Aug 21, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
However, the distinction between how the two different types of diagnostic tests are intended to be used still confuses many physicians and healthcare professionals
Companion diagnostics are well-known to medical laboratorians. However, the new-breed of complementary diagnostics might not be as familiar. As the pharmaceutical pipeline increasingly becomes filled with test-dependent new drug therapies, medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups may need to sharpen their understanding of companion and complementary diagnostics to broaden their laboratory test portfolios and keep pace with the growing demand for these new diagnostics.
Companion Diagnostics
Currently in the US, 30 companion diagnostic assays have been approved governing the use of 19 therapeutic drugs, according to a recent NCBI table published in Clinical and Translational Science.
The FDA defines a companion diagnostic as a “medical device, often an in vitro device, which provides information that is essential for the safe and effective use of a corresponding drug or biological product. The test helps a healthcare professional determine whether a particular therapeutic product’s benefits to patients will outweigh any potential serious side effects or risks.”
Because a companion diagnostic device is “essential for the safe and effective use” of the drug to which it has been assigned, it is identified on the drug’s product label.
The anti-HER2 drug Herceptin, for example, is a commonly prescribed breast-cancer therapy drug that in its various forms comes with one of 11 companion diagnostic devices. As a requirement of Herceptin’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the agency requires pathologists to use a companion diagnostic test to confirm a patient’s over expression of HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor2) protein before prescribing Herceptin. The other HER2-directed therapies have their own assigned companion diagnostic.
Complementary Diagnostics Is a Growing Opportunity for Clinical Labs
Now, nearly two decades after companion diagnostics first made headlines, pathologists are encountering a new concept—complementary diagnostics. Unlike companion diagnostics, complementary diagnostics aid the therapeutic decision process, but are not required when prescribing the corresponding drug.
In an interview with Dark Daily, Debra Harrsch, President and Chief Executive Officer of Philadelphia-based Brandwidth Solutions, noted that the addition of complementary diagnostics adds a layer of complexity to the diagnostics landscape for pathologists and other healthcare professionals.
“The diagnostics landscape is not only expanding in size and scope, it is also becoming increasingly complex as growth in biomarker– and genomic-based test strategies fuels progress in personalized medicine,” she stated.
Peggy Robinson (left), US Vice President of ANGLE plc, and, Debra Harrsch (right), President and CEO of Brandwidth Solutions in Philadelphia, spoke with Dark Daily on the differences and values of companion versus complementary diagnostics. “The role that companion diagnostics can have in driving personalized medicine is already leaving its mark with drugs such as Herceptin. The impact of complementary diagnostics and how the two types of tests come to share the stage awaits to be seen,” they noted. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
Peggy Robinson, US Vice President of ANGLE plc, a global liquid biopsy diagnostic company, explained that the lack of a regulatory link to a specific testing technology is the critical distinction between a complementary and a companion diagnostic.
“A companion diagnostic is one of the gateways for you to receive a drug,” Robinson stated in the Dark Daily interview. “A complementary diagnostic can aid your physician in helping to determine what level of therapy would be appropriate for you, but it is not required.”
Pairing Clinical Laboratory Tests with Complementary Diagnostics
In 2015, Dako’s PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDX immunohistochemistry test, which determines PD-L1 protein in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, became the first FDA-approved complementary diagnostic, when it was paired with the drug Opdivo (Nivolumab).
At that time, Christopher Fikry, MD, then Vice President, Oncology, of Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX), praised the FDA’s introduction of the first complementary diagnostic. He noted in a statement that it would “give physicians greater understanding of treatment expectations with Opdivo and helpful information to communicate to patients.”
Clinical Laboratories Can Add Value to Their Patients’ Healthcare
The challenge for clinical laboratories and pathology groups will be keeping pace with a rapidly expanding catalog of available diagnostic tests. While the number of drugs (two) with FDA-approved complementary diagnostic tests remains small, Peter Keeling, CEO of Diaceutics, a global advisory group for the laboratory, diagnostic, and pharmaceutical industries, predicts that number will be rising.
