Speakers at this week’s Executive War College in San Antonio explained that the way records are collected and stored plays a large part in the long-term usefulness of clinical laboratory data
Data structure as a term may not flow off the lips of clinical laboratory and pathology laboratory managers, but it should be top-of-mind. Well-structured data improves reimbursements and, in aggregated form, can be an enticing avenue to partnerships with outside parties.
Data structure refers to the makeup of digital records—in other words, how data is collected, stored, and accessed. Structured information offers consistency and is easier to analyze and share.
“You have to make sense of all that messy data, and that’s a heavy lift,” she said. “Results are not standardized.”
Appeals Payments Increase with More Clinical Data
Data quality can improve claim reimbursement appeals, Goede noted. When a more complete clinical record is provided to payors, they are more likely to reimburse for services.
According to information Goede covered along with Julie Ramage, Director of Precision Medicine Quality Initiatives and Partnerships at biopharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, when appealing a denied claim for a colon cancer molecular test, for example, the average appeal payment was $318 without cross-specialist clinical records.
Meanwhile, payment for a similar claim appeal which included that added data jumped to $612!
This information is often available, but may not be structured in a way that makes it easy to share with a payer. “You really have to be thinking about what elements you need,” Goede said.
Market for Structured, Anonymized Lab Data
Clinical laboratories that want to provide or sell anonymized, aggregated data to outside parties—such as research firms or pharmaceutical companies—also need to pursue efficient data structure. The re-use of existing, high-quality lab data can create a new business revenue stream.
“But it has to be more than that vanilla, male/female, date-of-birth stuff,” Ramage noted.
For example, she said, genetic testing builds up data registries, and that’s what pharma is looking for to find patients early on.
“If you don’t have a way to structure your data, you’re not going to be able to play in the sandbox,” she added.
Co-presenters Julie Ramage (left), Director of Precision Medicine Quality Initiatives and Partnerships at AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, and Patricia Goede, PhD (right), Vice President of Clinical Informatics at XIFIN, Inc., answer attendee questions about data structure during their presentation at this week’s Executive War College Conference on Laboratory and Pathology Management in San Antonio. To register for EWC 2022 and receive a special early-bird rate, click here by November 6.
How Clinical Laboratories Can Improve Clinical Data Structure
Here are some tips for clinical laboratory executives to consider as they tackle data structure:
Standardize how to enter patient information and test results. A common problem with data input is that the same information is entered differently over time. For example, various patient records might refer to dates in different ways: November 1, 2021, can also be entered as 11/1/21, 11/1/2021, or 11-01-21. Structured data uses a single way to list dates in records. This lesson applies to all similar clinical data.
Use dropdown menu choices instead of free-typing, open fields. An online box to enter a test result can create a variety of entries that affect data structure. While not perfect, drop-down options create a consistent set of entries, Goede said.
Ask patient advocacy groups about common nomenclature. Clinical laboratory data should reflect how patients speak, Ramage said. For example, do patients refer to genomic and genetic testing as the same thing? Establishing more consistency improves data structure as records are updated.
Enlist your organization’s IT or research team for help. Tech workers and principal investigators can easily look at clinical laboratory data and tell what information is missing or inconsistent, said Cheryl Schleicher, Director of IT Strategy at Northwell Health Labs in Lake Success, NY. Schleicher attended this week’s Executive War College.
Look Further into Clinical Laboratory Data Structure
Data structure can help clinical laboratories and pathology laboratories grab more reimbursement dollars and potentially sell anonymized data to external partners.
It is an area many lab executives are not familiar with and need to investigate more, particularly following the accelerated move to digital lab services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Your organization’s IT department or Chief Information Officer can be a useful ally.
If you could not make it to this week’s Executive War College, then join us for our next Executive War College on April 27-28, 2022, in New Orleans. Click here to take advantage of special early-bird pricing for this critical event.
