Facing a backlog, the state’s public health laboratory turned to the medical laboratory at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center
Much of the attention surrounding the COVID-19
outbreak—the illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus—has focused on large urban areas such as New York City and Los
Angeles. However, the virus is impacting many rural areas as well. This is true
in New Hampshire, where the diagnostic response required close cooperation
between the state’s public health
laboratory and the clinical
laboratory at its lone academic medical center. Their experience offers
lessons for medical
laboratory leaders nationwide.
“When these things happen and you surge beyond what you
could imagine, it’s the relationships with people that matter more than
anything,” said Christine
L. Bean, PhD, Administrator of New
Hampshire Public Health Laboratory Division of Public Health Services , Concord,
N.H., during a recent Dark
Daily webinar, titled, “What Hospital and Health System Labs Need to
Know About Operational Support and Logistics During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
As Bean explained, during the earliest stages of the
pandemic the “CDC was doing the testing” and the state lab’s role was limited
to submitting samples from patients deemed as “presumptive positives.” Then, on
Feb. 4, the FDA granted an emergency
use authorization (EUA) allowing use of the CDC-developed real-time
reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) assay by designated labs.
The New Hampshire Public Health Laboratory (NHPHL) received
its first test kit on Feb. 10, Bean said. But the kits were recalled due to
validation problems with one of the reagents. On Feb. 26, the CDC
issued revised test instructions allowing use of the test without the N3
primer and probe set that had caused the early validation issues. The NHPHL
verified the test under the new guidelines and went live on March 2, she said.
However, with a capacity of 150 to 200 tests per day, the
lab wasn’t equipped to handle a large volume. “Much of what we do is really
population-based,” she said. “Most of the time we’re not doing patient
diagnostic testing.”
Christine L. Bean, PhD (left), Administrator of the New Hampshire Public Health Laboratory, and Joel Lefferts, PhD (right), Assistant Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and Assistant Director of the Molecular Pathology, at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, spoke with Dark Daily’s Editor-in-Chief Robert Michel during a webinar on what hospital and health system labs need to know about operational support and logistics during the COVID-19 outbreak. The webinar can be freely downloaded by clicking here. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
NHPHL Turns to the Medical Laboratory at DHMC-CGHT for
Help
The DHMC-CGHT lab began having its own discussions about
testing in the first week of February, said Joel
A. Lefferts, PhD, HCLD, DABCC, Assistant Professor of Pathology and
Laboratory Medicine and Assistant Director of Molecular Pathology at
Dartmouth’s Geisel School of
Medicine. They were unsure of how much need there would be, but “throughout
the month of February, we started exploring different testing options,” he said
during the Dark Daily webinar.
The Dartmouth-Hitchcock lab team began with the CDC test. However,
Lefferts noted that the initial FDA guidance was “somewhat restrictive” and required
specific RNA extraction
kits and real-time PCR instruments. “If our lab didn’t have the capability to
perform everything exactly as indicated, we would be running it off-label and
would have to possibly submit our own EUA submission to the FDA,” he explained.
Later, though, the FDA and CDC loosened those restrictions and the lab began testing with the CDC assay on March 18, using a Thermo Fisher ABI 7500Dx instrument, Lefferts said. According to Thermo Fisher’s website, the ABI 7500Dx “is a real-time nucleic acid amplification and five-color fluorescence detection system available for in vitro diagnostic use.”
However, Lefferts continued, “we only had one of these
7500Dx instruments, and it was a relatively manual and labor-intensive
process.” It allowed a maximum of 29 samples per run, he said, and took about
five hours to produce results.
Then, the FDA granted an EUA for Abbott’s
m2000 assay, which runs on the company’s m2000rt real-time PCR instrument.
“We were really excited, because we happened to have two of these systems in
our lab,” he said. “We quickly got on the phone and ordered some of these
kits.”
The DHMC-CGHT lab went live with the new system on March 23.
It can handle up to 94 samples per run, said Lefferts, and with two instruments
running from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., “there’s a potential to do as many as 10 runs
per day.”
