Like Holmes, Balwani faces 12 counts of fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud for allegedly misleading investors, patients, and others about blood-testing startup’s technology
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists are buckling up as the next installment of the Theranos story gets underway, this time for the criminal fraud trial of ex-Theranos President and COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani.
In one text to Holmes, Balwani wrote, “I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” NBC Bay Area reported.
Partners in Everything, including Crime, Prosecutors Allege
According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), prosecutors are following the Holmes trial playbook. They focused their opening arguments on the personal and working relationships between the pair, tying Balwani to Holmes’ crimes at the Silicon Valley blood-testing startup.
As second in command at Theranos, Balwani helped run the company from 2009 to 2016. He also invested $5 million in Theranos stock, while also underwriting a $13 million corporate loan.
“They were partners in everything, including their crimes,” Assistant US Attorney Robert Leach told jurors, the Mercury News reported. “The defendant and Holmes knew the rosy falsehoods that they were telling investors were contrary to the reality within Theranos.”
Leach maintained that Balwani was responsible for the phony financial projections Theranos gave investors in 2015 predicting $990 million in revenue when the company had less than $2 million in sales.
Former Theranos President and COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani (above) is seen arriving at the federal court in San Jose, California, for the start of his federal fraud trial. Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists who followed the trial of ex-Theranos founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes will no doubt be interested in what can be learned from this trail as well. (Photo copyright: Jim Wilson/The New York Times.)
“This is a case about fraud. About lying and cheating to obtain money and property,” Leach added. Balwani “did this to get money from investors, and he did this to get money and business from paying patients who were counting on Theranos to deliver accurate and reliable blood tests so that they could make important medical decisions,” the WSJ reported.
Defense attorneys downplayed Balwani’s decision-making role within Theranos, pointing out that he did not join the start-up until six years after Holmes founded the company with the goal of revolutionizing blood testing by developing a device capable of performing blood tests using a finger-prick of blood.
“Sunny Balwani did not start Theranos. He did not control Theranos. Elizabeth Holmes, not Sunny, founded Theranos and built Theranos,” defense attorney Stephen Cazares, JD of San Francisco-based Orrick, said in his opening argument, the WSJ reported.
The trial was expected to begin in January but was delayed by the unexpected length of the Holmes trial. It was then pushed out to March when COVID-19 Omicron cases spiked in California during the winter.
Balwani’s trial is being held in the same San Jose courthouse where Holmes was convicted. Balwani, 56, is facing identical charges as Holmes, which include two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 10 counts of wire fraud. He has pleaded not guilty.
Holmes, who is currently free on a $500,000 bond, will be sentenced on Sept. 26, Dark Daily reported in January.
Judge Excludes Jurors for Watching Hulu’s ‘The Dropout’
During jury selection in March, some jurors acknowledged they were familiar with the case, causing delays in impaneling the 12-member jury and six alternates. US District Court Judge Edward Davila excluded two potential jurors because they had watched “The Dropout,” Hulu’s miniseries about Holmes and Theranos. Multiple other jurors were dropped because they had followed the Holmes trial in the news, Law360 reported.
When testimony began, prosecutors had a familiar name take the stand—whistleblower and former Theranos lab tech Erika Cheung, who provided key testimony in the Holmes trial. During her testimony, Cheung said she revealed to authorities what she saw at Theranos because “Theranos had gone to extreme lengths to [cover up] what was happening in the lab,” KRON4 in San Francisco reported.
“It was important to report the truth,” she added. “I felt that despite the risk—and I knew there could be consequences—people really need to see the truth of what was happening behind closed doors.”
Nevada State Public Health Laboratory (NSPHL) Director Mark Pandori, PhD, who served as Theranos’ lab director from December 2013 to May 2014, was the prosecution’s second witness. Pandori testified that receiving accurate results for some tests run through Theranos’ Edison blood testing machine was like “flipping a coin.”
“When you are working in a place like Theranos, you’re developing something new. And you want it to work. Quality control remained a problem for the duration of my time at the company. There was never a solution to poor performance,” Pandori testified, according to KRON4.
