As 3D printing technology gains acceptance with pharmaceutical companies, clinical laboratories could see increased demand for pharmacogenomic testing
Will physicians someday “print” prescription drugs for patients in-office? It sounds like science fiction, but research being conducted at the University College London (UCL) indicates the capability may be closer than we think, and it could bring about a new type of collaboration between clinical laboratories, ordering physicians, and pharmacies.
UCL’s new 3D technique, which it calls “volumetric 3D printing,” is intended to enable the pharmaceutical industry to tailor drug dosage, shape/size, and release to an individual patient’s needs and preference. A key element of precision medicine.
According to GlobalData Healthcare, 3D printing also can “significantly reduce cost, wastes, and economic burden as printers only deposit the exact amount of raw materials required.”
3D printing may enable pharmaceutical companies to address gender and racial disparities in prescription drug manufacturing through a developing technology that could have implications for clinical laboratory testing. Fred Parietti, PhD (above), co-founder and CEO of Multiply Labs, a technology company that develops robotics for precision medicine pharmaceuticals, told 3D Natives, “Currently, medications are developed especially for white adult men, which means that all women and children have an excessive prescription for their bodies. This fact underlines the importance of the advent of personalized medicines, as well as highlighting the individuality of each patient, since the error in the dosage of certain active ingredients can even lead to the malfunctioning of some treatments.” (Photo copyright: Multiply Labs.)
.
Increased Demand for Pharmacogenomic Testing
Though 3D printing of prescription drugs is not directly in the clinical laboratory/pathology space, it is noteworthy because it shows how technological advancements are progressing that actualize the ability to deliver precision medicine care to individual patients.
In turn, this could increase physician/patient demand for pharmacogenomic tests performed by clinical laboratories. The test results would be used by treating physicians to determine proper dosages for their individual patients prior to ordering 3D-printed drugs.
Being able to provide medication tailored to patients’ specific needs could bring about a revolution in pharmaceutical manufacturing. If 3D printed prescription drugs become mainstream, the demands could affect the clinical laboratory and pathology industries as well.
How Far Are We from Mass Production of 3D Printed Drugs?
The first and only 3D printed pharmaceutical drug on the American market is Spritam (levetiracetam) an anti-epileptic drug developed by Aprecia Pharmaceuticals, according to Medical Device Network. It received FDA clearance under the name Keppra in 1999.
Headquartered in Blue Ash, Ohio, Aprecia’s patented ZipDose manufacturing process allows 3D-printed pills to hold a larger dosage and dissolve rapidly. They currently have the only FDA process-validated 3D printing platform for commercial-scale drug production. They are leading the way on this new 3D technology and others are following suit.
FabRx, a start-up 3D printing company developed by academic researchers in 2014 at the University College London, released its first pharmaceutical 3D printer for personalized medicine called M3DIMAKER according to LabioTech.eu. The system is “controlled by specialized software, allowing the selection of the required dose by the pharmacist according to the prescription given by the clinician,” the company’s website notes.
The technology also allows for additional customization of pills, including the application of Braille for visually impaired patients, and printing of Polypills, which combine more than one drug into a single pill.
Other company’s developing 3D printing of pharmaceuticals, according to LabioTech.eu, include:
Germany’s Merck: currently in clinical trials of 3D printing medication with the goal of reaching large scale production.
China’s Triastek: which holds “41 patents that account for more than 20% of global 3D printing pharmaceuticals applications.”
We are still far away from large scale production of drugs using 3D printing, but that doesn’t mean it should not be on clinical laboratory leaders’ radar.
The rise of 3D printing technology for precision medicine could lead to big changes in the pharmaceutical world and alter how patients, providers, and clinical laboratories interact. It also could increase demand for pharmacogenomic testing to determine the best dosage for individual patients. This breakthrough shows how one line of technology research and development may, as it reaches clinical use, engage clinical laboratories.
Judge will decide the restitution Holmes must pay to defrauded Theranos investors at future court date; Ex-COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani to be sentenced next month
Clinical laboratory leaders and anatomic pathologists who closely followed the fraud trial of Elizabeth Holmes may have wondered how the Theranos founder and ex-CEO would be punished for her crimes. Now we know.
Late into the four-hour sentencing hearing, Holmes tearfully spoke, according to a twitter post by NBC reporter Scott Budman, who was in the courtroom. “I am devastated by my failings,” Holmes said. “I have felt deep pain for what people went through because I have failed them … To investors, patients, I am sorry.”