Jury also heard testimony about Holmes’ claims that the Edison device was doing clinical laboratory testing for the military in overseas theaters
During the seventh week of ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes’ criminal fraud trial, headline-making testimony continued nearly non-stop. A former Theranos product manager took the stand offering damning testimony that tied Holmes to questionable product demonstrations and exaggerated claims about the military’s use of the Edison blood-testing device. And a Pfizer scientist testified to alleged improper use of the Pfizer logo by Theranos in a report that went to Walgreen executives.
Those claims contributed to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charging Holmes in 2018 with fraud and stripping her of control of Theranos, the SEC stated in a news release.
CNN reported that former Senior Product Manager Daniel Edlin, who worked at Theranos from 2011-2016, acknowledged in court that the Edison device had never been used in a war zone or installed on a medivac helicopter. He also noted that Holmes had final say over his communications with the DOD.
According to CNN, “Edlin said he worked directly with Holmes to support the relationships with the military and Defense Department. He said, ‘the end goal’ for these discussions ‘was to start a research program that would compare Theranos’ testing to the testing available to the military at that time.”
Edlin testified that Holmes was ‘highly involved’ with these communications, CNN reported.
“I’d say any substantive communication I had with the military, I either discussed with her ahead of time … or email drafts were reviewed and approved before I sent them back out,” he testified.
Elizabeth Holmes, ex-CEO of now-defunct blood-testing company Theranos, is seen above leaving a San Jose, Calif., courthouse following a hearing. Holmes faces 10 counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud for allegedly misleading investors, clinical laboratories, patients, and healthcare providers about Theranos’ proprietary blood-testing Edison technology. Holmes has pleaded not guilty. (Photo copyright: Reuters.)
During cross examination, Edlin walked back some of his damaging testimony. When asked by defense attorney Kevin Downey, JD, of Williams and Connelly, LLP, if he or anyone else at Theranos was intentionally trying to deceive investors or other visitors during the demonstrations, Edlin responded, “Of course not,” according to Palo Alto Online.
To counter the prosecution’s claims that Theranos’ Edison machines were unsuitable for military use because they could not operate in high temperatures, Downey introduced an email from an Army doctor at the US Command in Africa praising the Edison after examining it in high temperatures. The doctor also, according to court documents, proposed the Army provide more funding to test the Edison’s capabilities, Palo Alto Online reported.
Nevertheless, according to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the Edison was never sent to a US military laboratory in Afghanistan for study, nor was it used in Africa to run blood tests.
Former Pfizer Scientist Testifies to Misuse of Intellectual Property
In another broadside to the Holmes defense, former Pfizer scientist Shane Weber, PhD, testified Holmes used the Pfizer logo in investor materials without the company’s permission in order to pass off as credible a study aimed at validating the Edison device.
The WSJ reported Weber told jurors that in 2008 he had reviewed a 15-page Theranos study involving cancer patients, but that he had stated in his own internal report to Pfizer at that time that nine conclusions in the study—including a statement that the “Theranos system performed with superior performance”—were “not believable.” Pfizer eventually heeded Weber’s advice to not enter into a partnership with Theranos.
Prosecutors stated that as part of Theranos’ negotiations with Walgreens, which ultimately invested $140 million in the blood-testing company, Holmes had placed a Pfizer logo on the top of each page of the cancer study report before sending it to Walgreens executives, claiming it was an independent due-diligence report on Theranos technology.
Weber told jurors that he had not known about the altered report until he was shown the document by prosecutors. He stated the logo was added without Pfizer’s permission, the WSJ reported.
Unfortunately for Walgreens, the retail pharmacy chain entered into a business agreement with Theranos without extensively examining or testing the Edison device, which Theranos had claimed could quickly and accurately run 200 diagnostic tests using a finger-stick of blood. Instead, the company relied on the opinions of its own staff healthcare experts and outside experts, none of whom fully tested the technology either, the WSJ stated.
Testimony in the Elizabeth Holmes fraud trial is expected to continue through December. Therefore, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists should expect headline-making news to continue as well. Dark Daily will continue its coverage as the trial moves forward.
