Clinical laboratory executives and pathology leaders may want to develop strategies for supporting the growing numbers of at-home screening and diagnostic test users
Findings of a national poll conducted by the University of Michigan (U-M) exploring consumers’ purchases suggests seniors are becoming more comfortable with ordering and using at-home medical testing. Their choice of tests and opinions may be of interest to clinical laboratory executives, pathologists, and primary care physicians considering programs to support self-test purchasers.
The researchers found that 48% of adults, ages 50 to 80, purchased at least one at-home medical test, and that 91% of the buyers indicated intentions to purchase another test in the future, according to a U-M news release.
In their paper, they note that “validity, reliability, and utility of at-home tests is often uncertain.” Further, understanding and responding to test results—especially since caregivers may not have ordered them—could lead to “a range of unintended consequences,” they wrote.
“As a primary care doctor, I would want to know why my patient chose to take an at-home test that I didn’t order for them. We also need to understand in greater detail why folks use at-home tests instead of traditional means, beyond convenience,” said the U-M study’s lead author Joshua Rager, MD, a research scientist at William M. Tierney Center for Health Services Research at Regenstrief Institute, who is now an assistant professor of medicine, Indiana University, in a news release. The findings of the U-M study will be of interest to clinical laboratory executives and pathology leaders. (Photo copyright: Regenstrief Institute.)
Free COVID-19 Tests Ignite At-Home Testing
In their Journal of Health Care paper, the U-M researchers speculate that curiosity in at-home testing may have been propelled by the offer of free COVID-19 tests by the US government starting in 2021 during the pandemic.
They also noted the different ways at-home test kits are performed by healthcare consumers. Some, such as COVID-19 rapid antigen tests, return results to users in a few moments similar to pregnancy tests. Others involve self-collecting specimens, such as a stool sample, then sending the specimen to a clinical laboratory for analysis and results reporting to physicians.
Of those older adults who participated in U-M’s National Poll on Healthy Aging study, the following bought at-home medical tests online or from pharmacies and supermarkets, according to U-M’s paper:
As to perceptions of at-home medical testing by users, when polled on their test experience, the surveyed seniors reported the following:
75.1% perceived at-home medical tests to be more convenient than conventional medical tests.
59.9% believe the tests “can be trusted to give reliable results.”
54.8% believe the tests “are regulated by government.”
66% called them a “good value.”
93.6% indicated results “should be discussed with my doctor.”
Inconsistency in how people shared test results with their healthcare providers was a concern voiced by the researchers.
“While nearly all patients who had bought an at-home cancer screening test shared the results with their primary care provider, only about half of those who tested for an infection other than COVID-19 had. This could have important clinical implications,” the researchers wrote in their paper.
Confusion over Government Regulation
The U-M study also revealed consumer misunderstanding about government regulation of at-home clinical laboratory tests purchased over-the-counter.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cleared “some diagnostic at-home tests for over-the counter use. But many tests on the market are unregulated or under-regulated,” the authors wrote, adding, “Our results suggest, however, that patients generally believe at-home tests are regulated by government, but a substantial minority did not, which may reflect public confusion in how at-home testing is regulated.”
Women, College-Educated Buy More At-Home Tests
Purchase of at-home tests varies among groups, as follows, the news release noted:
56% and 61% of older adults with a college degree or household income above $100,000, respectively, were “much more likely” to buy at-home tests than people in other income and education brackets.
87% of women would buy at-home tests again compared with 76% of men.
89% of college-educated people would purchase the tests again, compared with 78% of people with high school educations or less.
Future U-M research may explore consumers’ awareness/understanding concerning federal regulations of at-home testing, Rager noted.
“At-home tests could be used to address disparities in access to care. We hope these findings will inform regulators and policymakers and spark future research on this topic,” he said in the news release.
The U-M Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation survey results confirm that the country’s senior generations are becoming comfortable with at-home and self-testing options. As Dark Daily has previously suggested, clinical laboratories may want to develop service offerings and a strategy for supporting patients who want to perform their own lab tests at home.
