD (left), and Mark McClellan, MD, PhD (right), wrote, “The FDA is currently working from an outdated regulatory playbook that has left gaps in its oversight of safety and effectiveness and makes it more difficult to introduce new innovations. The [VALID Act] would strengthen protections for consumers and patients for both diagnostic tests and cosmetics and make it easier for manufacturers to introduce better products.” (Photo copyrights: FDA/American Well.)
Political Parties Negotiating
At press time, a draft spending bill had not yet been introduced to Congress as lawmakers from both political parties negotiate funding levels.
A source told The Dark Report that until legislators hammer out those details, add-ons such as the VALID Act or SALSA are stalled. There is no guarantee either lab measure will be added to the spending bill.
“We don’t have agreements to do virtually anything,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to reporters on Dec. 6, according to Reuters. “We don’t even have an overall agreement on how much we want to spend,” he added. Reuters reported that Democrats and Republicans in the Senate were $25 billion apart in their proposals.
Congress could also pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open for a short time, which would allow lawmakers more opportunity to negotiate.
Former FDA Chiefs Weigh In
Meanwhile, proponents of the VALID Act have publicly turned the heat up for the bill. For example, STAT recently ran two commentaries—including a joint piece from a pair of former FDA commissioners—in support of the VALID Act.
Currently, LDTs are regulated through the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). However, supporters of the VALID Act argue that the complexity of modern LDTs deserves more scrutiny.
“The VALID Act would create a consistent standard for all tests, regardless of the kind of facility they were developed in or made in, as well as a modern regulatory framework that’s uniquely designed for the recent and emerging technologies being used to develop tests,” wrote Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, in STAT on Dec. 5.
Gottlieb and McClellan served as FDA commissioners from 2017-2019 and 2002-2004 respectively. They both currently serve on various boards for biotech and healthcare companies.
Pathologists, Clinical Lab Directors Express Concerns about VALID Act
Opponents of the VALID Act contend that LDT innovation will be stifled if clinical laboratories, particularly those at academic medical centers, need to spend the time and money to go through formal FDA approval. There is evidence that working pathologists in academic settings have legitimate concerns about the negative consequences that might result if the VALID Act was passed as currently written.
In “Might Valid Act Support Be Waning in Congress?” The Dark Report covered how on June 1 more than 290 pathologists and clinical laboratory directors sent a grassroots letter to a Senate committee asking for a series of concessions to be made for academic medical center labs under the VALID Act.
It is reasonable to assert that the majority of clinical laboratory professionals and pathologists are supportive of the SALSA bill, which would stop the next round of scheduled price cuts—as much as a 15% price reduction to many tests—to the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS). That is not true of support for the VALID Act, as currently written. Sizeable segments of the diagnostics industry have taken opposing positions regarding passage of that legislation.
For these reasons, both bills will be closely watched in coming weeks as Congress works to fund the federal government while, at the same time, incorporating a variety of other bills under the omnibus bill, which is a considered a “must pass” by many senators and representatives.
Clinical laboratory scientists should also know experts warn that ‘herd resistance’ is more likely than ‘herd immunity’ due to low vaccination rates in many parts of the world
Scientists estimate 73% of the US population may be immune to the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. Whether the nation is approaching “herd immunity” against the disease, however, remains open to debate, the Associated Press (AP) reported. These estimates are relevant to medical laboratories doing serology tests for COVID-19, as different individuals will have different immune system responses to COVID-19 infections and vaccines.
More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker shows the number of daily cases dropped to fewer than 50,000 as of March 4, 2022, after reaching a high of 928,125 on January 3, 2022.
Meanwhile, the seven-day death rate per 100,000 people stands at 2.78. That’s significantly above the seven-day death rate reached last July of .45, but well below the 7.21 mark recorded on January 13, 2021.
“We’re clearly entering a new phase of the pandemic,” William Morice, II, MD, PhD, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told KARE11, an NBC affiliate.
Is Herd Immunity Achievable?
According to the AP, an estimated 73% of the US population is likely to be immune to the Omicron variant due to vaccination or natural immunity from contracting the disease. That calculation was done for the media outlet by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle. The IHME anticipates immunity to Omicron could rise to 80% this month, as more people receive vaccination booster shots or become vaccinated.
“Herd immunity is an elusive concept and doesn’t apply to coronavirus,” he told the Associated Press (AP).
Milton maintains populations are moving toward “herd resistance,” rather than “herd immunity.” This will transform COVID-19 into a permanent fixture with seasonal outbreaks similar to influenza.
Epidemiologist, Ali Mokdad, PhD (above), Chief Strategy Officer for Population Health and Professor of Health Metrics Science at the University of Washington in Seattle, believes the US is now much better positioned to withstand the next wave of COVID-19 cases. “I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” he told the Associated Press (AP). Mokdad worked on the IHME model that calculated the 73% Omicron-immunity figure for the AP. However, he recommends continued vigilance toward COVID-19. “We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity we shouldn’t take it for granted,” he added. And so, clinical laboratories can expect to continue to play a vital role in the fight against the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. (Photo copyright: University of Washington.)
Herd Immunity Varies, according to the WHO
Because antibodies that developed from vaccines—or natural immunity from a previous infection—diminish over time, waning protection means even those boosted or recently recovered from COVID-19 could be reinfected. In addition, vaccination rates vary widely around the world. Our World in Data estimates only 13.6% of people in low-income countries had received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine as of March 7, 2022.
The World Health Organization (WHO) points out that herd immunity levels vary with different diseases. Herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated, while the threshold for polio is about 80%.
“The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known. This is an important area of research and will likely vary according to the community, the vaccine, the populations prioritized for vaccination, and other factors,” the WHO website states.
Living with COVID-19
Nonetheless, the US appears to be moving into a new “normal” phase of living with the disease.
In an interview with Reuters, US infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) acknowledged a need for returning to normal living even though portions of the population—immunocompromised individuals and the unvaccinated, including children under age five who are not eligible for vaccination—remain vulnerable to more severe COVID-19.
“The fact that the world and the United States—and particularly certain parts of the United States—are just up to here with COVID, they just really need to somehow get their life back,” Fauci said. “You don’t want to be reckless and throw everything aside, but you’ve got to start inching towards that. There’s no perfect solution to this.”
Most states have lifted coronavirus-related restrictions, including masking requirements. As COVID-19 cases drop in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom put in motion a plan called SMARTER (Shots, Masks, Awareness, Readiness, Testing, Education, and Rx) that no longer responds to COVID-19 as a crisis, but instead emphasizes prevention, surveillance, and rapid response to future variant-based surges in cases.
“We have all come to understand what was not understood at the beginning of this crisis, that there’s no ending, that there’s not a moment where we declare victory,” Newsom told USA Today.
Mayo Clinic’s Morice agrees. “It can’t be out of sight, out of mind, per se, but it at least gives us hope that we can get back to some level of normalcy here over the course of the year,” he said.
Since clinical laboratories played a critical role in assay development and COVID-19 testing, medical laboratory leaders should continue monitoring COVID-19 as it moves from pandemic to endemic status due to high vaccination rates and advances in treatment options.
The COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness among healthcare consumers as well, about the critical role laboratory medicine plays in modern medicine and healthcare. Medical laboratory leaders and pathologists would be wise to amplify this message and stress the importance of clinical laboratory testing for many diseases and healthcare conditions.
