Schwan’s concerns about inaccurate or unreliable COVID-19 serology tests were supported when the FDA issued more restrictive rules for these medical laboratory tests on May 4
During a conference call with investors about the company’s first-quarter results, Schwan said of the recently-launched COVID-19 antibody assays, “These tests are not worth anything, or have very little use,” according to reporting from Reuters and other publications. “Some of these companies, I tell you, this is ethically very questionable to get out with this stuff.”
On May 3, Roche announced that its own Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody test for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness, had obtained an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In its news release, Roche stated that “the serology test has a specificity greater than 99.8% and sensitivity of 100% (14 days post-PCR confirmation).”
In a separate interview with Bloomberg, Schwan said about antibody testing, “It is very important to pick the right test and then to validate those tests with enough patients.” He then returned to the issue of poor quality in some antibody tests for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, saying, “Unfortunately, there are a number of tests already out there in the market which are not reliable simply because they haven’t been tested sufficiently.”
A ‘Wild West’ of Unregulated Assays
Prior to issuing tougher rules for how a manufacturer can market a COVID-19 serological test, the FDA had listed about 200 serological tests designed to identify antibodies produced by the human immune system in response to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. This is the process of seroconversion, which is the development of detectable antibodies in a patient’s blood against a pathogen. Detection of IgG antibodies indicates exposure to SARS-CoV-2, according to ARUP Laboratories.
Public health experts have raised questions about the proliferation of such tests for the new coronavirus. Under the FDA’s previous March 16 rules—which were more relaxed than those FDA applied when granting EUAs—the agency was swamped with requests to review more than 200 COVID-19 antibody tests. The looser regulations resulted in nearly no oversight of those tests, reported the Associated Press (AP).
In comments to the AP, Eric Blank, DrPH, Senior Director of Public Health Systems and Programs for the Association for Public Health Laboratories (APHL), said, “Right now it’s a wild west show out there. It really has created a mess that’s going to take a while to clean up.”
“In the meantime,” Blank added, “you’ve got a lot of companies marketing a lot of stuff and nobody has any idea of how good it is.” Blank confirmed to Dark Daily that he made these comments and stands by them.
Calls for Closer Scrutiny of Serological Antibody Tests
In response to the FDA’s March 16 rules for COVID-19 serology tests, APHL requested the federal agency to review its looser approach to reviewing these tests. The impact of the FDA’s much tougher COVID-19 serological testing rules released on May 4 was immediate.
In a press release issued on May 2, the FDA said, “to date, the FDA has authorized 105 tests under EUAs, which include 92 molecular tests, 12 antibody tests, and one antigen test.”
Clinical laboratories in the United States still face difficult challenges if they plan to launch their own COVID-19 serology testing programs. They must select one or more tests from among the antibody and antigen tests that have an FDA EUA. However, data for each of these tests is not as comprehensive as is the data for diagnostic test kits reviewed by the FDA and cleared for market under the pre-market approval process.
This webinar was conducted by James O. Westgard, PhD, and Sten Westgard of Westgard QC, Inc., and the full program is available for free download by clicking here, or by placing this URL in your web browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/quality-issues-your-clinical-laboratory-should-know-before-you-buy-or-select-covid-19-serology-tests/.
In the webinar recording, the Westgards provide a detailed overview of what elements are required for a clinical lab to have confidence that its COVID-19 serology testing program is producing accurate, reliable results. They explain that labs must understand the unique aspects of the populations they are testing in their communities. All of these factors can then be used by labs to evaluate the different COVID-19 serology tests available for them to purchase, and to select the test that best fits their lab’s capabilities and the characteristics of the patient population that will be tested.
Another important requirement for clinical laboratories to understand is the list of steps necessary to bring up a COVID-19 serological testing program. That starts with validating the test, then bringing it into daily production. As that happens, issues associated with quality control (QC), proficiency testing (PT), and regulatory compliance take center stage, so that the clinical lab has high confidence in the accuracy and reproducibility of the COVID-19 serology test results they are using in patient care or in support of employers who are screening employees for COVID-19.