While the defense team has downplayed Balwani’s decision-making role—calling him a “shareholder”—Aron Solomon, JD, a legal analyst with Esquire Digital, maintains they may have a hard time convincing the jury that Balwani wasn’t a key player.
“There’s no way the defense is going to be successful in painting Sunny Balwani in the light simply as a shareholder,” he told NBC Bay Area. “We know that, literally, Sunny Balwani was intimately involved with Theranos, because he was intimately involved with Elizabeth Holmes,” Solomon added.
Little Media Buzz for Balwani, Unlike Holmes Trial
While the Holmes trial hogged the media spotlight and drew daily onlookers outside the courthouse, reporters covering Balwani’s court appearances describe a much different atmosphere.
“The sparse crowd and quiet atmosphere at US District Court in San Jose, Calif., felt nothing like the circus frenzy that engulfed the same sidewalk months earlier when his alleged co-conspirator and former girlfriend, Elizabeth Holmes, stood trial on the same charges,” The New York Times noted in its coverage of the Balwani trial.
The Balwani trial may not reach the same headline-producing fervor as the Holmes legal battle. However, clinical laboratory directors and pathologists who follow these proceedings will no doubt come away with important insights into how Theranos went so terribly wrong and how lab directors must act under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA).
New nanotechnology device is significantly faster than typical rapid detection clinical laboratory tests and can be manufactured to identify not just COVID-19 at point of care, but other viruses as well
Researchers at the University of Central Florida (UCF) announced the development of an optical sensor that uses nanotechnology to identify viruses in blood samples in seconds with an impressive 95% accuracy. This breakthrough underscores the value of continued research into technologies that create novel diagnostic tests which offer increased accuracy, faster speed to answer, and lower cost than currently available clinical laboratory testing methods.
The innovative UCF device uses nanoscale patterns of gold that reflect the signature of a virus from a blood sample. UCF researchers claim the device can determine if an individual has a specific virus with a 95% accuracy rate. Different viruses can be identified by using their DNA sequences to selectively target each virus.
According to a UCF Today article, the University of Central Florida research team’s device closely matches the accuracy of widely-used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Additionally, the UCF device provides nearly instantaneous results and has an accuracy rate that’s a marked improvement over typical rapid antigen detection tests (RADT).
Debashis Chanda, PhD (above), holds up the nanotechnology biosensor he and his team at the University of Central Florida developed that can detect viruses in a blood sample in seconds with 95% accuracy and without the need for pre-preparation of the blood sample. Chanda is professor of physics at the NanoScience Technology Center and the College of Optics and Photonics (CREOL) at UCF. Should this detection device prove effective at instantly detecting viruses at the point of care, clinical laboratories worldwide could have a major new tool in the fight against not just COVID-19, but all viral pathogens. (Photo copyright: University of Central Florida.)
Genetic Virus Detection on a Chip
“The sensitive optical sensor, along with the rapid fabrication approach used in this work, promises the translation of this promising technology to any virus detection, including COVID-19 and its mutations, with high degree of specificity and accuracy,” Debashis Chanda, PhD, told UCF Today. Chanda is professor of physics at the NanoScience Technology Center at UCF and one of the authors of the study. “Here, we demonstrated a credible technique which combines PCR-like genetic coding and optics on a chip for accurate virus detection directly from blood.”
The team tested their device using samples of the Dengue virus that causes Dengue fever, a tropical disease spread by mosquitoes. The device can detect viruses directly from blood samples without the need for sample preparation or purification. This feature enables the testing to be timely and precise, which is critical for early detection and treatment of viruses. The chip’s capability also can help reduce the spread of viruses.
No Pre-processing or Sample Preparation Needed for Multi-virus Testing
The scientists confirmed their device’s effectiveness with multiple tests using varying virus concentration levels and solution environments, including environments with the presence of non-target virus biomarkers.