It may not be a boom trend, but more non-invasive diagnostic tests are coming to market as clinical laboratory tests that use breath as the specimen
Here’s a development that reinforces two important trends in diagnostics: non-invasive clinical laboratory assays and patient-self testing. Recently, the FDA expanded the clearance of one diagnostic test to allow patients to collect their own breath specimen at home under the supervision of the test manufacturer’s telehealth team.
Recently, however, the FDA announced it has “expanded the approval of the company’s 13C-Spirulina Gastric Emptying Breath Test (GEBT) to now include ‘at home’ administration under virtual supervision of Cairn Diagnostics.”
Self-administration of at-home tests by patients guided virtually by healthcare professionals is a major advancement in telehealth. But will this virtual-healthcare method be popular with both patients and their physicians?
Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics and Telehealth
Spurring a far greater acceptance of telehealth among patients and healthcare providers is one of the many ways the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare.
“Telehealth, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, has emerged as a preferred option for healthcare providers,” noted Kerry Bush, President and COO of Cairn Diagnostics, in a 2021 news release.
Cairn’s GEBT detects gastroparesis, a disease which, according to the NIH National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), affects 50 people in every 100,000. According to the CDC, it is also sometimes a complication of diabetes. Symptoms include nausea, heartburn, bloating, a feeling of fullness long after eating a meal, vomiting, belching, and pain in the upper abdomen, the NIDDK notes.
In people with gastroparesis—sometimes called “delayed gastric emptying”—muscles that normally move food from the stomach to the small intestine do not work as they should, and the food remains in the stomach for too long. The traditional diagnostic tool used to diagnose gastroparesis is scintigraphy. The patient consumes a meal that has radioactive material mixed in and the digestion process is observed using a nuclear medicine camera as the material is eliminated through the bowels.
Cairn Diagnostics’ C-Spirulina Gastric Emptying Breath Test (above) recently received an expansion to its initial 2015 FDA approval that enables patients to self-administer the test at-home while being virtually guided by the company’s telehealth team. GEBTs are interpreted by CLIA-certified clinical laboratories and the results sent to patients’ doctors within 24-48 hours after testing. (Photo copyright: Cairn Diagnostics.)
Virtual Telehealth GEBT versus Scintigraphy
The telehealth process for Cairn Diagnostic’s Gastric Emptying Breath Test (GEBT) differs significantly from traditional scintigraphy testing. Once a physician prescribes the test, Cairn’s telehealth team contacts the patient to describe the virtual process. The team then ships the at-home test kit to the patient. To complete the testing, Cairn provides the patient with a web-based link to a secure audio/video platform.
During administration of the GEBT, a Cairn technician coaches the patient and supervises via video. Once the test is complete, the patient returns the breath samples to the CLIA-certified clinical laboratory by overnight courier. The test results are sent to the prescribing physician within 24-48 hours after the lab receives the samples.
Discovering New Uses for Breath as a Specimen for Clinical Laboratory Testing
For obvious reasons, patients prefer diagnostics that use specimens obtained noninvasively. GEBT is the latest in a growing list of diagnostic tests that use breath as a specimen.
For example, at Johns Hopkins clinicians employ breath testing to diagnose several conditions, including:
Each of these tests involves the patient consuming a particular substance, technicians capturing breath samples at certain intervals, and clinical laboratory personnel analyzing the samples to look for indicators of disease or intolerance.
New Types of Breath Tests
Breath samples are commonly used to diagnose gastrointestinal issues, but researchers also are seeking methods of using them to diagnose and monitor respiratory conditions as well.
In a recent study published in Nature Nanotechnology, scientists explored how breath can be used to monitor respiratory disease, noting that although breath contains numerous volatile metabolites, it is rarely used clinically because biomarkers have not been identified.
“Here we engineered breath biomarkers for respiratory disease by local delivery of protease-sensing nanoparticles to the lungs. The nanosensors shed volatile reporters upon cleavage by neutrophil elastase, an inflammation-associated protease with elevated activity in lung diseases such as bacterial infection and alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency,” the researchers wrote.