“Previously … CDC developed tests for emerging pathogens and then shared those tests with others, and then after that, commercial labs would develop their own tests,” Shah told CNN. “That process took time. Now with these new arrangements, commercial labs will be developing new tests for public health responses alongside CDC, not after CDC.”
In a news release announcing the contract, ARUP Laboratories also characterized the move as a shift for the agency.
“The new contract formalizes ARUP’s relationship with the CDC,” said Benjamin Bradley, MD, PhD, medical director of the ARUP Institute for Research and Innovation in Infectious Disease Genomic Technologies, High Consequence Pathogen Response, Virology, and Molecular Infectious Diseases. “We continue to expand our capabilities to address public health crises and are prepared to scale up testing for H5N1, or develop other tests quickly, should the need arise.”
“To be clear, we have no evidence so far that this [bird flu] virus can easily infect human beings or that it can spread between human beings easily in a sustained fashion,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH (above), Director of the Pandemic Center and Professor of Epidemiology at Brown University School of Public Health, told CNN. “If it did have those abilities, we would be in a pandemic.” Clinical laboratory leaders will recall the challenges at the CDC as it developed its SARS-CoV-2 test early in the COVID-19 pandemic. (Photo copyright: Brown University.)
Missouri Case Raises Concerns
The first human infection of HPAI was reported in late March following a farmer’s “exposure to dairy cows presumably infected with bird flu,” the CDC stated in its June 3, 2024, bird flu Situation Summary. That followed confirmation by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of an HPAI outbreak in commercial poultry flocks in February 2022, and the CDC’s confirmation of the first known infections in dairy herds reported on March 25, 2024.
Concerns about the outbreak were heightened in September following news that a person in Missouri had been infected with the virus despite having no known contact with infected animals. CNN reported that it was the 14th human case in the US this year, but all previous cases were in farm workers known to be exposed to infected dairy cattle or poultry.
In a news release, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) revealed that the patient, who was not identified, was hospitalized on Aug. 22. This person had “underlying medical conditions,” DHSS reported, and has since recovered and was sent home. Both DHSS and the CDC conducted tests to determine that the virus was the H5 subtype, the news release states.
At present, the CDC states that the public health risk from the virus is low. However, public health experts are concerned that risks could rise as the weather gets cooler, creating opportunities for the virus to mutate “since both cows and other flu viruses will be on the move,” CNN reported.
Concerns over CDC Testing and FDA Oversight
In the months immediately following the first human case of the bird flu virus, Nuzzo was among several public health experts sounding an alarm about the country’s ability to ramp up testing in the face of new pathogens.
“We’re flying blind,” she told KFF Health News in June, due to an inability to track infections in farmworkers. At that time, tests had been distributed to approximately 100 public health labs, but Nuzzo and other experts noted that doctors typically order tests from commercial laboratories and universities.
KFF reported that one diagnostics company, Neelyx Labs, ran into obstacles as it tried to license the CDC’s bird flu test. Founder, CEO, and lead scientist Shyam Saladi, PhD, told KFF that the federal agency had promised to cooperate by facilitating a license and a “right to reference” CDC data when applying for FDA authorization but was slow to come through.
While acknowledging the need for testing accuracy, Greninger contended that the CDC was prioritizing caution over speed, as it did in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The CDC should be trying to open this up to labs with national reach and a good reputation,” he told KFF.
Another problem, KFF reported, related to the FDA’s new oversight of laboratory developed tests (LDTs), which is causing labs to move cautiously in developing their own tests.
Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH (above), Director of the Pandemic Center and Professor of Epidemiology at the Brown University School of Public Health co-authored a June 2024 analysis in Health Affairs that called on the CDC to develop “a better testing playbook for biological emergencies.” The authors’ analysis cited earlier problems with the responses to the COVID-19 and mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) outbreaks.
If global surveillance networks have detected a novel pathogen, the authors advise, the US should gather information and “begin examining the existing testing landscape” within the first 48 hours.
Once the pathogen is detected in the US, they continued, FDA-authorized tests should be distributed to public health laboratories and the CDC’s Laboratory Response Network (LRN) laboratories within 48 hours.