In a 2016 webinar on companion versus complementary diagnostics, Keeling pointed out that 50% to 90% of products in development through 2020 at the top 10 pharmaceutical companies are test dependent. This highlights the importance of targeted therapies designed to advance the goals of personalized medicine.
Clinical Labs Can Build Out Test Menus with Complementary Diagnostics
“Laboratorians need to understand what type of technologies they are using to employ these diagnostics,” Robinson told Dark Daily. “As laboratory managers build out their test portfolios, they should be looking at the technology and asking, ‘Can I integrate that into my laboratory?’ so that when a new test comes out, they can offer it.”
Meanwhile, healthcare professionals have more work to do to understand the differences between companion versus complementary test labeling. In his webinar, Kelly noted that in a poll of 30 Opdivo/Keytruda prescribers, Diaceutics found:
- 40% of prescribers surveyed did not understand the differences between the PD-L1 test labels for Keytruda (Pembrolizumab), which requires a companion diagnostic, and Opdivo, which has an associated complementary diagnostic;
- 60% were unclear about the role of complementary testing; and
- 50% said their therapy decisions would be impacted if a laboratory used for PD-L1 testing offered only one test.
Harrsch told Dark Daily that “time will tell” whether complementary diagnostics can match the impact of companion diagnostics in improving healthcare outcomes.
Future of Complementary Diagnostics Still Uncertain
“The role companion diagnostics can have in driving personalized medicine is already leaving its mark with drugs such as Herceptin,” she said. “The impact of complementary diagnostics, and how the two types of tests come to share the stage, awaits to be seen.”
As the market for companion and complementary diagnostics expands beyond targeted therapies for oncology, clinical laboratories and pathology groups can position themselves to “add value” to their patients’ journey through the entire healthcare continuum. Robinson believes one key for pathologists going forward will be maintaining a “close working relationship” with client physicians in order to plan for future test offerings.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Companion and Complementary Diagnostics: Clinical and Regulatory Perspectives
Current Status of Companion and Complementary Diagnostics: Considerations for Development and Launch
Distinguishing Between Companion and Complementary Diagnostic Tests
Quest Diagnostics Introduces Dako’s PD-L1 Complementary Diagnostic Test to Support Bristol Myers Squibb’s OPDIVO Anti-PD-1 Therapy for Non-Squamous No-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Companion Versus Complementary Diagnostics
PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDX-P150025
Aug 16, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Undergoing genetic testing also can impact the cost and availability of life insurance in Australia, not just for the person who underwent the testing, but for their families as well
Concerns about direct-to-consumer genetic testing have led to stricter regulatory requirements for Clinical laboratories that perform genetic tests in Australia.
Starting in July 2017, medical laboratories that perform genetic testing must have accreditation by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA). And their tests must meet performance standards established by the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council. Manufacturers must also obtain a conformity assessment certificate from the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the organization that regulates medical devices, medicines, blood, and tissue in Australia.
According to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), there are currently 220 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) diagnostic tests available in Australia. There are 44 different laboratories located throughout the country that perform those tests. A database of the available tests and labs is maintained by the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA).
However, Australian citizens are not limited to just the tests and labs listed by the HGSA. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing kits, which are marketed through retail outlets, mail order, and the Internet, also can be used to obtain genetic information. However, receipt of genetic test results can be problematic and have negative consequences, say some experts.
Genetic Tests Can Cause Confusion; Affect Insurance
A recent paper, authored by researchers at Monash University, outlined apprehension about home genetic testing and how it can have a negative impact on people’s lives and insurance rates. The authors claim the tests can be misleading, noting concerns that the results are often interpreted by people who lack proper training. They cautioned that providers in other countries are not subject to the strict laws that govern genetic testing in Australia. Monash University is Australia’s largest university with facilities and campuses in Australia, Malaysia, South Africa, China, India, and Italy.
“In the age of individuality and consumer empowerment, some people want to take things into their own hands, but that’s not without its risks,” stated Ken Harvey, MBBS (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery), in a Special Broadcast Service (SBS) article. Dr. Harvey is an FRCPA (Pathologist) and Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine at Monash University, and one of the authors of the paper. “If you’re getting something over the internet it can be really difficult to assess whether that test has been accredited by a reputable independent authority.”