This was the system they used to help New Hampshire’s Public
Health Lab with its backlog. “It was unbelievable to see that our backlog could
be really wiped out,” said Bean.
Challenges for Medical Labs
Gearing up for testing in a public health emergency poses
many challenges, Lefferts advised. “You need to look at what instrumentation
you have in your laboratory, what the experience level of your lab team is, how
much space you have, your expected batch size, and your needed turnaround
time.”
The two labs also had to deal with regulatory uncertainty. “This EUA process is something for which we don’t have much experience,” he said. “Trying to juggle CLIA, CAP, the FDA, and possibly state regulations is a bit challenging. You definitely need to do your research and talk to other clinical laboratories that are doing this testing to get advice.”
Lefferts explained that the most significant challenges to
develop and validate a molecular assay for COVID-19 included:
Availability of validation materials.
Obtaining “positive [viral] samples may be a challenge, depending on where you
are and what you have access to,” said Lefferts. However, he credits the FDA
for being “very proactive” in suggesting alternative sources for “viral isolates or genomic RNA that’s been
extracted from some of these viral isolates.”
Availability of collection kits. “We can
do a lot more testing now,” he said, but one bottleneck is the limited
availability of supplies such as nasopharyngeal swabs
and viral transport media. “We’re looking at alternative collection options,”
he said, such as 3D-printed swabs or even Q-tips [household cotton swabs], though
“hopefully it won’t come to that.” The DHMC-CGHT lab also considered producing its
own transport media.
Turnaround times. “Our lab wants to get
those results out as soon as possible,” Lefferts said. “So, we’re looking at
alternative methods to get that testing out sooner.” For example, “do we just
do the SARS-CoV-2 testing on a patient, or do we need to do other influenza and other viral
pathogens,” while also keeping up with other routine testing during the
pandemic?
Staffing issues. “Fatigue is a big issue
with members of our labs who put in lots of extra hours,” he said. The
DHMC-CGHT lab has developed contingency plans in case lab personnel get sick.
This critical information will be highly useful for
Laboratory Directors and Managers, Laboratory Supervisors and Team Leaders,
Integrated Health System Leaders, Hospital Group Leaders, Physicians and
Physician Group Leaders, Phlebotomy Managers, Courier and Logistics Managers,
and Safety and Compliance Managers.
Privacy concerns have one tech giant suggesting alternatives to sharing potentially identifiable location tracking data
Expect an interesting debate on the use of location tracking as a way to manage this and future pandemics. It is a debate that has implications for clinical laboratories. After all, if location tracking identifies individuals who may have been exposed to an infectious disease, will health authorities want those individuals to be immediately tested?
Location tracking has been around for quite some time. Anyone who owns a smartphone knows that digital map and navigation software applications (apps) locate our position and track our movements. That’s how they work. Maps are good. But does collecting and sharing location tracking data violate personal privacy laws that some Silicon Valley tech giants want to use to help public health officials track disease? Maybe.
Google, Facebook, and other tech companies have been talking to the US federal government about ways to use location tracking data from smartphones and online software applications to combat the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness, reported the Washington Post.
The tracking data could be used by public health officials
to spot disease outbreaks in populations and predict how it might spread. Analyzing
the data generated by smartphone tracking and reporting apps also could be used
to identify individuals who may have been exposed to the coronavirus, and who should
get clinical laboratory tests to determine if they need medical intervention.
However, Google is apparently resistant to using its collected location data to track and identify individuals. Instead, Google Health’s Head of Communications and Public Affairs, Johnny Luu, said Google was “exploring ways that aggregated anonymized location information could help in the fight against COVID-19. One example could be helping health authorities determine the impact of social distancing, similar to the way we show popular restaurant times and traffic patterns in Google Maps,” said Luu in a statement. He stressed, though, that any such arrangement “would not involve sharing data about any individual’s location, movement, or contacts,” reported the Washington Post.
Can Privacy be Maintained While Tracking Disease?