Advocates of this approach suggest that within the first week diagnostics manufacturers should begin developing their own tests and the federal government should begin working with commercial labs. Then, within the first month, commercial laboratories should be using FDA-authorized tests to provide “high throughput capacity.”
This may be good advice. Experts in the clinical laboratory and healthcare professions believe there needs to be improvement in how novel tests are developed and made available as novel infectious agents are identified.
Patients outside the US wait even longer to see healthcare specialists with some appointments scheduled a year out in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia
Data recently released by healthcare consulting firm ECG Management Consultants (ECG) reveals that patients in the United States wait an average of 38 days for healthcare appointments. That figure is a significant stretch from the desired industry standard of 14-day or less wait times, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Clinical laboratories serve the needs of physicians who see patients and refer testing needed by patients to labs. Thus, average wait times should be of interest to lab professionals who strive to meet reporting turnaround times for lab test results, particularly given the unique way that ECG conducted its survey of patient wait times.
In “The Waiting Game: New-Patient Appointment Access for US Physicians,” ECG wrote, “Adopting a ‘secret shopper’ approach, we put ourselves in the shoes of the average patient trying to book an appointment. We contacted nearly 4,000 physician practices in 23 major cities across the US, posing as a new, commercially insured patient seeking care for general, nonemergent conditions that typically don’t require a physician referral.”
ECG’s study provides “a realistic view of where and in what specialties patients face the most significant challenges to accessing routine care,” the authors wrote in their published report. The report also includes patients’ appointment-keeping behavior based on length of wait times.
“Consumer expectations have evolved significantly in all industries. From buying a plane ticket to making a restaurant reservation, the consumer experience has been highly optimized and customers in turn have become accustomed to information and services being available at their fingertips. They bring the same expectations about speed and convenience to healthcare,” the researchers explained.
ECG pointed out that when patients are required to wait 14 days or more to see their physicians, no shows and cancellations increase dramatically.
“Numerous studies have shown that patients are significantly less likely to show up for appointments that are scheduled further out,” the study authors noted.
“One of the takeaways was how difficult the patient experience is. Not only did our secret shoppers have to go out and find physicians, they had to sit on the phone sometimes on very long holds and go through multiple barriers and jump through hoops,” Jennifer Moody (above), partner with ECG Management Consultants and one of the authors of the study, told Becker’s Hospital Review. “Even in that case, they weren’t successful in scheduling appointments with all the practices they called. I think of the average consumer who might be having a similar experience,” she added. Lengthy wait times are not believed to be an issue when patients need clinical laboratory tests. (Photo copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Getting Authentic Results
To gather the study data, ECG distributed its secret shoppers throughout 23 major US cities, reaching almost 4,000 physician practices (between 145-168 per city) to schedule appointments for non-emergency conditions not needing a physical referral.
The researchers gathered wait times for TNAAs (third next available appointments), a common metric. They chose TNAAs because first and second appointments often produce unclear results due to extenuating circumstances or late cancellations, Becker’s Hospital Review reported.
The researchers recorded TNAAs for the following specialties:
Cardiology (39 days),
Dermatology (40 days),
Family medicine (29 days),
Gastroenterology (48 days),
General surgery (22 days),
Neurology (63 days),
Obstetrics/gynecology (37 days),
Ophthalmology (37 days),
Orthopedic surgery (20 days),
Pediatrics (24 days), and,
Rheumatology (68 days).
They found the average wait time to be 38 days. And “of the 253 metropolitan market and specialty combinations included in this research, only 6% had an average wait time of 14 days or less,” Becker’s reported.
The researchers omitted the physician practices that were unable to either take or return calls, take messages, or provide a hold time under five minutes to give the secret shopper an answer, Becker’s added.
Jennifer Moody, Partner, ECG Management Consultants, one of the authors of the study, “was particularly surprised by the portion of callers who never even made it to the stage of learning about wait times. Out of 3,712 physician practices, callers were able to secure responses from only 3,079, meaning nearly one in five physician practices could not provide appointment availability information,” Becker’s reported.