The chart above tracks the collective annual test volume of just three direct-to-consumer (DTC) providers of genetic test in the US. It illustrates the steep rise in DTC genetic test usage among US-based healthcare consumers. Clinical laboratories could chart a similar progression tracking the increase in DTC genetic testing they have performed in just the past few years. (Image copyright: University of Iowa Wiki.)
In addition, the results of home genetic tests have to be translated and explained to consumers by a medical professional, often a General Practitioner (GP), which, according to the Australian researchers, can lead to confusion.
“Though the results would go back to the GPs, many GPs really had no idea what to do with these results when they got them”, Harvey noted in the SBS article. “I’ve had GPs tell me one of their patients comes in clutching a handful of printouts about their genetic tests, and they say, ‘what am I meant to do with this?’”
Why Genetic Testing is Important
One person who understands the urge to try genetic testing is Heather Renton, Founder and President of Syndromes Without a Name (SWAN) Australia, a not-for-profit incorporated association and charity that works to increase awareness and understanding of the impact and prevalence of undiagnosed genetic conditions.
After being misdiagnosed multiple times, it was discovered that Renton’s daughter had the rare FOXP1 gene. Individuals with the FOXP1 genetic disorder have delayed speech and learning issues, sometimes with signs of autism. Symptoms of the condition include:
- Speech and learning disabilities;
- Immune system issues; and
- Behavioral abnormalities.
“People are sometimes so desperate for answers, [but] who’s to know that it’s credible—you might think you’ve got this gene and it might turn out that you don’t,” Renton stated in the SBS article.
“You might have a gene susceptible to breast cancer the older you get, but as a 20-year-old you have no idea you’ve got that,” she continued. “Life’s a lottery game.”
Why Genetic Testing Can Cause Problems
Nevertheless, some individuals may not welcome the results that genetic testing could reveal.
“If you get one of these batteries of genetic tests, the implication is these are genetic conditions that can be inherited; the results are not just important or significant to you, but to your family members, your children, etc.,” Harvey stressed. “The implications go beyond a particular person—and not everyone wants to know.”
“For some families, it’s been life shattering to find out they’ve actually passed this condition on to their child, and they carry this guilt,” Renton added.
Genetic Test Results Can Affect Insurance Premiums/Availability
Results of genetic tests also could affect the costs and availability of life insurance policies in Australia that went into effect after July.
Under the Insurance Contracts Act, Australians applying for life insurance are required to disclose:
- Their medical history;
- Information about the health of first degree relatives (parents, siblings, and children); and
- The known results of any genetic testing.
Life insurance policies in Australia are guaranteed renewable. This means consumers do not have to inform insurers of changes in their medical conditions after policies have been issued. It is forbidden for insurers to demand that consumers have any genetic testing performed. However, if a consumer has had a genetic test performed and knows the results before the policy is issued, those results must be divulged to the insurer. That information can then be used to determine policy rates or deny coverage.
Could This Happen In the US?
In the United States, some genetic testing is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the processes that oversee medical devices. The FDA has proposed regulating laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), which would bring more genetic testing under the agency’s scrutiny. As direct-to-consumer genetic testing becomes more advanced and is marketed to the public, it is probable that regulatory oversight of labs performing these tests also will increase in an effort to protect the public. Thus, clinical laboratories and pathology groups are advised to monitor this situation in Australia. Similar regulatory actions could be taken in the US as well.
—JP Schlingman
Related Information:
‘Not Everyone Wants to Know’: Warnings Over Genetic Tests
Warning Over Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests
Retail Genetics
Growth in DTC Genetic Testing
Thinking About Life Insurance Through a Genetic Lens
Life Insurance Products and Genetic Testing in Australia
British Health Authorities Criticize Medical Laboratory Tests for Consumers
Medical Laboratory Tests for Consumers Under Investigation on Two Continents
Aug 14, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Pathologists and practice administrators should prepare a strategy and a timetable for their group’s acquisition and deployment of a digital pathology system and whole slide imaging
Anatomic pathology is a medical specialty at the brink of a major technological disruption. FDA clearance of the first digital pathology system and whole slide imaging (WSI) for primary diagnosis means that every surgical pathologist will soon need to decide when to adopt this technology to avoid declines in group revenue and pathologist compensation.