To register for the June 11 webinar, click here, or place this URL in your web browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/achieving-high-confidence-levels-in-the-quality-and-accuracy-of-your-clinical-labs-chosen-covid-19-serology-tests/.
New COVID-19 Intelligence from Dark Daily
Announcing Dark Daily’s new COVID-19 STAT Intelligence Briefings! This free service for clinical laboratories, anatomic pathology groups, and diagnostics companies features:
daily breaking news,
business intelligence, and
innovations that clinical labs are using to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This critical information includes effective ways labs can restore their cash flow to pre-pandemic levels and get test claims paid by government and private payers.
One popular feature is the COVID-19 Live! conference calls that happen every Tuesday and Thursday for 30 minutes at 1 PM, EDT. Visit the COVID-19 STAT Intelligence Briefings website and join us for the live calls.
In another example of giving consumers more direct access to medical laboratory tests, Walmart believes that convenience and lower prices can help it capture market share
Retail giants continue to add healthcare services—including medical laboratory testing—to their wares. It’s a trend that pressures hospital systems, clinical laboratories, pathology groups, and primary care providers to compete for customers. And, while in most instances competition is good, many local and rural healthcare providers cannot reduce their costs enough to be competitive and stay in business.
This is true at Walmart (NYSE:WMT), which recently opened its second “Health Center” in Georgia and announced prices for general healthcare services 30% to 50% below what medical providers typically charge, reported Modern Healthcare.
The services offered at the new Walmart Health Center in Calhoun, a suburb of Atlanta, include:
Primary care
Dental
Counseling
Clinical laboratory testing
X-rays
Health screening
Optometry
Hearing
Fitness and nutrition
Health insurance education and enrollment
A Walmart news release states, “This state-of-the-art facility provides quality, affordable and accessible healthcare for members of the Calhoun community so they can get the right care at the right time … in one facility at affordable, transparent pricing regardless of a patient’s insurance status.”
The fact that Walmart posts “Labs” on the Health Center’s outdoor sign may indicate the retail giant considers easy access to clinical laboratory testing a selling point that will draw customers.
“By offering clinical laboratory testing in support of primary care and urgent care, Walmart may be able to lower prices for lab tests in any market that it enters,” said Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, and President of The Dark Intelligence Group.
Healthcare Transparency and Lower Prices
The 1,500 square-foot free-standing Walmart Health Centers offer more services than the in-store Care Clinics installed in other Walmarts throughout Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. For its healthcare services, Walmart established partnerships with “on-the-ground” health providers to offer affordable services.
“We have taken advantage of every lever that we can to bring the price of doing all of this down more than any hospital or group practice could humanly do. Our goal, just like in the stores, is to get the prices as low as we can,” Sean Slovenski, Senior Vice President and President of Walmart Health and Wellness, told Bloomberg Businessweek.
Some of the clinical laboratory prices prominently posted in the building and noted on the Health Center online price list include:
Meanwhile, the average cost to visit a primary care doctor is $106, according to Health Care Cost Institute data cited by Business Insider, which noted that Walmart’s rates “could be a steep mountain for traditional providers to climb.”
However, Rob Schreiner, Executive Vice President of WellStar Health System in Northern Georgia told Modern Healthcare that “Walmart will offer a cheaper alternative for working-class families who may not have health insurance and may not have an established relationship with a primary care provider.”
Convenient Access to Quality Healthcare Services a Major Draw
At a freestanding Walmart Health Center, people can park near the entrance and walk a few steps to the entrance, rather than traversing aisles to a Care Clinic inside a Walmart Supercenter. And for many customers, finding a Walmart Health Center may not be as complicated or stressful as visiting doctors’ offices.
That seems to be Walmart’s goal—not simply using the Health Centers to increase traffic in its stores, Slovenski said. “We are trying to solve problems for our customers. We already have the volume,” he told Forbes. “We have the locations and the right people. We are creating a supercenter for basic healthcare services.”