The lowest average wait time in all specialties was 27 days in Houston, and the longest was 70 days in Boston. “A key takeaway from the report is that physician concentration does not guarantee timely access, as a major healthcare hub like Boston helps illustrate,” Becker’s noted, adding that physicians in such areas may “devote time to teaching or research over appointments.”
The graphic above, taken from ECG’s published report, shows the average TNAA times recorded by their secret shoppers at medical specialty practices in major cities across the US. (Graphic copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Other Country’s Wait Times
Healthcare systems outside the US struggle with patient wait times as well. Forbes reported that patients of Canada’s public health system “faced a median wait of 27.7 weeks for medically necessary treatment from a specialist after being referred by a general practitioner. That’s over six months—the longest ever recorded.”
Patients in Nova Scotia wait even longer. There they “face a median wait of 56.7 weeks—more than a year—for specialist treatment following referral by a general practitioner. Those on Prince Edward Island are also in the year-long waiting club—a median of just over 55 weeks,” Forbes noted.
And in the UK, a recent survey found that “more than 150,000 patients had to wait a day in A&E [accident and emergency] before getting a hospital bed last year, according to new data,” with the majority of those patients over the age of 65, according to The Guardian.
ECG suggestions that may reduce wait times include:
Adopt automation and self-service tools in an “easily navigable platform” that enables patients to schedule appointments 24/7.
Ensure healthcare providers are “utilized appropriately and at the top of their license.”
Address inequities in access to healthcare regardless of patients’ location or socioeconomic status.
There is more in the ECG report that hospitals—as well as clinical laboratories—can use to reduce patient wait times to see care providers. As the authors wrote, “For patients, the first step of the care journey shouldn’t be the hardest.”
New technique could allow emergency responders to determine severity of LVO stroke while patient is still in the ambulance
Researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Massachusetts say they have developed a clinical laboratory test that can quickly determine whether a patient is experiencing one of the deadliest types of strokes, known as an ischemiclarge vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke. The development team believes this new assay could be deployed as a point-of-care test to enable faster diagnosis of stroke events.
The test combines measurement of two blood plasma biomarkers with an established clinical score used by clinicians and EMS personnel to assess stroke severity. Compared with current approaches, their technique more accurately differentiates LVO strokes from other types of strokes, making it more likely that patients receive appropriate treatment in a timely manner, the researchers said in a Brigham news release.
Dark Daily has long predicted that advances in technology and computing power would make it possible for pathologists and clinical laboratory scientists to combine multiple established biomarkers (individually not associated with the disease state targeted) with other clinical and patient data to create the ability to make an accurate and earlier diagnosis.
Ultimately, Brigham’s research could “aid in the development of a point‐of‐care diagnostic test capable of guiding prehospital LVO stroke triage,” wrote Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD, Clinical Fellow in Neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, lead author of the study, and colleagues.
“We have developed a game-changing, accessible tool that could help ensure that more people suffering from stroke are in the right place at the right time to receive critical, life-restoring care,” said Joshua Bernstock, MD, PhD (above), Clinical Fellow in Neurosurgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and lead author of the Brigham study that developed the clinical laboratory test that the researchers say can enable emergency caregivers to determine quickly and accurately if a patient is having an ischemic large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke. (Photo copyright: Brigham and Women’s Hospital.)
Early Identification of LVO Stroke
As explained in the news release, an LVO stroke is a type of ischemic stroke caused by obstruction in a major brain artery. The researchers noted that LVO strokes account for “62% of poststroke disabilities and 96% of poststroke death.”
These strokes are readily treatable using endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), in which the blockages are surgically removed, the news release note. However, the researchers observed that EVT “requires specialized teams and equipment, limiting its availability to comprehensive stroke centers and other EVT‐capable centers.”
This can lead to delays as patients are transferred to those facilities, worsening outcomes and increasing the risk of death, the researchers wrote in Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology. So, early identification of LVO stroke is key to ensuring patients receive timely treatment.
Identifying False Negatives/Positives
One challenge, the news release notes, is that brain bleeds (hemorrhagic stroke) can present similar symptoms, yet require “vastly different” treatment.