Google’s sister company, Verily, launched a screening website in March for people who believe they may have COVID-19. The pilot program is only available to some California residents. Users of the service complete a series of online questions to determine their coronavirus risk and whether or not they should seek medical attention.
To use the service, individuals must log into the site using
a Google account and sign a consent authorization form which states data
collected may be shared with public health officials, a move that has received
criticism.
Jacob Snow, JD, a technology and civil liberties attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, expressed concerns about Verily’s program. “COVID-19 testing is a vital public necessity right now—a core imperative for slowing this disease,” he told CNET. “Access to critical testing should not depend on creating an account and sharing information with what is, essentially, an advertising company.
“This is how privacy invasions have the potential to
disproportionately harm the vulnerable,” he continued. “Google should release
this tool without those limits, so testing can proceed as quickly as possible.”
Facebook, on the other hand, has had a Disease Prevention Map program in place for about a year. This program provides location information provided by individuals who choose to participate to health organizations around the globe.
“Disease prevention maps have helped organizations respond to health emergencies for nearly a year and we’ve heard from a number of governments that they’re supportive of this work,” said Laura McGorman, Policy Lead, Data for Good at Facebook, in a statement, reported CNET. “In the coronavirus context, researchers and nonprofits can use the maps, which are built with aggregated and anonymized data that people opt in to share, to understand and help combat the spread of the virus.”
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University worked with Facebook to create the COVID-19 Symptom Map (above), which is based on aggregated data drawn from self-reported symptoms Facebook. The map, which updates regularly, is viewable by day, counties, hospital referral regions, and COVID-19 symptoms. “This is work that social networks are well-situated to do. By distributing surveys to large numbers of people whose identities we know, we can quickly generate enough signal to correct for biases and ensure sampling is done properly,” wrote Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and CEO, in a Washington Post op-ed about the Carnegie Mellon’s results, reported MobiHealthNews. (Graphic copyright: Facebook/Business Insider.)
Privacy Organizations Voice Concerns
Privacy and civil liberties issues regarding the collection
and use of smartphone data to curtail the pandemic are of concern to some organizations.
There may be legal and ethical implications present when using personal data in
this manner.
Al Gidari, JD, Director of Privacy, Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University Law School, says the balance between privacy and pandemic policy is a delicate one, reported the Washington Post. “The problem here is that this is not a law school exam. Technology can save lives, but if the implementation unreasonably threatens privacy, more lives may be at risk,” he said.
In response to public privacy concerns following the Washington
Post’s report, representatives for Google and Facebook said the companies
have not shared any aggregated and anonymized data with the government
regarding contact
tracing and COVID-19, reported the Washington Post.
Google reiterated that any related projects are still in their early stages and that they are not sure what their participation level might look like. And, CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that Facebook “isn’t prepared to turn over people’s location data en masse to any governments for tracking the coronavirus outbreak,” reported CNET.
“I don’t think it would make sense to share people’s data in a way where they didn’t have the opportunity to opt in to do that,” Zuckerberg said.
The potential use of location tracking data, when combined
with other information, is one example of how technology can leverage non-medical
information and match it with clinical data to watch population trends.
As of April 23, there were 2,637,911 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 184,235 deaths from the coronavirus worldwide, according to www.worldometers.info/coronavirus. And, cases of coronavirus disease have been reported in 213 countries according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
As testing increases, more cases will be reported and it is
unknown how long the virus will continue to spread, so advocates of location
tracking and similar technologies that can be brought to bear to save lives during
a disease outbreak may be worth some loss of privacy.
Pathologists and medical laboratory professionals may want
to monitor the public debate over the appropriate use of location tracking.
After all, at some future point, clinical laboratory test results of
individuals might be added to location tracking programs to help public health
authorities better monitor where disease outbreaks are occurring and how they are
spreading.
Prior to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, large-scale collection of medical laboratory specimens from patients sitting in their cars was an untried concept. That is no longer true.