Walmart’s arrangement with local healthcare providers differs from traditional primary care clinics staffed by doctors who are practice owners, or who are employed by nearby hospitals and health systems.
“The whole design of the clinic is curious to most of the doctors here [in Dallas, Ga.],” Jeffrey Tharp, MD, Chief Medicine Division Officer, WellStar Medical Group, told Modern Healthcare. “We are advocating integration into our network, for instance with patients who need a cardiologist coming from Walmart to WellStar.”
Clinical laboratory leaders may want to explore partnerships with Walmart and other retailers that are developing healthcare centers to deliver primary care services in places where masses of people shop for everyday items. Especially given that these big-box retailers remain open during healthcare crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
As federal and state officials ease many regulatory requirements to speed new COVID-19 serology tests to market with minimum data about performance, labs are left with important questions to answer on their own
Every day, elected officials at all levels of government call for a huge expansion of COVID-19 serology testing. But, as most clinical laboratory managers and pathologists know, it is a complex undertaking for a lab to select any serological test, validate it, then run it daily in support of patient care, and have confidence that the results are accurate and reproducible.
Clinical laboratories across the United States understand the volume of testing will be in the tens of millions—even hundreds of millions—of COVID-19 serology tests. That is an important financial opportunity because it gives clinical labs the opportunity to generate some cash flow to offset the 60% decline in daily routine specimens they have experienced since most states enacted shelter-in-place orders in early March.
But this big opportunity to serve physicians and patients with COVID-19 serology testing also comes with equally big risks. There are three major risks a COVID-19 serology testing program that clinical labs must successfully address, otherwise the consequences can be devastating.
Three Major Serology Testing Risks for Clinical Laboratories
Risk one comes during the time when medical laboratories shop for COVID-19 serology tests. As of this writing, about 20 such tests have an emergency use authorization (EUA) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and more are expected to obtain an EUA. As is true with everything in life, not all of these tests will perform equally. The risk to the lab is that it purchases a COVID-19 assay that later proves to be unreliable, despite the lab’s rigorous validation process.
Risk two derives from the fact that new diagnostic methods are being incorporated into the serology tests that companies are submitting to the FDA for an EUA. Although the data submitted to the FDA may indicate acceptable performance to the federal agency, in actual clinical use many unexpected or unknown factors could be recognized which lower confidence that the new method utilized by this particular assay is producing accurate results. That risk would only be recognized downstream from validation and the lab would find itself dealing with unhappy physicians, patients, and employers (who were using the test to check the health of their employees).
Risk three is supply chain risk. Will the manufacturer of the COVID-19 serology test be capable of supplying all of its clinical lab customers with adequate supplies to meet each lab’s demand for this testing? New manufacturers have an unknown track record in their ability to supply their lab customers. But even the largest in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers may need to ration kits, reagents, and other consumables to the large number of medical laboratories they serve. This happened with the rapid molecular tests for COVID-19. Community laboratories capable of performing these tests could not obtain adequate supplies to serve their client physicians.
Millions Lost on Faulty COVID-19 Serology Test Kits
If there is a fourth major risk to clinical labs performing COVID-19 serology tests for physicians, patients, and employers (who are screening employees in their workplace) it is the negative publicity that can result if a lab’s choice of a COVID-19 serology test ends up generating inaccurate or unreliable test results.
The most recent example is here in the United States. On March 27, Abbott Laboratories announced that the FDA had issued an EUA for its Abbott ID NOW platform and its point-of-care rapid molecular test for COVID-19 that could produce results in less than 15 minutes. This made national news and was hailed regularly during the daily White House COVID-19 Task Force briefings.
What is important with the examples of Spain, United Kingdom, and a major IVD manufacturer is that news outlets are ready to pounce on any evidence that COVID-19 tests are returning inaccurate or unreliable results. This is a source of risk which every clinical laboratory wants to avoid.