“A growing body of work has, therefore, evaluated prehospital stroke assessment scales in an effort to identify LVO strokes in the field,” the researchers wrote. “However, such severity scales lack the sensitivity and specificity required for triaging LVO patients with confidence, resulting in false negatives in patients with LVO as well as false positives in patients with stroke mimics or hemorrhagic stroke.”
As explained by EMS Aware, these assessment scales, such as FAST-ED (field assessment stroke triage for emergency destination) and RACE (rapid arterial occlusion evaluation), attempt to determine the severity of a stroke by assigning scores based on symptoms such as facial palsy, arm weakness, and speech difficulties.
To develop their test, Bernstock and colleagues proposed combining the scales with measurement of two blood proteins:
In their study, they attempted to validate cutoff values for the biomarkers and scales.
To do so, the researchers analyzed data from 323 patients admitted to a Florida hospital with suspected stroke between May 2021 and August 2022. Each was assigned to one of four diagnostic categories based on clinical data from their medical records, which included results of computed tomography (CT scan) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). The diagnostic categories included:
The patients were assessed using five stroke severity scales. The researchers used frozen blood samples from the patients to measure the biomarkers. They then used this data to determine the likelihood of LVO stroke and compared the results with the diagnoses as determined by the clinical data.
“Combinations of the blood biomarkers with the scales FAST‐ED or RACE showed the best performance for LVO detection, with a specificity of 94% (for either scale combination) and a sensitivity of 71% for both scales,” the researchers wrote.
Sensitivity was higher in patients who presented within the first six hours from onset of symptoms.
“Critically, application of the biomarker and stroke scale algorithms ruled out all patients with hemorrhage,” the researchers wrote. However, they also suggested that their algorithm could be adjusted to enable early identification of hemorrhagic stroke.
The researchers noted that they chose biomarker cutoffs to maximize specificity, so “a certain number of LVOs are missed. However, as such patients default into ‘standard‐of‐care’ triaging pathways, such a decision is unlikely to represent much clinical risk.”
Testing in the Field
The Brigham researchers used established biological biomarkers combined with modern computing—in combination with the scores from a field assessment test—to develop their new clinical laboratory test that identifies the type of stroke.
Their next step is to carry out “another prospective trial to measure the test’s performance when used in an ambulance,” the news release states. “They have also designed an interventional trial that leverages the technology to expedite the triage of stroke patients by having them bypass standard imaging and move directly to intervention.”
“In stroke care, time is brain,” Bernstock said. “The sooner a patient is put on the right care pathway, the better they are going to do. Whether that means ruling out bleeds or ruling in something that needs an intervention, being able to do this in a prehospital setting with the technology that we built is going to be truly transformative.”
More research and clinical studies are needed. However, the fact that the Brigham team wants to deploy this approach in ambulances is an indication that there is high clinical value from this approach.
Clinical pathologists and medical laboratory managers will want to watch the ongoing development and deployment of this new assay, whether it is run in near-patient settings or core clinical laboratories in support of patients presenting in emergency departments.
Should further study validate these findings, clinical laboratories managing hospital blood banks would be among the first to benefit from an abundance of universal donor blood
In a surprising outcome for microbiome research, scientists at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and Sweden’s Lund University discovered that the bacteria Akkermansia muciniphila, which resides in the human gut, produces enzymes that can be used to process whole blood in ways that could help produce type-O blood. This “universal” blood type can be given to patients during transfusions when other blood types are in short supply.
Receiving the wrong type of blood via a transfusion could result in a fatal reaction where the immune system launches an attack on foreign antigens. As blood bankers and clinical laboratory scientists know, the A antigens in type A blood are not compatible with the B antigens in type B blood. Type-O blood completely lacks these antigens, which explains why it can be used for individuals of any blood type.
The DTU/Lund discovery—still in its initial stages of development—could eventually give blood bankers in hospital laboratories a way to expand their supply of universal type-O blood. Although individuals with type-O blood are universal donors, often the available supply is inadequate to meet the demand.