As of today, residents who meet certain criteria for exposure to SARS-CoV-2—the novel coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness—can now have their biological specimens collected at drive-through testing centers in New York and 29 other states.
Drive-through collection of medical laboratory specimens is just one more way that the COVID-19 pandemic has changed forever how healthcare in the United States is delivered. In actual practice, drive-through sites are proving that it is possible to collect samples from large numbers of patients without needlessly exposing phlebotomists and other healthcare professionals to this new infectious agent. Another benefit is reducing the number of infected people entering hospital emergency rooms to be tested and potentially infecting everyone there.
Using a drive-through collection site does minimize exposure for phlebotomists and other frontline healthcare workers while they collect samples for testing. That is an important benefit. Yet, experience shows that in operation these centers have had mixed results.
New York State’s First Drive-through Testing Location
New Rochelle, New York—one of the hotspots of the COVID-19
infection—opened the state’s first drive-through testing facility on March 13,
2020. At the time it opened, the center was one of only 10 in the country.
During the center’s first four days, 1,882 people were tested, reported the New York Times (NYT). Every one of those people met the following criteria to be tested at the drive-through center or at any other testing center in NY:
Patients must have qualifying symptoms, such as a fever and cough, or be a member of a high-risk population, such as the elderly or those with pre-existing conditions.
Patients must make an appointment either through a doctor’s referral addressed to the New York State Health Department, the entity that issues the appointment, or by calling the New York State Coronavirus hotline.
On the Coronavirus Frontlines
A CNBC article co-written by Vivian Velasquez-Caldera, a Northwell Health phlebotomist who volunteered to work at the New Rochelle drive-through testing center, titled, “I Work at a Coronavirus Drive-thru Testing Site in New York. Here’s What a 12-Hour Shift Looks Like,” described what it’s like for frontline healthcare workers during a two-week rotation at the testing center.
Velasquez-Caldera said that the site collects more than 1,000 specimens per day on average and that every three hours couriers from BioReference Laboratories pick up the samples. Testing and recording of the samples take place at a medical laboratory in Elmwood Park, N.J., and patients usually get their results in a few days.
When patients arrive at the site, they must remain in their car with the windows rolled up. New York State troopers direct cars using megaphones from a safe distance. When it is time for the nasopharyngeal swab samples to be collected, troopers direct the car into the testing zone and the passengers roll down the windows, but remain in their car. Healthcare workers in full hazmat suits approach the car and ask each passenger to tip his or her head back so that a series of nasal swabs can be taken.
“Prior to the pandemic, only nurses and doctors were allowed
to do the swabbing, so I had to train for the procedure,” wrote
Velasquez-Caldera. “It’s a delicate process and just one mistake could lead to
test result errors.”
Pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals should note that the medical staff doing the specimen collection at the drive-through site in Long Island, NY, shown above are in full protective gear. This is not the case at typical patient service centers operated by clinical laboratories throughout the US. (Photo copyright: Andrew Seng/The New York Times.)
Protecting Healthcare’s Finest
Phlebotomists and other frontline healthcare workers
collecting specimens at drive-through testing centers are putting themselves at
great risk for contracting the coronavirus. In Velasquez-Caldera’s case, as in
many others, these brave individuals are doing so voluntarily, so ensuring they
have protective gear is critical.
Velasquez-Caldera praises Northwell Health for its efforts in supplying workers with personal protective equipment (PPE). “I wear gloves and a jumpsuit that protect my entire body, along with a powered air-purifying respirator—a special face shield equipped with a respirator that cleans contaminated air before circulating it inside the suit,” wrote Velasquez-Caldera in her CNBC article.
Vivian Velasquez-Caldera (above), a phlebotomist with Northwell Health Labs, is shown at the drive-through COVID-19 testing site at Glen Island Park in New Rochelle, New York. “Every day, I see all kinds of expressions on people’s faces. There’s a lot of fear, yes, but mostly gratitude. They all leave and say, ‘Thank you. Thank you so much for what you’re doing,’” she said in a CNBC story she co-wrote. (Photo copyright: Northwell Health/CNBC.)