“A vast majority of biosensors demonstrations in the literature utilize buffer solutions as the test matrix to contain the target analyte,” Chanda told UCF Today. “However, these approaches are not practical in real-life applications because complex biological fluids, such as blood, containing the target biomarkers are the main source for sensing and at the same time the main source of protein fouling leading to sensor failure.”
The researchers believe their device can be easily adapted to detect other viruses and are optimistic about the future of the technology.
“Although there have been previous optical biosensing demonstrations in human serum, they still require off-line complex and dedicated sample preparation performed by skilled personnel—a commodity not available in typical point-of-care applications,” said Abraham Vazquez-Guardado, PhD, a Postdoctoral Fellow at Northwestern University who worked on the study, in the UCS Today article. “This work demonstrated for the first time an integrated device which separated plasma from the blood and detects the target virus without any pre-processing with potential for near future practical usages.”
More research and additional studies are needed to develop the University of Central Florida scientists’ technology and prove its efficacy. However, should the new chip prove viable for point-of-care testing, it would give clinical laboratories and microbiologists an ability to test blood samples without any advanced preparation. Combined with the claims for the device’s remarkable accuracy, that could be a boon not only for COVID-19 testing, but for testing other types of viruses as well.
Supplychain shortages involving clinical laboratory products may not ease up any time soon, as China’s largest shipping province is once again in COVID-19 lockdown
Following two years of extremely high demand, pathology laboratories as well as non-medical labs in the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe are experiencing significant shortages of laboratory resources as well as rising costs. That’s according to a recently released survey by Starlab Group, a European supplier of lab products.
In its latest annual “mood barometer” survey of around 200 lab professionals in the UK, Germany, Austria, Italy, and France, Starlab Group received reports of “empty warehouses” and a current shortage of much needed lab equipment, reportedly as a result of rising costs, high demand, and stockpiling of critical materials needed by pathology laboratories during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Laboratory News.
The survey respondents, who represented both medical laboratories and research labs, noted experiencing more pressure from staff shortages and insufficient supplies required to meet testing demands in 2021 as compared to 2020. For example, only 23% of respondents said they had enough liquid handling materials—such as protective gloves and pipettes—in 2021, down from 39% who responded to the same question in 2020.
“The entire laboratory industry has been in a vicious circle for two years. While more and more materials are needed, there’s a lack of supplies. At the same time, laboratories want to stockpile material, putting additional pressure on demand, suppliers, and prices,” Denise Fane de Salis, Starlab’s UK Managing Director and Area Head for Northern Europe, told Process Engineering. “Institutes that perform important basic work cannot keep up with the price competition triggered by COVID-19 and are particularly suffering from this situation,” she added.
“COVID-19 is the largest, but by no means the only challenge facing Europe’s laboratories,” Denise Fane de Salis (above), Starlab’s UK Managing Director and Area Head for Northern Europe, told Laboratory News. “The mood barometer we commissioned once again clearly shows that we need to look at the entire range of laboratory work. The laboratory sector is not only essential in medicine and research. Diagnostics have long since encompassed almost all areas of life and the economy.” Those in this country responsible for clinical laboratory supply chains should consider what Salis is advising. (Photo copyright: Starlab UK.)
Lab Supply Shortages Worsen in 2021
With a UK office in Milton Keynes, Starlab’s network of distributors specialize in liquid handling products including pipette tips, multi-channel pipettes, and cell culture tubes, as well as PCR test consumables and nitrile and latex gloves.
According to Laboratory News, Starlab’s 2021 annual survey, released in March 2022, found that:
64% cited late deliveries contributing to supply woes.
58% noted medical labs getting preference over research labs, up from 46% in 2020.
57% said demand for liquid handling products was the same as 2020.
30% of respondents said material requirements were up 50% in 2021, compared to 2020.
76% reported dealing with rising prices in lab operations.
29% expect their need for materials to increase by 25% in 2022, and 3% said the increase may go as high as 50%.
17% of respondents said they foresee challenges stemming from staff shortages, with 8% fearing employee burnout.
UK-European Medical Laboratories on Waiting Lists for Supplies
Could import of lab equipment and consumables from Asia and other areas outside UK have contributed to the shortages?