How Clinical Laboratories Can Minimize Risk When Buying COVID-19 Serology Tests
This is an exceptional opportunity to gain an inside perspective of how your lab can address the three major risks identified above when selecting a COVID-19 serology test for use in patient care. You’ll gain essential insights about how to assess the public data on tests with an EUA.
This webinar presentation will also discuss how your lab should view all of its COVID-19 testing as a single program. That’s because your lab may test the same patient with a rapid molecular test, then later do serology tests in the days after the patient may have cleared the infection.
Register now for this critical educational opportunity by clicking here or by entering this URL in your web browser (https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/quality-issues-your-clinical-laboratory-should-know-before-you-buy-or-select-covid-19-serology-tests/).
Even as some states lift stay-at-home orders, clinical laboratories and pathology groups face uncertainty about how quickly routine daily test referrals will return to normal, pre-pandemic levels
Although strokes and heart attacks do not take vacations, a large and growing number of patients with serious health issues who—in normal times—would require immediate attention are not contacting providers to get needed care. Instead, they are avoiding hospital emergency rooms and clinical laboratories for fear they’ll contract the COVID-19 coronavirus.
Starting in early March, hospitals nationwide suspended elective surgeries and procedures and reduced non-COVID-19 inpatient care to make beds available for the predicted on-rush of COVID-19 patients. However, in parts of the country, the predicted high demand for hospital beds and ventilators failed to materialize. Additionally, due to shelter-in-place orders, patients in many states postponed routine office visits with their primary care physicians.
The collective collapse in the number of elective services provided by hospitals, and the fall-off in patients visiting their doctors, is crushing the financial stability of the nation’s clinical laboratory industry.
In, “From Mid-March, Labs Saw Big Drop in Revenue,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR) reported on the revenue challenges facing clinical pathology groups and clinical laboratories. Kyle Fetter, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Diagnostic Services at XIFIN, a revenue cycle management company, told TDR that starting in the third week of March, labs suffered a steep decline in routine testing. By the end of March, that fall-off in revenue ranged from 44% for some AP specimens to 70% to 80% for some specialty AP work. During these same weeks, XIFIN’s data showed clinical labs experienced a drop in routine testing volume of 58%, hospital outreach testing declined by 61%, and molecular lab volume went down by 52%.
Can Clinical Laboratories Hang on Financially Until COVID-19 Goes Away?
Though most states have not met the nonbinding criteria recommended by the Trump administration for reopening, nearly 40 governors in early May began loosening stay-at-home orders, reported CNN, including allowing elective medical procedures to resume.
Patients may make up for lost time by returning to doctors’ offices for medical laboratory tests and other COVID-19-delayed procedures, and as this happens, clinical laboratories may experience a surge in routine test orders from doctors’ offices and hospital admissions once stay-at-home orders are lifted and fear of COVID-19 has passed.
According to an article published on Axios, a survey of 163 physicians conducted by SVB Leerink—an investment firm that specializes in healthcare and life sciences—found that “roughly three out of four doctors believe patient appointments will resume to normal, pre-coronavirus levels, no earlier than July, and 45% expect a rebound to occur sometime between July and September.” If so, the financial squeeze facing clinical laboratories, pathology groups, and other medical and dental professionals may continue to loosen.
Hospital Finances Are Being Particularly Stressed by Loss of Patients
The impact of stay-at-home orders on hospital systems, in particular, has been dramatic. CNBC reported that RWJBarnabas Health, an 1l-hospital 22-laboratory health system in New Jersey that has 11 emergency departments, totaled just 180 emergency room visits per day during a mid-April weekend, a sharp decline from their 280-per-day-average.
A recent Washington Post article paints an even bleaker picture. Clinicians in the United States, Spain, United Kingdom, and China anecdotally report a “silent sub-epidemic of people who need care at hospitals but dare not come in,” the article states, noting people with symptoms of appendicitis, heart attacks, stroke, infected gall bladders, and bowel obstructions are avoiding hospital emergency rooms.