Lessons Learned at Drive-Through Centers
While the New Rochelle COVID-19 testing center has remained
opened and continues to collect thousands of specimens each week, other drive-through
testing centers haven’t fared as well. For example, Brooklyn opened a
drive-through testing center on March 20, 2020. But just two days later, the
site was closed.
Know the CDC guidelines thoroughly. The team at KSB used role-playing scenarios before opening the center. “Our staff was very intent on following CDC guidelines to best protect our patients and community,” said Linda Clemen, RN, VP/Chief Nursing Officer.
The goal is to help patients fast, not to be perfect. “We knew we were going to make mistakes—not at the cost of patient safety, but in operations—and we knew we’d figure things out as we went along,” said David Schreiner, President/CEO.
Find partners in the community who can help. In Dixon, KSB does the testing, but local health departments process the tests and follow up with patients.
Help other organizations. “We’re receiving calls from many of our colleagues around the area,” said Clemen. “We are sending each other our plans, algorithms, whatever could help them.”
Drive-through coronavirus testing is a unique approach to
collecting clinical laboratory specimens from large numbers of patients without
having them enter doctors’ offices or patient service centers operated by
clinical laboratories. If it can help minimize the exposure of phlebotomists
and other healthcare workers collecting the specimens it is worth pursuing.
It can take up to eight days after onset of symptoms for a person’s immune system to develop antibodies, so serological tests are not designed for diagnosing recent or active infections, stated a Mayo Clinic news story. However, Reuters reported that the availability of serological tests is “a potential game changer” because they could identify people who are immune even if they had no symptoms or only mild symptoms.
“Ultimately, this might help us figure out who can get the country back to normal,” Florian Krammer, PhD, told Reuters. Krammer’s lab at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City has developed a serological test. “People who are immune could be the first people to go back to normal life and start everything up again,” he said.
However, some experts advise that the presence of antibodies is not necessarily a “get out of jail free” card when it comes to the coronavirus. “Infectious disease experts say immunity against COVID-19 may last for several months and perhaps a year or more based on their studies of other coronaviruses, including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which emerged in 2003,” reported Reuters. “But [the experts] caution that there is no way to know precisely how long immunity would last with COVID-19, and it may vary person to person.”
Additionally, it is also “uncertain whether antibodies would be sufficient protection if a person were to be re-exposed to the virus in very large amounts,” such as in an emergency room or ICU, Reuters reported.
Serological Survey Studies Get Underway Worldwide
Aside from detecting potential immunity, the World Health Organization (WHO) says serological tests could be useful for widespread disease surveillance and epidemiological research.
In the US, the Vitalant
Research Institute is leading several large serological survey or
“serosurvey” studies in which regional blood centers save samples of donated
blood for antibody testing, Science
reported.
Science also reported on a similar WHO initiative in which six countries will pool data from their own antibody studies. And in the Netherlands, blood banks have begun screening thousands of blood donations for presence of antibodies, Wired reported.
FDA Emergency Use Authorization
On March 16, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it would allow commercial development and distribution of serological tests that “identify antibodies (e.g., IgM, IgG) to SARS-CoV-2 from clinical specimens” without an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). The agency noted that these tests are “less complex than molecular tests” used to detect active infections, and that the policy change is limited to such testing in medical laboratories or by healthcare workers at the point-of-care. “This policy does not apply to at home testing,” the FDA reiterated.
“Serological tests can play a critical role in the fight against COVID-19 by helping healthcare professionals to identify individuals who have overcome an infection in the past and have developed an immune response,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD (above with President Trump during a Coronavirus Task Force press briefing), in an April 7 press statement. “In the future, this may potentially be used to help determine—together with other clinical data—that such individuals are no longer susceptible to infection and can return to work. In addition, these test results can aid in determining who may donate a part of their blood called convalescent plasma, which may serve as a possible treatment for those who are seriously ill from COVID-19.” (Photo copyright: CNBC.)