“For the first time, the new enzyme cocktails not only remove the well-described A and B antigens, but also extended variants previously not recognized as problematic for transfusion safety,” said Maher Abou Hachem, PhD, Professor of Biotechnology and Biomedicine at DTU, one of the authors of the study, in a news release.
Discovering a way that ensures any blood type can donate blood for all blood types could increase the supply of donor blood while reducing the costs and logistics affiliated with storing four separate blood types. Additionally, the production of a universal blood type using gut microorganisms could reduce the waste associated with blood products nearing their expiration dates.
“We are close to being able to produce universal blood from group B donors, while there is still work to be done to convert the more complex group A blood,” said Maher Abou Hachem, PhD (above), Professor of Biotechnology and Biomedicine at DTU in a news release. “Our focus is now to investigate in detail if there are additional obstacles and how we can improve our enzymes to reach the ultimate goal of universal blood production,” he added. Hospital clinical laboratories that manage blood banks will be among the first to benefit from this new process once it is developed and cleared for use in patient care. (Photo copyright: Technical University of Denmark.)
Creating Universal Donor Blood
The bacterium Akkermansia muciniphila is abundant in the guts of healthy humans. It produces valuable compounds, and it is able to break down mucus in the gut and can have significant, positive effects on body weight and metabolic markers.
“What is special about the mucosa is that bacteria, which are able to live on this material, often have tailor-made enzymes to break down mucosal sugar structures, which include blood group ABO antigens. This hypothesis turned out to be correct,” Hachem noted in the DTU news release.
“Instead of doing the work ourselves and synthesizing artificial enzymes, we’ve asked the question: What looks like a red [blood] cell surface? The mucus in our gut does. So, we simply borrowed the enzymes from the bacteria that normally metabolize mucus and then applied them to the red [blood] cells,” Martin Olsson MD, PhD, professor of hematology and transfusion medicine at Lund University, told Live Science. “If you think about it, it’s quite beautiful.”
The researchers successfully identified long strings of sugar structures known as antigens that render one blood type incompatible with another. These antigens define the four blood types: A, B, AB and O. They then used a solution of gut bacteria enzymes to remove the sugar molecules present on the surface of red blood cells (RBCs).
“We biochemically evaluated 23 Akkermansiaglycosyl hydrolases and identified exoglycosidase combinations which efficiently transformed both A and B antigens and four of their carbohydrate extensions,” the study authors wrote in Nature Microbiology. “Enzymatic removal of canonical and extended ABO antigens on RBCs significantly improved compatibility with group O plasmas, compared to conversion of A or B antigens alone. Finally, structural analysis of two B-converting enzymes identified a previously unknown putative carbohydrate-binding module.”
“Universal blood will create a more efficient utilization of donor blood, and also avoid giving ABO-mismatched transfusions by mistake, which can otherwise lead to potentially fatal consequences in the recipient. When we can create ABO-universal donor blood, we will simplify the logistics of transporting and administering safe blood products, while at the same time minimizing blood waste,” Olsson said in the news release.
Future Progress
The researchers have applied for a patent for the enzymes and their method of enzyme treatment. The two educational institutions hope to make further progress on this joint project over the next three years. They eventually hope to test their theory in controlled patient trials and make it available for commercial production and clinical use.
More research and clinical studies are needed to prove the effectiveness of this discovery. Clinical laboratory professionals—particularly those who manage hospital blood banks—will want to follow DTU’s research. It could someday lead to the availability of a more abundant supply of universal donor blood for transfusions.
Study found highest incidences of occupational carcinogenesis among clinical laboratory and histology technicians, followed by pathologists
It has been known for years that formalin (a form of formaldehyde used as a disinfectant and preservative in the handling of tissues samples in anatomy, pathology, and microbiology labs), as well as xylene and toluene, are dangerous to clinical laboratory workers. Nations around the world have taken steps to minimize exposure to these dangerous chemicals. However, a recent study in Iran found that those measures may not have gone far enough to protect histology and clinical laboratory technicians, pathologists, and medical laboratory scientists.