Indeed, the search for new ways to use breath as a biological sample is being pursued by numerous groups and organizations. Owlstone Medical in the UK, for example, is developing breathalyzer tests for the detection of cancer as well as inflammatory and infectious disease.
“Whilst we are still in this discovery stage it is time to refine our study designs so that we can make progress towards tailored clinical application,” they wrote. “Breathomics is perhaps at the ‘end of the beginning’ for asthma at least; it has a ‘sexy’ name, some promising and consistent findings, and the key questions are at least being recognized.”
Better for Patients, Clinicians, and Clinical Laboratories
Virtual telehealth tests, ordered by physicians, administered at home, and interpreted in CLIA-certified clinical laboratories, is a trend pathologists may want to watch carefully, along with the development of other tests that use human breath as the specimen.
Less invasive, more personalized diagnostic tools that can be administered at home are better for patients. When those tools also provide detailed information, clinicians can make better decisions regarding care. Clinical laboratories that approach the use of at-home tests creatively, and which can accurately and quickly process these new types of tests, may have a market advantage and an opportunity to expand and grow.
Proteins in human saliva make up its proteome and may be the key to new, precision medicine diagnostics that would give clinical pathologists new capabilities to identify disease
Clinical pathologists may soon have an array of new precision medicine diagnostic tools based on peoples’ saliva. There are an increasing number of “–omes” that can be the source of useful diagnostic biomarkers for developing clinical laboratory tests. The latest is the world’s first saliva protein biome wiki.
Called the Human Salivary Proteome Wiki (HSP Wiki), the “public data platform,” which was created by researchers at the University of Buffalo, is the “first of its kind,” according to Labroots, and “contains data on the many thousands of proteins present in saliva.”
The HSP Wiki brings together data from independent studies on proteins present in human saliva. One of the researchers’ goals is to speed up the development of saliva-based diagnostics and personalized medicine tools.
In “The Human Salivary Proteome Wiki: A Community-Driven Research Platform,” published in the Journal of Dental Research, the researchers wrote, “Saliva has become an attractive body fluid for on-site, remote, and real-time monitoring of oral and systemic health. At the same time, the scientific community needs a saliva-centered information platform that keeps pace with the rapid accumulation of new data and knowledge by annotating, refining, and updating the salivary proteome catalog.
“We developed the Human Salivary Proteome (HSP) Wiki as a public data platform for researching and retrieving custom-curated data and knowledge on the saliva proteome. … The HSP Wiki will pave the way for harnessing the full potential of the salivary proteome for diagnosis, risk prediction, therapy of oral and systemic diseases, and preparedness for emerging infectious diseases,” they concluded.
“This community-based data and knowledge base will pave the way to harness the full potential of the salivary proteome for diagnosis, risk prediction, and therapy for oral and systemic diseases, and increase preparedness for future emerging diseases and pandemics,” Stefan Ruhl, DDS, PhD (above right, with Omer Gokcumen, PhD, Associate Professor of Biological Sciences on left), Professor, Department of Oral Biology, University of Buffalo, and lead researcher of the study, told Labroots. Development of precision medicine clinical laboratory diagnostics is part of their research goals. (Photo copyright: University of Buffalo.)
Where Does Saliva Come From?
Saliva is a complex biological fluid that has long been linked to oral health and the health of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Only recently, though, have scientists begun to understand from where in the body saliva proteins originate.
The authors wrote: “Salivary proteins are essential for maintaining health in the oral cavity and proximal digestive tract, and they serve as potential diagnostic markers for monitoring human health and disease. However, their precise organ origins remain unclear.
“Through transcriptomic analysis of major adult and fetal salivary glands and integration with the saliva proteome, the blood plasma proteome, and transcriptomes of 28+ organs, we link human saliva proteins to their source, identify salivary-gland-specific genes, and uncover fetal- and adult-specific gene repertoires,” they added.