FDA Issues First EUA for Rapid Diagnostic Test
Cellex Inc., based in Research Triangle Park, N.C., received the first EUA for its qSARS-CoV-2 serological test on April 1. As with other rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) under development, the qSARS-CoV-2 test detects the presence of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies in human blood. The biotechnology company’s RDT can be used to test serum, plasma, or whole-blood specimens, stated Cellex, and can produce results in 15 to 20 minutes.
The FDA has authorized use of the antibody test only by laboratories certified under CLIA to perform moderate and high complexity tests. Cellex has set up a COVID-19 website with information about the qSARS-CoV-2 test for clinical laboratories, patients, and healthcare providers.
Other Serological Tests Under Development
Mayo
Clinic Laboratories announced on April 13 that it is ramping up
availability of an internally-developed serological test. “Initial capacity
will be 8,000 tests per day performed at laboratory locations across Mayo Clinic,” stated the announcement.
“Testing will be performed 24 hours a day, and Mayo Clinic Laboratories is working
to ensure turnaround time is as close as possible to 24 hours after receipt of
the sample.”
Emory University in Atlanta announced on April 13 that it will begin deploying its own internally developed antibody test. Initially, testing will be limited to 300 people per day, comprised of Emory Healthcare patients, providers, and staff members. Eventually, testing will be “expanded significantly,” said Emory, with a goal of 5,000 tests per day by mid-June.
RDTs are typically qualitative, meaning they produce a
positive or negative result, stated the Center for Health Security. An ELISA
test “can be qualitative or quantitative,” noted the Center, but it can take
one to five hours to produce results.
A third type of serological test—the neutralization assay—involves infecting a patient’s blood with live coronavirus to determine if antibodies exist that can inhibit growth of the virus. The test takes three to five days in a level 3 biosafety laboratory to produce results. The Straits Times reported on one laboratory in Singapore that developed a neutralization assay to trace the source of COVID-19 infections that originated in Wuhan, China.
Serological testing is another important tool clinical
laboratories and epidemiologists can use to fight and ultimately defeat the
COVID-19 pandemic and is worth watching.
Media reports in the United Kingdom cite bad timing and centralization of public health laboratories as reasons the UK is struggling to meet testing goals
Clinical pathologists and medical laboratories in UK and the US function within radically different healthcare systems. However, both countries faced similar problems deploying widespread diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. And the differences between America’s private healthcare system and the UK’s government-run, single-payer system are exacerbating the UK’s difficulties expanding coronavirus testing to its citizens.
The Dark Daily reported in March that a manufacturing snafu had delayed distribution of a CDC-developed diagnostic test to public health laboratories. This meant virtually all testing had to be performed at the CDC, which further slowed testing. Only later that month was the US able to significantly ramp up its testing capacity, according to data from the COVID Tracking Project.
However, the UK has fared even worse, trailing Germany, the US, and other countries, according to reports in Buzzfeed and other media outlets. On March 11, the UK government established a goal of administering 10,000 COVID-19 tests per day by late March, but fell far short of that mark, The Guardian reported. The UK government now aims to increase this to 25,000 tests per day by late April.
This compares with about 70,000 COVID-19 tests per day in
Germany, the Guardian reported, and about 130,000 per day in the US
(between March 26 and April 14), according to the COVID Tracking Project.
“Ministers need to explain why the NHS [National Health Service] is not testing to capacity, why we are falling behind other countries, and what measures they will put in place to address this situation as a matter of urgency,” MP Keir Starmer (above) said in Parliament in late March, The Guardian reported. (Photo copyright: The Guardian.)
What’s Behind the UK’s Lackluster COVID-19 Testing
Response
In January, when the outbreak first hit, Public Health England (PHE) “began a strict program of contact tracing and testing potential cases,” Buzzfeed reported. But due to limited medical laboratory capacity and low supplies of COVID-19 test kits, the government changed course and de-emphasized testing, instead focusing on increased ICU and ventilator capacity. (Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland each have separate public health agencies and national health services.)