“A substantial portion of the world’s clinical laboratory automation, analyzers, instruments, and test kits are manufactured outside UK. Thus, UK labs may face a more acute shortage of lab equipment, tests, and consumables because governments in countries that manufacture these products are taking ‘first dibs’ on production, leaving less to ship to other countries,” said Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report.
Indeed, a statement on Starlab’s website describes challenges the company faces meeting customers’ requests for supplies.
“The pandemic also has an impact on our products that are manufactured in other countries. This particularly affects goods that we ship from the Asian region to Europe by sea freight. Due to the capacity restrictions on the ships, we expect additional costs for the transport of goods at any time. Unfortunately, the situation is not expected to ease for the time-being,” Starlab said.
Furthermore, economists are forecasting probable ongoing supply chain effects from a new SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in China.
Lockdown of China’s Largest Shipping Province Threatens Supply Chains Worldwide
According to Bloomberg News, “Shenzhen’s 17.5 million residents [were] put into lockdown on [March 13] for at least a week. The city is located in Guangdong, the manufacturing powerhouse province, which has a gross domestic product of $1.96 trillion—around that of Spain and South Korea—and which accounts for 11% of China’s economy … Guangdong’s $795 billion worth of exports in 2021 accounted for 23% of China’s shipments that year, the most of any province.”
Bloomberg noted that “restrictions in Shenzhen could inflict the heaviest coronavirus-related blow to growth since a nationwide lockdown in 2020, with the additional threat of sending supply shocks rippling around the world.”
“Given that China is a major global manufacturing hub and one of the most important links in global supply chains, the country’s COVID policy can have notably spillovers to its trading partners’ activity and the global economy,” Tuuli McCully, Head of Asia-Pacific Economies, Scotiabank, told Bloomberg News.
Wise medical laboratory leaders will remain apprised of supply chain developments and possible lockdowns in Asia while also locating and possibly securing new sources for test materials and laboratory equipment in anticipation of future supply shortages.
The technology is similar to the concept of a liquid biopsy, which uses blood specimens to identify cancer by capturing tumor cells circulating in the blood.
According to the American Cancer Society, lung cancer is responsible for approximately 25% of cancer deaths in the US and is the leading cause of cancer deaths in both men and women. The ACS estimates there will be about 236,740 new cases of lung cancer diagnosed in the US this year, and about 130,180 deaths due to the disease.
Early-stage lung cancer is typically asymptomatic which leads to later stage diagnoses and lowers survival rates, largely due to a lack of early disease detection tools. The current method used to detect early lung cancer lesions is low-dose spiral CT imaging, which is costly and can be risky due to the radiation hazards of repeated screenings, the news release noted.
MGH’s newly developed diagnostic tool detects lung cancer from alterations in blood metabolites and may lead to clinical laboratory tests that could dramatically improve survival rates of the deadly disease, the MGH scientist noted in a news release.
“Our study demonstrates the potential for developing a sensitive screening tool for the early detection of lung cancer,” said Leo Cheng, PhD (above), in the news release. Cheng is Associate Professor of Radiology at Harvard Medical School and Associate Biophysicist in Radiology at Massachusetts General Hospital. “The predictive model we constructed can identify which people may be harboring lung cancer. Individuals with suspicious findings would then be referred for further evaluation by imaging tests, such as low-dose CT, for a definitive diagnosis,” he added. Oncologists may soon have a clinical laboratory test for screening patients with early-stage lung cancer. (Photo copyright: OCSMRM.)
Detecting Lung Cancer in Blood Metabolomic Profiles
The MGH scientists created their lung-cancer predictive model based on magnetic resonance spectroscopy which can detect the presence of lung cancer from alterations in blood metabolites.
The researchers screened tens of thousands of stored blood specimens and found 25 patients who had been diagnosed with non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), and who had blood specimens collected both at the time of their diagnosis and at least six months prior to the diagnosis. They then matched these individuals with 25 healthy controls.