Davila ordered Holmes to surrender to authorities on April 27 to begin her time behind bars. She is free until that time. Her upcoming prison term caps off one of the biggest downfalls ever of an American entrepreneur.
Elizabeth Holmes (above), founder and former CEO of Theranos, the now defunct clinical laboratory company, as she enters the federal courthouse in San Jose, Calif., prior to her sentencing on Friday. In January, Holmes was convicted on three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. Last summer, Theranos’ former CLIA laboratory director, pathologist Adam Rosendorff, MD, expressed remorse over his testimony which led to Holmes’ defense team requesting a new trial. The judge denied that request and allowed the sentencing of Holmes to proceed as scheduled. (Photo copyright: Jim Wilson/The New York Times.)
.
Defense Lawyers Plan to Appeal
Dean Johnson, JD, a California criminal defense lawyer, told NBC Bay Area News during live coverage of the hearing on Friday that Holmes’ defense team will appeal her conviction.
“I have no doubt there will be an appeal in this case,” Johnson said.
Judge Edward Davila, who oversaw Holmes’ trial and sentencing hearing in US District Court in San Jose, Calif., estimated that the total loss for Theranos investors was $121 million. Investors had committed funds to support the company’s flawed Edison blood testing technology. A separate restitution hearing for Holmes will be scheduled for a later date.
Beyond the sentencing, Holmes, 38, will be saddled by infamy for the rest of her life, with her past reputation as a charismatic innovator ruined.
“The judge [said] evidence shows Elizabeth Holmes was leader of the company, but not necessarily the leader of the criminal acts,” Budman tweeted. Those words clearly pointed to Balwani, who Holmes’ defense team had painted as exerting control over her and the company.
Prosecutors Sought a Stiffer Sentence for Holmes
Prosecutors had asked Davila to sentence Holmes to 15 years in prison, arguing that her conviction represented “one of the most substantial white collar offenses Silicon Valley or any other district has seen,” according to NBC Bay Area News, which cited court documents. The government also wanted her to pay $803 million in restitution.
Holmes’ defense team, however, wished for no prison time at all, instead asking that Holmes serve time under house arrest. “If a period of confinement is necessary, the defense suggests that a term of 18 months or less, with a subsequent supervised release period that requires community service, will amply meet that charge,” her lawyers wrote in a court filing.
Prior to the sentencing, Davila received 130 letters supporting Holmes and asking for leniency, NPR reported. Among them was a note from William “Billy” Evans, Holmes’ partner.
“If you are to know Liz, it is to know that she is honest, humble, selfless, and kind beyond what most people have ever experienced,” Evans wrote, NPR reported. “Please let her be free.”
Holmes and Evans have a 16-month-old son together, and she is pregnant with the couple’s second child. Her first pregnancy caused her trial to be rescheduled. Prior to last week’s sentencing, some reporters covering the trial speculated that because Holmes was the mother of an infant—and now pregnant again—the judge might be more lenient in sentencing. The 11-year, four-month sentence indicates that the judge was not much influenced by that factor.
Last Minute Pitch for New Trial Failed
Holmes’ legal wranglings continued until the very end.
However, Rosendorff later told the court that he stood by his testimony about problems with Theranos’ blood testing technology.
In denying the request for a new trial, Davila wrote, “The court finds Dr. Rosendorff’s statements under oath to be credible,” according to The Washington Post.
From Teen Founder to Disgraced Entrepreneur
Holmes founded Theranos in 2003 at age 19 while she was attending Stanford University as a chemical engineering major. She dropped out of Stanford as a sophomore to focus on her new company.
Theranos claimed its technology—known as Edison—could perform diagnostics tests using a finger prick and a micro-specimen vial instead of a needle and several Vacutainers of blood. The company said it could return results to patients and clinicians in four hours for about half of the cost of typical lab test fees.
However, the promise of this technology began to unravel in 2015 following an investigative article by The Wall Street Journal that revealed the company ran only a handful of tests using its technology, instead relying on traditional testing for most of its specimen work.
Following The Journal’s exposé, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) sanctioned Theranos and Holmes in 2016. Meanwhile, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigated Holmes for raising hundreds of millions from investors by exaggerating or making false statements about the company’s technology and financial performance.
In 2018, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted Holmes and Balwani, and Theranos closed shortly after.