Later, when the need for more COVID-19 testing became
apparent, UK pathology laboratories had to contend with global shortages of
testing kits and chemicals, The Guardian reported. At present, COVID-19 testing
is limited to healthcare workers and patients displaying symptoms of pneumonia,
acute
respiratory distress syndrome, or influenza-like illness, PHE stated in “COVID-19:
Investigation and Initial Clinical Management of Possible Cases” guidance.
Another factor that has limited widespread COVID-19 testing is the country’s highly-centralized system of public health laboratories, Buzzfeed reported. “This has limited its ability to scale and process results at the same speed as other countries, despite its efforts to ramp up capacity,” Buzzfeed reported. Public Health England, which initially performed COVID-19 testing at one lab, has expanded to 12 labs. NHS laboratories also are testing for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, PHE stated in “COVID-19: How to Arrange Laboratory Testing” guidance.
Sharon Peacock, PhD, PHE’s National Infection Service Interim Director, Professor of Public Health and Microbiology at the University of Cambridge, and honorary consultant microbiologist at the Cambridge clinical and public health laboratory based at Addenbrookes Hospital, defended this approach at a March hearing of the Science and Technology Committee (Commons) in Parliament.
“Laboratories in this country have largely been merged, so we have a smaller number of larger [medical] laboratories,” she said. “The alternative is to have a single large testing site. From my perspective, it is more efficient to have a bigger testing site than dissipating our efforts into a lot of laboratories around the country.”
Writing in The Guardian, Paul Hunter, MB ChB MD, a microbiologist and Professor of Medicine at University of East Anglia, cites historic factors behind the testing issue. The public health labs, he explained, were established in 1946 as part of the National Health Service. At the time, they were part of the country’s defense against bacteriological warfare. They became part of the UK’s Health Protection Agency (now PHE) in 2003. “Many of the laboratories in the old network were shut down, taken over by local hospitals or merged into a smaller number of regional laboratories,” he wrote.
US Facing Different Clinical Laboratory Testing Problems
Meanwhile, a few medical laboratories in the US are now contending with a different problem: Unused testing capacity, Nature reported. For example, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., can run up to 2,000 tests per day, “but we aren’t doing that many,” Stacey Gabriel, PhD, a human geneticist and Senior Director of the Genomics Platform at the Broad Institute, told Nature. Factors include supply shortages and incompatibility between electronic health record (EHR) systems at hospitals and academic labs, Nature reported.
Politico
cited the CDC’s narrow testing criteria, and a lack of supplies for collecting
and analyzing patient samples—such as swabs and personal protective equipment—as
reasons for the slowdown in testing at some clinical laboratories in the US.
Challenges Deploying Antibody Tests in UK
The UK has also had problems deploying serology tests designed to detect whether people have developed antibodies against the virus. In late March, Peacock told members of Parliament that at-home test kits for COVID-19 would be available to the public through Amazon and retail pharmacy chains, the Independent reported. And, Politico reported that the government had ordered 3.5 million at-home test kits for COVID-19.
However, researchers at the University of Oxford who had been charged with validating the accuracy of the kits, reported on April 5 that the tests had not performed well and did not meet criteria established by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). “We see many false negatives (tests where no antibody is detected despite the fact we know it is there), and we also see false positives,” wrote Professor Sir John Bell, GBE, FRS, Professor of Medicine at the university, in a blog post. No test [for COVID-19], he wrote, “has been acclaimed by health authorities as having the necessary characteristics for screening people accurately for protective immunity.”
He added that it would be “at least a month” before suppliers could develop an acceptable COVID-19 test.
In the United States, the Cellex COVID-19 test is intended for use by medical laboratories. As well, many research sites, academic medical centers, clinical laboratories, and in vitro diagnostics (IVD) companies in the US are working to develop and validate serological tests for COVID-19.
Within weeks, it is expected that a growing number of such
tests will qualify for a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) and become available for use in patient care.