The study conducted by researchers in the Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, at Tehran University of Medical Sciences, showed that levels of exposure to these chemicals is still significantly higher than recommended, resulting in a higher risk for cancer among lab workers in Iran’s hospitals.
“Employing risk assessment techniques as a complementary tool in monitoring programs for respiratory exposure in the different work setting should be considered to protect the staffs against both non-cancerous and cancer-related hazards,” the study authors wrote.
Lessons learned from the Iranian hospital lab study could benefit clinical laboratory workers in US hospitals and help those who work with formaldehyde, toluene, and xylene worldwide to reduce their chances of developing a vascular condition known as Raynaud’s phenomenon (shown above) which can lead to necrosis and gangrene, as well as other dangerous health conditions affecting the lungs, brain, and other systems and organs in the body. (Photo copyright: Wikipedia.)
Study Details
The Iranian study considered the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic impact of occupational exposure to formaldehyde in the pathology laboratories of four Tehran hospitals. The researchers “used a quantitative risk assessment method proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with its provided database known as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Respiratory symptoms were assessed using the American Thoracic Society (ATS) questionnaire,” the study authors wrote in NatureScientific Reports.
The scientists found that “91.23% of exposure levels in occupational groups exceed the NIOSH [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health] standard of 0.016 ppm.” They determined that “41.03% of all the studied subjects were in the definite carcinogenic risk range (LCR > 10−4), 23.08% were in the possible carcinogenic risk range (10−5 < LCR < 10−4), and 35.90% were in the negligible risk range (LCR < 10−6),” they wrote.
“The highest index of occupational carcinogenesis was observed in the group of lab technicians with a risk number of 3.7 × 10-4, followed by pathologists with a risk number of 1.7 × 10-4,” the scientists wrote. “Furthermore, 23.08% of the studied subjects were within the permitted health risk range (HQ < 1.0), while 76.92% were within the unhealthy risk range (HQ > 1.0),” they added.
“Formaldehyde exhibits high solubility in water and is rapidly absorbed by the nasal cavity, sinuses, throat, and mucous membrane of the upper respiratory tract upon exposure,” the study authors wrote. “Consequently, due to the elevated potential for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic formaldehyde exposure among pathology staff—particularly laboratory technicians—the implementation of management measures … becomes imperative to lower the exposure levels of all employees below permissible limits.”
Those management measures include:
“Strict guideline adherence and safe work protocols,
“Increasing staff numbers to decrease exposure duration,
“Adoption of engineering solutions such as localized ventilation systems, and
“Use of respiratory protective equipment during sample handling and tissue processing.”
Previous Reports on Exposure Risk to Clinical Lab Workers
The knowledge of the danger behind these chemicals isn’t new.
In 2017, a pathology lab in Auckland, New Zealand, lost its accreditation because formaldehyde levels were so high the lab had to be evacuated nearly every day, The New Zealand Herald reported.
“In epidemiological studies on industrial workers, pathologists and anatomists, the relationship between exposure to formaldehyde and an increased risk of various types of cancer including nasal cavity, nasopharynx, lung, brain, pancreas, prostate, colon and atopic lymphoma system has been determined,” the Iranian scientists wrote in Nature Scientific Reports.
Call for Stronger Regulations
“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and the Environmental Protection Agency have expressed serious concern about the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde,” the Iranian scientists noted, adding that “the potential carcinogenic risk to humans has been studied in a number of cohort and case-control studies.”
There is room for more studies looking at the health effects of exposure to these chemicals among lab workers, as well as continued evaluation of the risks and preventative measures that could be taken. Perhaps tightened regulations will make its way to US labs, echoing more stringent ones of the European Union.
“It is imperative to implement control measures across various hospital departments to mitigate occupational formaldehyde exposure levels proactively. These findings can be valuable for policymakers in the health sector, aiding in the elimination or reduction of airborne formaldehyde exposure in work environments,” the Iranian scientists wrote.
Managers of histology and clinical laboratories may find useful advice in hospital laboratory studies like that coming out of Iran. Protecting the health of lab workers worldwide starts with reducing their exposure to deadly chemicals.