Fortunately, the Theranos saga has not stunted investment in healthcare technology startups. Spending was in the tens of billions in 2021, although that number has dropped this year as the COVID-19 pandemic has waned, according to TechCrunch. Nevertheless, it is safe to assume that healthcare tech investors are scrutinizing scientific data from startups more thoroughly because of the Theranos fraud case.
Meanwhile, the saga of Theranos continues to leave a bad taste in the mouths of many clinical laboratory managers and pathologists. That’s because, during the peak period of adulation and spectacular news coverage about Elizabeth Holmes and her plans to totally disrupt the clinical laboratory industry, hospital and health system CEOs believed that they would be able to downsize their in-house medical laboratories and obtain lab tests from Theranos at savings of 50% or more. Consequently, during the years 2013 through the end of 2015, some hospital lab leaders saw requests for capital investment in their labs denied or delayed.
One example of how hospital CEOs embraced news of Theranos’ blood testing technology took place at the Cleveland Clinic. Elizabeth Holmes did such a good job selling the benefits of the Edison technology, then-CEO, Toby Cosgrove, MD, placed Theranos at number three on its list of top ten medical innovations for 2015.
In later years, Cosgrove admitted that no one at Cleveland Clinic or its pathologists were allowed to examine the analyzers and evaluate the technology.
It was for these reasons that the demise of Theranos was welcomed by many hospital lab administrators and pathologists. The fact that two of Theranos’ senior executives have been convicted of fraud validates many of the serious concerns that medical laboratory professionals had at that time, but which most major news reporters and media ignored and failed to report to the public.
As the number of Hospital at Home programs increase, clinical laboratories will want to develop programs for collecting samples from patients where they live
Shortages of nurses and hospital staff, combined with pressure to lower the cost of care, are encouraging more institutions to implement hospital-in-the-home programs. One such project involves Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), which last November began a Hospital at Home (HaH) program that enables certain patients to receive hospital-level care in the comfort of their own homes. Clinical laboratories servicing these programs will need to develop specimen collection and testing services in support of these patients.
The OHSU program can provide healthcare for eight patients simultaneously, and it has treated more than 100 patients at home since its inception. Although this number is only a small segment of OHSU’s 576 bed capacity, it does affect the overall healthcare provided by the hospital.
Under the program, basic services, such as the monitoring of vital signs—as well as some clinical laboratory work and routine imaging studies—are performed in the patient’s home. Individuals are transported to OHSU for more complex imaging or other procedures.
“Every patient we have in Hospital at Home is one who is not waiting in the emergency room or a hallway for a bed to become available in the hospital,” said Matthias Merkel, MD, PhD (above), Senior Associate Chief Medical Officer, Capacity Management and Patient Flow at OHSU, in a press release. In the same way clinical laboratories support telehealth programs, medical laboratories will need procedures for collecting specimens and testing patients participating in Hospital at Home programs as well. (Photo copyright: Oregon Health and Science University.)
OHSU’s HaH program utilizes advances in technology to connect at-home patients with physicians and nurses around the clock via a smart tablet. In addition, participating patients receive real-time monitoring and at least two daily in-person visits from nurses and paramedics that have been contracted by OHSU.
“It’s a better experience for patients, plus it increases our system’s capacity to provide care for all the people who need it,” said Darren Malinoski, MD, Chief Clinical Transformation Officer and Professor of Surgery at OHSU in the press release. “It allows us to make good on our promise to take care of the state as best we can.”
The current eligibility criteria to participate in OHSU’s Hospital at Home program include:
Patient must be over the age of 18.
Patient’s primary residence must be within a 25-mile radius of the OHSU hospital.
Inpatient hospitalization is initially required.
Patient must have a diagnosis that can be managed remotely, such as COVID-19, pneumonia, cellulitis, congestive heart failure, urinary tract infections, or pyelonephritis.
Malinoski feels that OHSU’s HaH program is ready to expand. In fact, he is so confident in it he enrolled his own 83-year-old mother as one of its first patients. While undergoing treatment for lung cancer, a routine clinical checkup exposed evidence of toxicity in her blood. Typically, she would have been directly admitted to the hospital for monitoring, but instead she was entered into the HaH program.
“It was unbelievable,” stated Lesley Malinoski in the press release. “I had the feeling of being well taken care of. I was in my own home. I could cook, I could rest—anything I wanted and still have all this care.”
“They didn’t just come in and run out,” she continued. “I felt like a celebrity.”
HaH programs around the country were made possible through a federal waiver granted by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in November 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the American Hospital Association (AHA), “this care delivery model has been shown to reduce costs, improve outcomes, and enhance the patient experience.”