“Our results pave the way for future investigations into glandular biology and pathology, as well as saliva’s use as a diagnostic fluid,” the researchers concluded.
Saliva plays a crucial role in digestion by breaking down starches. It also provides a protective barrier in the mouth. When salivary glands malfunction, patients can face serious health consequences. Although clinicians and scientists have long understood the importance of saliva to good health, the question now is whether it contains markers of specific diseases.
“The Human Salivary Proteome Wiki contains proteomic, genomic, transcriptomic data, as well as data on the glycome, sugar molecules present on salivary glycoproteins. New data goes through an interdisciplinary team of curators, which ensures that all input data is accurate and scientifically sound,” noted Labroots.
The graphic above “shows the interconnectedness of the thousands of salivary proteins originating from blood plasma, parotid glands, and submandibular and sublingual glands. The diagram is one of many tools available to researchers and clinicians through the Human Salivary Proteome Wiki,” noted a UBNow blog post. (Graphic copyright: University of Buffalo.)
Omics and Their Role in Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics
Proteomics is just one of several hotly-researched -omics that hold the potential to develop into important personalized medicine and diagnostics tools for pathologists. Genomics is a related area of research being studied for its potential to benefit precision medicine diagnostics.
However, unlike genomes, which do not change, proteomes change constantly. That is one of the main reasons studying the human salivary proteome could lead to valuable diagnostics tools.
Combining the study of the -omes with tools like mass spectrometry, a new era of pathology may be evolving. “With the rapid decrease in the costs of omics technologies over the past few years, whole-proteome profiling from tissue slides has become more accessible to diagnostic labs as a means of characterization of global protein expression patterns to evaluate the pathophysiology of diseases,” noted Pathology News.
Saliva and the Age of Precision Medicine
The study of the -omes may be an important element in the evolution of precision medicine, because of its ability to provide information about what is happening in patients’ bodies at the point of care.
Thus, a full understanding of the proteome of saliva and what causes it to change in response to different health conditions and diseases could open the door to an entirely new branch of diagnostics and laboratory medicine. It is easy and non-invasive to gather and, given that saliva contains so much information, it offers an avenue of study that may improve patients’ lives.
It also would bring us closer to the age of precision medicine where clinical laboratory scientists and pathologists can contribute even more value to referring physicians and their patients.
The discovery is yet another factor that must be considered when developing a liquid biopsy test clinical laboratories can use to detect cancer
How often do disruptive elements present in Liquid biopsies result in misdiagnoses and unhelpful drug therapies for cancer? Researchers at the University of Washington School of Medicine (UW Medicine) in Seattle wanted to know. And the results of their study provide another useful insight for pathologists about the elements that circulate in human blood which must be understood so that liquid biopsy tests can be developed that are not affected by that factor.
Based on their case series study of 69 men with advanced prostate cancer, the UW Medicine researchers determined that 10% of men have a clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) that can “interfere” with liquid biopsies and cause incorrect reports and unneeded prostate cancer treatment, according to their paper published in the journal JAMA Oncology.
The UW Medicine researchers advised testing for “variants in the cell-free DNA (cfDNA)” shed in blood plasma to enable appropriate treatment for people with already diagnosed prostate cancer, noted to a UW Medicine news release.
According to pathologist Colin Pritchard, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at the UW Medicine, who led the research team, “clonal hematopoiesis can interfere with liquid biopsies. For example, mutations in the genes BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM have been closely linked to cancer development.
“The good news is that, by looking at the blood cellular compartment, you can tell with pretty good certainty whether something is cancer, or something is hematopoiesis,” he said in the news release.
What Does CHIP Interference Mean to a Clinical Laboratory Blood Test?
In their published study, the UW Medicine researchers stressed the “urgent need to understand cfDNA testing performance and sources of test interferences” in light of recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance of two PARP inhibitors (PARPi) for prostate cancer:
“We found that a strikingly high proportion of DNA repair gene variants in the plasma of patients with advanced prostate cancer are attributable to CHIP,” the researchers wrote. “The CHIP variants were strongly correlated with increased age, and even higher than expected by age group.