“Everybody is frightened to come to the ER,” Mount Sinai Health System cardiovascular surgeon John Puskas, MD, told the Post. Though his 60-bed cardiac unit had been repurposed to care for COVID-19 patients, Puskas said the New York hospital system was seeing “dramatically fewer” cardiac patients.
Concerned that patients may be ignoring signs of heart attack or stroke rather than go to a hospital, the American College of Cardiology launched the “CardioSmart” campaign, which urges anyone experiencing heart symptoms to get prompt treatment and to continue routine appointments, using telehealth technology when available.
“Hospitals have safety measures to protect you from infection,” the CardioSmart website states. “Getting care quickly is critical. You’ll get better faster, and you’ll limit damage to your health.”
However, David Brown, MD, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, argues the number of people having heart-related issues is unlikely to have dropped during the pandemic.
“Strokes and heart attacks don’t take a vacation just because there’s a pandemic,” Brown told The Boston Globe. “They’re still happening. They just aren’t happening as much inside the hospital, which is a major concern to me.”
Many healthcare professionals are worried about the long-term effect from pandemic-delayed preventative and elective procedures.
“The big question is are we going to see a lot more people that have bad outcomes from heart disease, from stroke, from cancer because they’ve put off what they should have had done, but were too afraid to come to the hospital?” Providence St. Joseph Health CEO Rod Hochman, MD, told CNBC.
Hochman, who is Chair-elect of the American Hospital Association (AHA), maintains the aftereffects of people putting off elective surgeries and screening procedures like colonoscopies and mammograms may be felt for years to come.
“We’re possibly going to see a blip in other disease entities as a consequence of doubling down on COVID-19,” he told CNBC.
In clinical laboratories, COVID-19 testing may have somewhat helped offset the drop in routine testing volume. However, the pandemic’s overall financial costs to labs and pathology groups will likely be felt for months to years, as patients slowly return to healthcare providers’ offices and hospitals.
She worked with researchers at the University of Manchester in England to identify volatile biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease that may lead to first noninvasive screening
Clinical pathologists and medical laboratories are used to working with certain biological indicators that drive diagnostics and clinical laboratory testing. Mostly, those biomarkers are contained within various liquid samples, such as blood and urine. But what if a person’s odor could accurately predict risk for certain diseases as well?
Joy Milne, a retired nurse from Perth, Scotland, is the women whose heightened sense of smell enabled her to detect her husband’s Parkinson’s a decade before he was diagnosed with the disease.
Of course, Milne did not know at the time that what she was smelling was in fact a disease. She told NPR that she first noticed that her husband’s smell had changed from “his lovely male musk smell,” which she’d noticed when they first met, into “this overpowering sort of nasty yeast smell.”
Frequent washing did not remove the odor and as time went on the smell became stronger. When aspects of her husband’s personality and sleep habits also began to change, Joy convinced her husband, Les Milne, an anesthetist, to seek a diagnosis, thinking he had a brain tumor. Les was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
It was 20 years later, when the Milnes attended a Parkinson’s disease support group, that Joy recognized the same distinctive smell she had noticed on Les on the other members of the group. That’s when the Milnes first realized Joy’s heightened sense of smell was something quite unique and possibly unprecedented.
Dogs Can Do It, Why Not Humans?
The concept that a disease gives off an aroma that can be detected by humans or animals is not far-fetched. As far back as 2013, Dark Daily was writing about such research. For example, in “C. diff-sniffing Beagle Dog Could Lead to Better Infection Control Outcomes in Hospitals and Nursing Homes,” we wrote about one hospital’s innovative approach to early detection of Clostridium difficile (C. diff) infection using a two-year-old beagle named Cliff that was faster at detecting certain infections than standard clinical laboratory tests used daily in hospitals throughout the world.
Thus, when the Milnes approached Dr. Kunath about Joy’s ability to “smell” Parkinson’s, they were on solid ground. However, he was not convinced.