Prior to the waiver, there were only about two dozen hospitals across the US that had HaH programs. However, as of May 20, 2022, 227 hospitals in 35 states had received a HaH waiver from CMS. This number represents nearly 4% of all hospitals in the country, according to Health Affairs.
In “Two US Studies Show Home-based Hospital Care Lowers Costs while Improving Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction,” we reported on a hospital-based home care program that involved 323 patients at Presbyterian Healthcare Services in Albuquerque, N.M. We surmised that significant growth in the number of patients treated in home-based hospital care programs would directly affect hospital-based clinical laboratories and pathology groups. Among other things, it would reduce the volume of inpatient testing while increasing the number of outpatient/outreach specimens.
And in “Australia’s ‘Hospital in the Home’ Care Model Demonstrates Major Cost Savings and Comparable Patient Outcomes,” Dark Daily saw that wider adoption of that country’s Hospital in the Home (HITH) model of patient care would directly affect pathologists and clinical laboratory managers who worked in Australia’s hospital laboratories. We reported that more HITH patients would increase the need to collect specimens in patient’s homes and transport them to a local clinical laboratory for testing, and that because they are central to the communities they serve, hospital-based medical laboratories would be well-positioned to provide this diagnostic testing.
OHSU’s overall experience with their Hospital at Home program demonstrates that such a model can be a highly successful and cost-effective method of providing patient care. It is probable that in the future, more medical institutions will create similar programs in an effort to effectively serve as many patients as possible while ensuring shorter hospital stays and rendering better healthcare outcomes. As this happens, it will give hospital-based medical laboratories an opportunity to deliver value in home-based patient care.
And in less than eight hours, they had diagnosed a child with a rare genetic disorder, results that would take clinical laboratory testing weeks to return, demonstrating the clinical value of the genomic process
In another major genetic sequencing advancement, scientists at Stanford University School of Medicine have developed a method for rapid sequencing of patients’ whole human genome in as little as five hours. And the researchers used their breakthrough to diagnose rare genetic diseases in under eight hours, according to a Stanford Medicine news release. Their new “ultra-rapid genome sequencing approach” could lead to significantly faster diagnostics and improved clinical laboratory treatments for cancer and other diseases.
“A few weeks is what most clinicians call ‘rapid’ when it comes to sequencing a patient’s genome and returning results,” said cardiovascular disease specialist Euan Ashley, MD, PhD (above), professor of medicine, genetics, and biomedical data science, at Stanford University in the news release. “The right people suddenly came together to achieve something amazing. We really felt like we were approaching a new frontier.” Their results could lead to faster diagnostics and clinical laboratory treatments. (Photo copyright: Stanford Medicine.)
.
Need for Fast Genetic Diagnosis
In their NEJM paper, the Stanford scientists argue that rapid genetic diagnosis is key to clinical management, improved prognosis, and critical care cost savings.
“Although most critical care decisions must be made in hours, traditional testing requires weeks and rapid testing requires days. We have found that nanopore genome sequencing can accurately and rapidly provide genetic diagnoses,” the authors wrote.
To complete their study, the researchers sequenced the genomes of 12 patients from two hospitals in Stanford, Calif. They used nanopore genome sequencing, cloud computing-based bioinformatics, and a “custom variant prioritization.”
Their findings included:
Five people received a genetic diagnosis from the sequencing information in about eight hours.
Diagnostic rate of 42%, about 12% higher than the average rate for diagnosis of genetic disorders (the researchers noted that not all conditions are genetically based and appropriate for sequencing).
Five hours and two minutes to sequence a patient’s genome in one case.
Seven hours and 18 minutes to sequence and diagnose that case.
How the Nanopore Process Works
To advance sequencing speed, the researchers used equipment by Oxford Nanopore Technologies with 48 sequencing units called “flow cells”—enough to sequence a person’s whole genome at one time.
The Oxford Nanopore PromethION Flow Cell generates more than 100 gigabases of data per hour, AI Time Journal reported. The team used a cloud-based storage system to enable computational power for real-time analysis of the data. AI algorithms scanned the genetic code for errors and compared the patients’ gene variants to variants associated with diseases found in research data, Stanford explained.
According to an NVIDIA blog post, “The researchers accelerated both base calling and variant calling using NVIDIA GPUs on Google Cloud. Variant calling, the process of identifying the millions of variants in a genome, was also sped up with NVIDIA Clara Parabricks, a computational genomics application framework.”