“The high rate of CHIP may also be influenced by prior exposure to chemotherapy,” they added. “We are concerned that CHIP interference is causing false-positive cfDNA biomarker assessments that may result in patient harm from inappropriate treatment, and delays in delivering alternative effective treatment options.
“Without performing a whole-blood control, seven of 69 patients (10%) would have been misdiagnosed and incorrectly deemed eligible for PARP-inhibitor therapy based on CHIP interference in plasma. In fact, one patient in this series had a BRCA2 CHIP clone that had been previously reported by a commercial laboratory testing company with the recommendation to use a PARPi. To mitigate these risks, cfDNA results should be compared to results from whole-blood control or tumor tissue,” the researchers concluded.
To find the clinically relevant CHIP interference in prostate cancer cfDNA testing, researchers used the UW-OncoPlex assay (developed and clinically available at UW Medicine). The assay is a multiplexed next-generation sequencing panel aimed at detecting mutations in tumor tissues in more than 350 genes, according to the UW Medicine Laboratory and Pathology website.
“To improve cfDNA assay performance, we developed an approach that simultaneously analyzes plasma and paired whole-blood control samples. Using this paired testing approach, we sought to determine to what degree CHIP interferes with the results of prostate cancer cfDNA testing,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Oncology.
Men May Receive Unhelpful Prostate Cancer Drug Therapies
The research team studied test results from 69 men with advanced prostate cancer. They analyzed patients’ plasma cfDNA and whole-blood control samples.
Tumor sequencing enabled detection of germline (cells relating to preceding cells) variants from CHIP clones.
The UW Medicine study suggested CHIP variants “accounted for almost half of the somatic (non-germline) DNA repair mutations” detected by liquid biopsy, according to the news release.
> “About half the time when the plasma is thought to contain a mutation that would guide therapy with these drugs, it actually contains CHIP variants, not prostate cancer DNA variants. That means that in about half of those tested, a patient could be told that he should be administered a drug that is not indicated to treat to his cancer,” said Colin Pritchard, MD, PhD, pathologist and Associate Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at UW Medicine in the new release. (Photo copyright: University of Washington School of Medicine.)
Other detailed findings of the UW Medicine Study:
CHIP variants of 2% or more were detected in cfDNA from 13 of 69 men.
Seven men, or 10%, having advanced prostate cancer “had CHIP variants in DNA repair genes used to determine PARPi candidacy.
CHIP variants rose with age: 0% in those 40 to 50; 12.5% in men 51 to 60; 6.3% in those 61 to 70; 20.8% in men 71 to 80; and 71% in men 81 to 90.
Whole-blood control made it possible to distinguish prostate cancer variants from CHIP interference variants.
“Men with prostate cancer are at high risk of being misdiagnosed as being eligible for PARPi therapy using current cfDNA tests; assays should use a whole-blood control sample to distinguish CHIP variants from prostate cancer,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Oncology.
Liquid Biopsies Are ‘Here to Stay’
Surgical oncologist William Cance, MD, Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, American Cancer Society (ACS) in Atlanta, recognizes the challenge of tumor biology to liquid biopsies.
“Genetic abnormalities are only one piece of the puzzle. We need to look comprehensively at tumors for the best therapy, from their metabolic changes and protein signatures in the blood to the epigenetic modifications that may occur, as cancers take hold,” he told Oncology Times. “It’s not just shed DNA in the blood.”
The UW Medicine study demonstrates the importance of understanding how all elements in liquid biopsies interact to affect clinical laboratory test results.
“I think liquid biopsies are here to stay,” Cance told Oncology Times. “They’re all part of precision medicine, tailored to the individual.”