The scientists first trained their statistical model to recognize lung cancer by measuring metabolomic profiles in the blood samples obtained from the patients when they were first diagnosed with lung cancer. They then compared those samples to those of the healthy controls and validated their model by comparing the samples that had been obtained from the same patients prior to the lung cancer diagnosis.
The predictive model yielded values between the healthy controls and the patients at the time of their diagnoses.
“This was very encouraging, because screening for early disease should detect changes in blood metabolomic profiles that are intermediate between healthy and disease states,” Cheng noted.
The MGH scientists then tested their model with a different group of 54 patients who had been diagnosed with NSCLC using blood samples collected before their diagnosis. The second test confirmed the accuracy of their model.
Predicting Five-Year Survival Rates for Lung Cancer Patients
Values derived from the MGH predictive model measured from blood samples obtained prior to a lung cancer diagnosis also could enable oncologists to predict five-year survival rates for patients. This discovery could prove to be useful in determining clinical strategies and personalized treatment decisions.
The researchers plan to analyze the metabolomic profiles of the clinical characteristics of lung cancer to understand the entire metabolic spectrum of the disease. They hope to create similar models for other illnesses and have already created a model that can distinguish aggressive prostate cancer by measuring the metabolomics profiles of more than 400 patients with that disease.
In addition, they are working on a similar model to screen for Alzheimer’s disease using blood samples and cerebrospinal fluid.
More research and clinical studies are needed to validate the utilization of blood metabolomics models as early screening tools in clinical practice. However, this technology might provide pathologists and clinical laboratories with diagnostic tests for the screening of early-stage lung cancer that could save thousands of lives each year.
Some lab experts advise that clinical laboratories and pathology practices should also plan on delayed payments for COVID-19 testing for uninsured patients
Regardless of whether infection rates for SARS-CoV-2 continue to wane or perhaps surge again, business changes are coming for staff at clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups. Forward-thinking lab administrators will want to evaluate post-pandemic strategies for labs to stay ahead of potential legal issues and keep their organizations financially healthy.
The public health emergency stemming from COVID-19 is set to expire April 16. That deadline could be extended. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is under pressure from some circles to end the public health emergency, which would affect some health insurance provisions and potentially rein in relaxed rules for telemedicine.
“If you’re a laboratory, now is the time you need to start buttoning up [the above] concerns. You don’t want to be at the mercy of a quick cutoff,” said Jon Harol, president of Lighthouse Lab Services in Charlotte, N.C. The company hosted a webinar last week called “Preparing Your Clinical Lab or Pathology Practice for Post-COVID Success.”
Pathologists and clinical laboratory leaders should consider post-pandemic strategies for labs in the following areas:
COVID-19 testing for uninsured patients;
Preparations for government audits of SARS-CoV-2 tests performed during the pandemic; and,
Repurposing PCR equipment used for COVID-19 testing into other areas of clinical diagnostics.
These strategies will be explored further during the Executive War College Conference on Laboratory and Pathology Management, which takes place April 27-29 in New Orleans. Leaders of innovative clinical laboratories will share how their lab teams are helping to improve patient outcomes while encouraging health insurers to pay them for this value.
COVID-19 Testing for Uninsured Patients
On March 22, the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announced that its COVID-19 Uninsured Program stopped accepting claims for testing and treatment due to lack of sufficient funds. This development affects 8.6% of the nation’s population that doesn’t have medical insurance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
For clinical laboratories, the announcement could lead to delayed payments for COVID-19 tests performed on uninsured patients, said Mick Raich, President of Revenue Cycle Management Consulting at Lighthouse Lab Services, who also spoke during the webinar. Medical laboratories and pathology groups should anticipate reimbursement gaps and how that might affect revenues collected from payers.
“The patient relationship is going to be the most important thing. That puts labs at the head of the table,” says Jon Harol, president at Lighthouse Lab Services.
“Labs are going to do the testing and are going to bill for it, and there will probably be some retroactive payment,” Raich explained.
With midterm elections happening this year, don’t be surprised to see HRSA funding reinstated for COVID-19 testing for uninsured people, commented Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report and Founder of the Executive War College.