Rapid Genetic Test Produces Clinical Benefits
“Together with our collaborators and some of the world’s leaders in genomics, we were able to develop a rapid sequencing analysis workflow that has already shown tangible clinical benefits,” said Mehrzad Samadi, PhD, NVIDIA Senior Engineering Manager and co-author of the NEJM paper, in the blog post. “These are the kinds of high-impact problems we live to solve.”
In their paper, the Stanford researchers described their use of the rapid genetic test to diagnose and treat an infant who was experiencing epileptic seizures on arrival to Stanford’s pediatric emergency department. In just eight hours, their diagnostic test found that the infant’s convulsions were attributed to a mutation in the gene CSNK2B, “a variant and gene known to cause a neurodevelopmental disorder with early-onset epilepsy,” the researchers wrote.
“By accelerating every step of this process—from collecting a blood sample to sequencing the whole genome to identifying variants linked to diseases—[the Stanford] research team took just hours to find a pathogenic variant and make a definitive diagnosis in a three-month-old infant with a rare seizure-causing genetic disorder. A traditional gene panel analysis ordered at the same time took two weeks to return results,” AI Time Journal reported.
New Benchmarks
The Stanford research team wants to cut the sequencing time in half. But for now, the five-hour rapid whole genome sequence can be considered by clinical laboratory leaders, pathologists, and research scientists a new benchmark in genetic sequencing for diagnostic purposes.
Stories like Stanford’s rapid diagnosis of the three-month old patient with epileptic seizures, point to the ultimate value of advances in genomic sequencing technologies.
Former Vice President received an exclusive tour of a completely fake medical testing laboratory within Theranos, which he found “most impressive”
One thing clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists may still be curious about concerning the whole Theranos affair is how the company founder Elizabeth Holmes could fool so many high-ranking individuals—including then Vice President Joe Biden—into endorsing a completely fraudulent medical laboratory test process.
But it was the lengths to which Holmes and Balwani went to “trick” Joe Biden into endorsing Theranos—and subsequently receive the positive press that followed—that MSN found most intriguing.
According to MSN, in July of 2015 Holmes and Balwani procured Biden’s endorsement by giving the VP a tour of a “completely fake, staged lab.”
“What’s most impressive to me is you’re not only making these lab tests more accessible, you’re charging historically low prices, which is a small fraction of what is charged now, while maintaining the highest standards, and empowering people whether they live in the barrio or a mansion, putting them in a position to help take control of their own health,” stated then VP Joe Biden (above with Elizabeth Holmes) in a Theranos press release. Sadly, many clinical laboratory leaders who were skeptical and outspoken about Theranos’ claims were ignored by the press. (Photo copyright: ABC News.)
Wall Street Journal Reporter Exposes Theranos Fraud
According to a 2018 article by John Carreyrou which was part of his expose´ of Theranos published in The Wall Street Journal, “Ms. Holmes and Mr. Balwani wanted to impress Vice President Biden with a vision of a cutting-edge, automated laboratory. Instead of showing him the actual lab with its commercial analyzers, they created a fake one, according to former employees who worked in Newark. They made the microbiology team vacate a room it occupied, had it repainted, and lined its walls with rows of [Theranos] miniLabs stacked up on metal shelves.”
And the ruse worked. A 2015 Theranos press release outlined the visit at the time and stated that Biden found the facility inspiring and was impressed by the work being done by the company.
“I just had a short tour and I’m glad because you can see first-hand what innovation is all about just walking through this facility. This is the laboratory of the future,” Biden said in the press release.
In 2015, then Vice President Joe Biden toured the Theranos facility with Elizabeth Holmes, observed their supposedly innovative finger stick test system, and met with several Theranos employees. Later reports exposing the fraud stated that Holmes and Balwani were desperate to obtain Biden’s approval as it would provide positive press for Theranos, a good reputation within the industry, and lure potential investors. Theranos later tweeted a photo (above) of the visit showing Biden and Holmes walking amongst numbered blood-testing machines with a huge Theranos logo banner in the background. (Photo copyright: Connor Radnovich/The Chronicle.)
Biden’s visit occurred just a few months before Carreyrou’s Wall Street Journal report questioned the efficacy of Theranos’ blood testing technology and alleged the lab testing company tried to cover up its failures and mislead investors and patients.
Prior to that hard-hitting exposé, Holmes was heralded by the media as a star in the field of medicine. She was even prominently featured on magazine covers of influential business periodicals such as Fortune, Forbes, and Inc.