WSJ reporter affirms that the pathologist was his “first and most important source” in confirming the problems at the now-defunct medical lab testing company
During the federal fraud trial of Theranos Founder and former-CEO Elizabeth Holmes, no one has spent more days on the witness stand than ex-Theranos Laboratory Director Adam Rosendorff, MD, the pathologist who testified for the prosecution that he repeatedly warned Holmes about problems with Theranos’ flawed Edison blood-testing device.
Dark Daily’s previous ebrief on the ongoing Holmes’ fraud trial reported that Rosendorff, who is board certified in clinical pathology, had testified, “I told her that the potassium was unreliable, the sodium was unreliable, the glucose was unreliable, [and] explained why. She was very nervous. She was not her usual composed self. She was trembling a bit, her knee was tapping, her voice was breaking up. She was clearly upset.”
It should come as no surprise that in response Holmes’ lawyers attempted to paint Rosendorff as an “incompetent” lab director with a resume littered with failures at other biotech companies. According to court documents, Holmes faces 10 counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud for allegedly misleading investors, clinical laboratories, patients, and healthcare providers about Theranos’ proprietary blood-testing technology.
But the many clinical laboratory professionals closely watching the Holmes trial will be equally interested to learn that outside of the courtroom former Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reporter John Carreyrou confirmed on Twitter that Rosendorff was the main source for his 2015 investigative reporting—which first called into question Theranos’ claim that it could run more than 200 blood tests using a finger-prick of blood—as well as for his subsequent book, “Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup.”
Carreyrou Declares Ex-Theranos Lab Director Adam Rosendorff a Hero
“So, I’ve been fielding queries from reporters asking me to confirm that former Theranos lab director Adam Rosendorff, who is currently testifying at Elizabeth Holmes’ trial, was my source. I can now confirm it. Alan Beam = Adam Rosendorff,” Carreyrou tweeted.
“I’ll add this: Adam was my first and most important source. Without him, I wouldn’t have been able to break the Theranos story. Hats off to his courage and integrity. He’s one of the real heroes of this story,” Carreyrou added in a subsequent Tweet.
Inside the San Jose, Calif., courtroom, pathologist Rosendorff took centerstage, completing six days on the witness stand as Holmes’ defense attorney Lance Wade, JD, sought to undermine Rosendorff’s earlier testimony for the prosecution and question his competence as a laboratory leader.
Former Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou (above) has revealed via Twitter that ex-Theranos laboratory director Adam Rosendorff, MD, was the “first and most important source” for his 2015 investigative reporting on Theranos. “Hats off to his courage and integrity,” Carreyrou tweeted. “He’s one of the real heroes of this story,” (Photo copyright: Penguin Random House Speakers Bureau.)
Rosendorff Testifies About Another CMS Investigation at Lab Where He is Medical Director
Rosendorff acknowledged during cross examination that he risked losing his license as a lab director after the CMS inspectors uncovered testing deficiencies at PerkinElmer’s Valencia (California) Branch Laboratory as well, where Rosendorff currently serves as Laboratory and Medical Director.
According to the WSJ, Rosendorff testified that most of the CMS inspection involved reviewing documents. During cross examination, it was revealed that the same CMS inspectors who investigated Theranos also conducted the PerkinElmer lab investigation.
Defense attorneys also had hoped to question Rosendorff about his previous work at uBiome Inc., a startup that was the target of a 2019 federal probe into its lab test billing practices, CNBC reported.
The Mercury News reported that during an October 5 hearing to determine the extent to which Holmes’ legal team could cross examine Rosendorff about his past employment, Wade told US District Judge Edward Davila that Rosendorff had a failed record as a lab leader. The Holmes defense lawyer alleged a link between “unreliable test results” at the biotechnology company Rosendorff went to after leaving Theranos and claimed that Rosendorff’s work at PerkinElmer resulted in the CMS notice of “serious deficiencies” at the lab.
“[Rosendorff] pointed the finger at many other people, including my client,” Wade told Davila. “He appears to almost never have competently done his job. He was incompetent at Theranos, too, and that is the reason many of the failures happened. He’s the person who’s ultimately responsible in the laboratory,” he added.