“We’ll have to wait and see. After all, it is an election year, so the representatives and senators in Congress would like to be re-elected,” added Michel, who also presented during the webinar.
“It is reasonable to assume that members of Congress don’t want to disappoint the clinical laboratories that stepped up to the table in the earliest days of the pandemic and have done huge volumes of COVID-19 testing.”
Preparations for Government Audits of Pandemic Testing
Another post-pandemic strategy for labs: Prepare for audits of COVID-19 test claims from the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Ahead of any OIG action, labs should consider performing self-audits to determine whether they complied with HRSA requirements. “The best thing you can do is go back and look at the first two months of your billing. Do an audit to ask: Did we bill anybody with insurance by accident?” Raich suggested. “Take a hundred of those claims and audit them.”
If a medical lab finds problems with uninsured COVID-19 billing, it may be prudent to self-report those discrepancies to the government rather than ignore them. “That looks a lot better to the OIG than tucking the stuff in a desk drawer and waiting for someone to knock on your door,” Raich noted.
Harol predicted the OIG will also review another aspect of how COVID-19 test claims were coded. Auditors will want to see if PCR test claims coded for higher reimbursement if the results were reported within 48 hours actually met that requirement.
“I expect that we’ll see auditing of the coding that was used. Under COVID, you got paid more if you were running tests on a high-throughput platform. It was almost an honor system there. I don’t know that I’ve seen much outside verification of that,” Harol explained. “I’m curious to see if there will be OIG pushback and more documentation required to prove the code was correct.”
Repurposing PCR Equipment Used for COVID-19 Testing
When the pandemic finally winds down, there will be less demand for COVID-19 testing, which could leave PCR equipment collecting dust unless labs make plans now on how to repurpose those systems.
“If you have a PCR instrument that can be revalidated, you want to start thinking about putting in a panel that tests for UTIs, sexually transmitted diseases, respiratory diseases, or women’s health,” Harol explained. “Those types of tests can be done on the equipment that a lot of COVID testing was being performed on, and it can be performed by the same scientists with that same skillset. That’s the low-hanging fruit.”
The next step is more complicated: Moving into the future, clinical laboratories need to determine what menu of tests will meet the needs of patients who previously submitted COVID-19 specimens for testing.
“The patient relationship is going to be the most important thing. That puts labs at the head of the table,” Harol continued. “How can you market your laboratory services directly to patients who might be interested?”
Watch for Developments in Telemedicine
Any post-pandemic strategies for labs will be influenced by how state governments and federal health officials regulate telemedicine in the future.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory directors should keep their eyes on whether telemedicine rules revert to more onerous requirements once the public health emergency lifts. Before the pandemic, rules for physicians licensed in one state generally limited when they could practice over state lines through telemedicine.
“In response to the pandemic, both the federal government and the states relaxed many prohibitions on the practice of medicine across state lines. This is significant for pathologists,” Michel said. “There is speculation that once government officials let this genie out of the bottle regulatory-wise, they won’t be able to put it back in. Thus, there are many predictions that officials at the state and federal level will be under pressure to retain the newer telemedicine rules after the pandemic has ended.”
Telemedicine proved to be a big benefit for Medicare patients during the pandemic. A report from HHS in December indicated telehealth visits in 2020 for Medicare beneficiaries increased 63 times, from approximately 840,000 in 2019 to 52.7 million. That fact should catch the attention of clinical lab managers and pathologists who want to keep their labs at the front edge of clinical services. For Medicare beneficiaries who see their physicians virtually, labs need the capability to access that patient so as to collect the samples needed to perform those tests ordered by the physician during the telehealth consultation.
Clinical laboratory scientists should also know experts warn that ‘herd resistance’ is more likely than ‘herd immunity’ due to low vaccination rates in many parts of the world
Scientists estimate 73% of the US population may be immune to the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. Whether the nation is approaching “herd immunity” against the disease, however, remains open to debate, the Associated Press (AP) reported. These estimates are relevant to medical laboratories doing serology tests for COVID-19, as different individuals will have different immune system responses to COVID-19 infections and vaccines.