“It just didn’t seem possible,” Kunath told NPR. “Why should Parkinson’s have an odor? You wouldn’t think neurodegenerative conditions such as Parkinson’s, or Alzheimer’s, would have an odor.”
But Kunath reconsidered after learning of research presented during the Experimental Biology annual meeting in 2019, which showed canines can in fact effectively detect lung cancer biomarkers in blood serum.
He contacted Milne and devised an experiment in which a group of people who had Parkinson’s disease, and another group that did not, would take home t-shirts and wear them overnight. The next day the t-shirts were assigned randomized numbers and put in a box. Milne then smelled each of the 12 t-shirts and assigned each one a score.
Kunath told NPR that Milne was “incredibly accurate.” She had misidentified only one shirt worn by a person in the control group. She incorrectly diagnosed the person with Parkinson’s. However, three months later, that man was in fact diagnosed with Parkinson’s, meaning Joy’s accuracy was 12-for-12.
“She was telling us this individual had Parkinson’s before he knew, before anybody knew,” Kunath told the BBC Scotland.
In an ensuing study, “Discovery of Volatile Biomarkers of Parkinson’s Disease from Sebum,” published in 2019 in ACS Central Science, the researchers describes the “distinct volatiles-associated signature” of Parkinson’s disease, which includes “altered levels of perillic aldehyde and eicosane, the smell of which was then described as being highly similar to the scent of Parkinson’s disease by our ‘Super Smeller.’” Joy Milne co-authored the study.
The concept of the human body producing volatile chemicals that can serve as biomarkers for disease or illness is not new to clinical laboratory professionals. The urea breath test, for example, to detect the presence of active H. pylori bacteria in the stomach is a longstanding example of one such diagnostic test.
Barran led a larger Manchester University study which was published on ChemRxiv, titled, “Sebum: A Window into Dysregulation of Mitochondrial Metabolism in Parkinson’s Disease,” which was funded by a Michael J. Fox research grant (12921). Barran and her research team, which included Milne, “found 10 compounds linked to Parkinson’s by using mass spectrometry and other techniques” on skin sebum samples, reported NPR.
“We really want to know what is behind this and what are the molecules. And then, [determine if] the molecules [can] be used as some sort of diagnostic test,” Kunath told NPR.
A Definitive, Noninvasive Test for Parkinson’s?
The UK researchers discovered in the skin sebum volatile biomarkers of Parkinson’s disease that may lead to development of the first definitive test for the disease.
Katherine Crawford, Scotland Director of Parkinson’s UK, aka the Parkinson’s Disease Society of the United Kingdom, said a noninvasive diagnostic test for Parkinson’s would be game changing.
“We still effectively diagnose it today the way that Dr. James Parkinson diagnosed it in 1817, which is by observing people and their symptoms,” Crawford told BBC Scotland. “A diagnostic test like this could cut through so much of that, enable people to go in and see a consultant, have a simple swab test and come out with a clear diagnosis of Parkinson’s.”
“It wouldn’t have happened without Joy,” Barran told BBC Scotland. “For all the serendipity, it was Joy and Les who were absolutely convinced that what she could smell would be something that could be used in a clinical context, and so now we are beginning to do that.”
A viable, working diagnostic test based on these new biomarkers may be years away. Nevertheless, clinical laboratory leaders will want to follow the ongoing efforts toward development of a noninvasive swab test for Parkinson’s disease. Such a breakthrough would revolutionize Parkinson’s testing and might never have come to light without the persistence of a woman with an extremely sensitive sense of smell.
Though some experts claim widespread antibody testing is key to effective public health safety, the WHO warns positive serological tests may not indicate immunity from reinfection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2
It may be the largest program of clinical laboratory testing ever conducted in the United States. Health officials are preparing to undertake large-scale serological surveys (serosurveys) to detect and track previously undetected cases of SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus, that causes the COVID-19 illness.