Nevertheless, Judge Davila prohibited questions regarding Rosendorff’s employment at uBiome and limited the scope of questions about his current role at PerkinElmer.
The graphic above depicts Holmes’ defense attorney Lance Wade, JD, cross examining former Theranos CLIA laboratory director Adam Rosendorff, MD. During his testimony, Rosendorff claimed he warned Holmes about the unreliability of Theranos’ Edison blood-testing device. Pathologists and clinical laboratory leaders will recall that Walgreens had contracted with Theranos to place testing devices in its in-store pharmacies. (Graphic copyright: The Wall Street Journal/Vicki Behringer.)
Holmes’ Attorneys Challenge Rosendorff’s Testimony During Cross Examination
After leaving Theranos, Rosendorff’s LinkedIn profile shows he served as Laboratory Director at San Francisco-based Invitae from December 2014 to September 2017 before moving to Millennium Health in San Diego as Medical Director from December 2017 to January 2021. He joined PerkinElmer in January.
The WSJ reported that Rosendorff’s ties to uBiome showed up in Theranos court records.
The WSJ also noted that during the multiday cross examination of Rosendorff, the Holmes defense team scored points by “pointing to contradictions in his testimony and challenging his assertions that he wanted to expose Theranos’ testing practices to the government.”
In making his point, Wade read aloud from a deposition Rosendorff gave during a separate case in which he claimed that Theranos did not have a greater number of anomalous test results than other labs where he had previously worked.
“And that’s 180 degrees from what you answered in your direct testimony,” Wade said to Rosendorff during cross examination.
“Yes, it seems to be different,” Rosendorff replied, but also noted that Theranos should have fewer errors than a lab with a much higher volume of tests.
Wade also introduced a November 2014 email in which Rosendorff told a colleague he knew of only one time when Theranos provided to a patient an obviously incorrect test result. Rosendorff had previously testified that he alerted Holmes on numerous occasions about his concerns with ongoing testing errors.
Wade also questioned whether Rosendorff had a financial motive for considering a whistleblower lawsuit against Theranos, pointing out that Rosendorff would be entitled to a portion of any damages recovered. Rosendorff responded that he did not have a profit motive in mind when he forwarded more than 150 Theranos emails to his personal account.
Former WSJ Reporter Carreyrou May Be Called to Testify
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists will be fascinated with another twist that surfaced as this trial continued. Former WSJ reporter Carreyrou became personally intertwined with the Holmes’ trial after it came to light that the investigative reporter—whose podcast “Bad Blood: The Final Chapter” spotlights the ongoing fraud trial—is on Holmes’ potential witness list.
The motion, The Mercury News reported, states that “Placing Carreyrou on the witness list was done in bad faith and was designed to harass him,” and calls his placement on the list “a cynical ruse” that violates Carreyrou’s First Amendment rights.
CNN reported that Carreyrou’s attorneys are asking that the exclusion order (which prevents some witnesses from being inside the courtroom during other witness testimonies) or the gag order (which allows witnesses to discuss their testimonies only with their attorneys) not be applied to Carreyrou.
For clinical laboratory scientists awaiting the next installment in the now six-week-old trial, former Safeway CEO Steven Burd (now founder and CEO of Burd Health) will continue his testimony on the failed partnership between the grocery store chain and Theranos.
The Theranos agreement with Safeway is not as well-known as the Theranos-Walgreens deal. This was another news story written by Carreyrou and published by the WSJ on Nov. 10, 2015, titled, “Safeway, Theranos Split after $350 Million Deal Fizzles.”
As part of that agreement, Safeway spent $350 million to remodel 800 of its grocery stores to have a patient service center (PCS) and laboratory space where the unproven Edison device would be used to perform the clinical laboratory tests.
The testimony in this next phase of trial about the Safeway agreement with Theranos, and Holmes’ role in convincing the Safeway executive team to invest a third of a billion dollars to build 800 PSCs and lab spaces in 800 stores, should be as interesting as the witness testimony given earlier in this trial.