Others Who Were Bamboozled by Holmes and Balwani
Biden was not the only high-profile individual who was fooled by Holmes, Balwani and their billion-dollar con job. Other high-profile people included:
Theranos ceased operations in September of 2018 amidst the exposing of the fraud and inability to locate a buyer for the company. The shutdown rendered all investments in the company worthless.
Holmes to Receive New Hearing in Federal Court
In January of this year, Holmes was found guilty of three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud for lying to investors about Theranos products. She faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 plus restitution for each count.
And so, clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists now have a better idea as to how Joe Biden was hoodwinked and endorsed a completely fake blood testing laboratory at Theranos. Can he be blamed for his ignorance of clinical laboratory test technology? Probably not. But it makes for interesting reading.
Encouraging patients—even children—to be more directly involved in their own medical care may reduce the burden on healthcare workers and might even help those clinical laboratories struggling to hire enough phlebotomists to collect specimens
Researchers at Emory University School of Medicine have concluded a study which found that school-aged children can successfully use a nasal swab to obtain their own SARS-CoV-2 test specimens. This may come as a surprise to hospital and clinical laboratory personnel who have performed nasal swabbing for COVID-19 tests. Some people, adults included, find the procedure so uncomfortable it brings tears.
And yet, after being shown a 90-second how-to video and given a handout with written instructions and pictures, 197 Atlanta children who had COVID-19 symptoms between July and August of 2021 performed their own self-swabbing. A healthcare worker then collected a second swabbed sample. All samples were submitted to a clinical laboratory for PCR analysis.
The Emory study provides another example of how the healthcare system is engaging patients to be directly involved in their own medical care. Results of the study could positively impact clinical laboratories facing a shortage of personnel, as well as schools where children have to take repeated COVID-19 tests with the assistance of trained professionals.
In a study with 197 school-age children, researchers at Emory University School of Medicine found that children could self-swab themselves for COVID-19 testing after watching a 90-second instructional video. Clinical laboratory leaders who are short on personnel may find these results intriguing. (Photo copyright: Emory University.)
How Did the Children Do?
The self-collected swabs and those collected by a healthcare worker agreed 97.8% of the time for a positive result and 98.1% of the time for a negative result. The analysis showed that both collection methods identified the 44% of symptomatic kids who were positive for COVID-19.
“Seeing how closely the results line up between the children and trained healthcare workers is a strong indicator that these age groups are fully capable of swabbing themselves if given proper instruction,” said Jesse Waggoner, MD, an Assistant Professor of Infectious Diseases with the Emory University School of Medicine and one of the lead authors on the study, in an Emory University press release.
A higher percentage of children age eight and under needed assistance, such as more instruction before correctly completing self-collection—21.8% compared to 6.1% for children older—but SARS-CoV-2 detection among the two age groups did not differ.
Does FDA Approve of Self-Swabbing?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not authorized COVID-19 tests that include self-swabbing by children under age 14. However, data from the Emory study, published in JAMA, is now available to test manufacturers seeking authorization for pediatric self-collection.
“Pediatric self-swabbing will support expanded testing access and should make it even easier to test school age populations with fewer resources,” said Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, Director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics at the FDA, in the Emory statement. “This study furthers our knowledge of test accuracy with these types of samples and provides test manufacturers with data to support their EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) requests to the FDA.”
Self-swabbing versus Clinical Laboratory Worker
While it has been longstanding medical practice to have healthcare workers collect samples for respiratory tract infection testing, the Emory researchers suggest that allowing children to collect their own COVID-19 samples could be one way to reduce the burden of a shortage of healthcare workers.
The researchers also believe pediatric self-swabbing would expand access to diagnostic tests and make it easier to test school-age populations.
“Every minute of a healthcare worker’s time is at a premium,” said senior study author Wilbur Lam, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Tech, in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) press release. “Why not allow a kid to self-swab? It’s a win-win! They would rather do it themselves and it frees up the healthcare worker to do other things,” he added.
In 2020, a Stanford University School of Medicine study published in JAMA showed test samples collected by adults who swabbed their own nasal passages were as accurate as those collected by healthcare workers. This study involved 30 participants who had previously tested positive for COVID-19.
Though the Emory University and Stamford University studies were small, they agreed in their findings which is significant. Clinical laboratory executives and pathologists should expect this trend toward direct-to-consumer and other forms of self-testing to continue, even among young patients.