Microbiologists, epidemiologists, and medical laboratory leaders will be interested in these studies, which are aimed at determining how many adults in the US with no confirmed history of SARS-CoV-2 infection actually possess antibodies to the coronavirus.
Serological screening testing may also enable employers to identify employees who can safely return to their job. And researchers may be able to identify communities and populations that have been most affected by the virus.
Serological Study of COVID-19 Taking Place in Five States
In an interview with Science, Michael Busch, MD, PhD, Senior Vice President, Research and Scientific Affairs of Vitalant (formerly Blood Systems), one of the nation’s oldest and largest nonprofit community blood service providers, and Director of the Vitalant Research Institute, discussed several serological studies in which he is involved. The first study, which he said is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is taking place in six metropolitan regions in the US: Seattle, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis.
The interesting twist in these studies is that they will test blood samples from people donating blood. In March, participating blood centers in each region started saving 1,000 donor samples per month. Six thousand samples will be assessed monthly for a six-month period using an antibody testing algorithm that enables researchers to monitor how people develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies over time.
Busch told Science this regional study will evolve into three “national, fully representative serosurveys of the US population using blood donors.” This particular national serosurvey will study 50,000 donations in September and December of 2020 and in November 2021.
“We’re going to be estimating overall antibody prevalence to SARS-CoV-2 within each state, but also map it down within the states to regions and metropolitan urban areas, and look at the differences,” Busch told Science, which called the serosurvey “unprecedented.”
“It’s certainly the largest serosurvey I’ve ever been involved with,” Busch said.
In the third NIH serosurvey, according to Busch, NIH blood-donor serosurveys will be compared with results from population serosurveys taking place through the University of Washington and University of California San Francisco, which involve neighborhood door knocking and sampling from hematology labs.
Some of the SARS-CoV-2 serological surveys underway include:
The National Institutes of Health serosurvey involving as many as 10,000 adults in the US who have no confirmed history of infection with SARS-CoV-2, which will analyze blood samples for two types of antibodies—anti-SARS-CoV-2 protein IgG and IgM. Researchers also may perform additional tests to evaluate volunteers’ immune responses to the virus.
A World Health Organization (WHO) coordinated follow-up study to its Solidarity Trial named Solidarity 2, which will “pool data from research groups in different countries to compare rates of infection,” which WHO officials say is ‘critical’ to understanding the true extent of the pandemic and to inform policy, Research Professionals News reported.
In Germany, the Robert Koch Institute, the country’s disease control and prevention agency, is tackling Europe’s first large-scale COVID-19 antibody testing. Its three-phase study will include serological testing on blood from donation centers, followed by testing on blood samples from coronavirus regional hotspots and then the country’s broader population.
But Can Serological Testing Prove Immunity to COVID-19?
However, whether having COVID-19 antibodies will make people immune to reinfection or unable to spread the disease is not yet known.
“We don’t have nearly the immunological or biological data at this point to say that if someone has a strong enough immune response that they are protected from symptoms, … that they cannot be transmitters,” Michael Mina, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Associate Medical Director in Clinical Microbiology (molecular diagnostics) in the Department of Pathology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, told STAT.
The Times of Sweden reported the WHO warned in mid-April that there is no proof recovering from COVID-19 provides immunity.
“There are a lot of countries that are suggesting using rapid diagnostic serological tests to be able to capture what they think will be a measure of immunity,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s Technical Lead for COVID-19, at a news conference in Geneva, Switzerland, the Times of Sweden reported.
“Right now, we have no evidence that the use of a serological test can show that an individual has immunity or is protected from reinfection,” she said, adding, “These antibody tests will be able to measure that level of seroprevalence—that level of antibodies—but that does not mean that somebody with antibodies [is] immune.”
In addition, the reliability and quality of some serological tests produced in China, as well as some being manufactured in the US, have come into question, the Financial Times reported.
Nevertheless, as serological testing for COVID-19 becomes more widespread, clinical laboratories should plan to play an ever-increasing role in the battle to stop a second wave of the epidemic in this country.