More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker shows the number of daily cases dropped to fewer than 50,000 as of March 4, 2022, after reaching a high of 928,125 on January 3, 2022.
Meanwhile, the seven-day death rate per 100,000 people stands at 2.78. That’s significantly above the seven-day death rate reached last July of .45, but well below the 7.21 mark recorded on January 13, 2021.
“We’re clearly entering a new phase of the pandemic,” William Morice, II, MD, PhD, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told KARE11, an NBC affiliate.
Is Herd Immunity Achievable?
According to the AP, an estimated 73% of the US population is likely to be immune to the Omicron variant due to vaccination or natural immunity from contracting the disease. That calculation was done for the media outlet by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle. The IHME anticipates immunity to Omicron could rise to 80% this month, as more people receive vaccination booster shots or become vaccinated.
“Herd immunity is an elusive concept and doesn’t apply to coronavirus,” he told the Associated Press (AP).
Milton maintains populations are moving toward “herd resistance,” rather than “herd immunity.” This will transform COVID-19 into a permanent fixture with seasonal outbreaks similar to influenza.
Epidemiologist, Ali Mokdad, PhD (above), Chief Strategy Officer for Population Health and Professor of Health Metrics Science at the University of Washington in Seattle, believes the US is now much better positioned to withstand the next wave of COVID-19 cases. “I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” he told the Associated Press (AP). Mokdad worked on the IHME model that calculated the 73% Omicron-immunity figure for the AP. However, he recommends continued vigilance toward COVID-19. “We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity we shouldn’t take it for granted,” he added. And so, clinical laboratories can expect to continue to play a vital role in the fight against the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. (Photo copyright: University of Washington.)
Herd Immunity Varies, according to the WHO
Because antibodies that developed from vaccines—or natural immunity from a previous infection—diminish over time, waning protection means even those boosted or recently recovered from COVID-19 could be reinfected. In addition, vaccination rates vary widely around the world. Our World in Data estimates only 13.6% of people in low-income countries had received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine as of March 7, 2022.
The World Health Organization (WHO) points out that herd immunity levels vary with different diseases. Herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated, while the threshold for polio is about 80%.
“The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known. This is an important area of research and will likely vary according to the community, the vaccine, the populations prioritized for vaccination, and other factors,” the WHO website states.
Living with COVID-19
Nonetheless, the US appears to be moving into a new “normal” phase of living with the disease.
In an interview with Reuters, US infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) acknowledged a need for returning to normal living even though portions of the population—immunocompromised individuals and the unvaccinated, including children under age five who are not eligible for vaccination—remain vulnerable to more severe COVID-19.
“The fact that the world and the United States—and particularly certain parts of the United States—are just up to here with COVID, they just really need to somehow get their life back,” Fauci said. “You don’t want to be reckless and throw everything aside, but you’ve got to start inching towards that. There’s no perfect solution to this.”
Most states have lifted coronavirus-related restrictions, including masking requirements. As COVID-19 cases drop in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom put in motion a plan called SMARTER (Shots, Masks, Awareness, Readiness, Testing, Education, and Rx) that no longer responds to COVID-19 as a crisis, but instead emphasizes prevention, surveillance, and rapid response to future variant-based surges in cases.
“We have all come to understand what was not understood at the beginning of this crisis, that there’s no ending, that there’s not a moment where we declare victory,” Newsom told USA Today.
Mayo Clinic’s Morice agrees. “It can’t be out of sight, out of mind, per se, but it at least gives us hope that we can get back to some level of normalcy here over the course of the year,” he said.
Since clinical laboratories played a critical role in assay development and COVID-19 testing, medical laboratory leaders should continue monitoring COVID-19 as it moves from pandemic to endemic status due to high vaccination rates and advances in treatment options.
The COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness among healthcare consumers as well, about the critical role laboratory medicine plays in modern medicine and healthcare. Medical laboratory leaders and pathologists would be wise to amplify this message and stress the importance of clinical laboratory testing for many diseases and healthcare conditions.