Not in decades have pathologists faced a comparable dual threat. One threat is the use of digital pathology and WSI for primary diagnosis in ways that deliver faster answers to referring physicians, while creating new business models for anatomic pathology groups. At greatest risk from this technology, however, may be sub-specialist pathologists who depend on specialty referrals and second-opinion consults.
Second Threat Is How Digital Pathology Can Erode Pathology Group’s Revenue
The second threat is how failure to adopt digital pathology and WSI at the right time in the market cycle will put a pathology group’s revenue at risk, while causing pathologist compensation to erode. Pathology groups that are quick to adopt digital pathology and whole slide imaging are expected to gain clinical advantage and additional case referrals, while pathology groups that defer adoption will probably lose market share—and the revenue associated with those lost case referrals.
How Fast Will Pathology Groups Act to Implement Digital Pathology?
It was last April when the FDA cleared the first digital pathology system and whole slide imaging for use in the primary diagnosis of biopsied tissue and resection cases. With clearance to market of the Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution (PIPS), it is expected that other companies will submit their digital pathology systems for FDA review as well. As that happens, the market for digital pathology systems will expand and become more competitive.
“How fast pathologists in the United States adopt digital pathology for primary diagnosis is the big question,” observed Robert L. Michel, Editor-In-Chief of The Dark Report, Dark Daily’s sister publication. “We’ve interviewed pathologists at several community pathology group practices who currently use digital pathology and whole slide images for things like tumor boards, second opinion consults within and without their practice, and teaching purposes. They have strong opinions about how quickly they want their group to begin using a digital pathology system for primary diagnosis.
“For example, Advanced Pathology Associates (APA) in Rockville, Md., is a group with 15 pathologists who cover seven hospitals,” stated Michel. “APA was the community pathology group site for the study data Philips needed to submit with its FDA pre-market application. They had the system for the nine-month trial and used it to evaluate 500 cases and thousands of glass slides and WSIs. APA returned the system at the conclusion of the study, but pathologists at APA are already in the process of acquiring their own digital pathology system to use for primary diagnosis.”
Anatomic Pathology Group Went Hands-on with Digital Pathology System
In a story The Dark Report published about Advanced Pathology Associates, pathologist Nicolas Cacciabeve, MD, APA’s Managing Partner, commented, “Because we had the opportunity to be hands-on with this digital pathology system, we saw how it changes daily workflow, improves the ergonomics of reading cases, and contributes to increased productivity.”
Cacciabeve identified the immediate benefits APA will accrue after it acquires its own digital pathology system and begins to use it for primary diagnosis. “[Having a digital pathology system] … also opens new opportunities for our pathologists to add more value—whether it is handling more complex cases through real-time consultation, or through better data management and image retrieval, or freeing up pathologists to get out of the lab to collaborate with clinicians.”
Pathologist Clive Taylor, MD, Considers DP’s Clearance to Be ‘Huge’
The FDA’s clearance of the first digital pathology system was called “huge” by noted pathologist Clive Taylor, MD, PhD, a professor of pathology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California (where he served as Chair of Pathology from 1984 to 2009) in an interview with The Dark Report published on July 17.
“The FDA’s clearance of this system for primary diagnosis is huge,” stated Taylor. “… I say that because digital slide scanners in many pathology departments around the country are used secondarily. For example, a pathologist will look at a glass biopsy slide today and think, ‘I should scan this to get a score, or an accurate count, or to send it to a colleague in Washington or London or some place.’ In that sense, pathology labs are using whole slide imaging for secondary purposes.
“The FDA clearance of whole slide imaging for primary diagnostics will foster changes in anatomic pathology departments that will improve the accuracy and speed of diagnosis and drastically reduce the time it takes to get second opinions and to reach a primary diagnosis,” Taylor predicted.
Pathologists, Practice Administrators Need a Strategy for Digital Pathology
Because of the potential for digital pathology systems and whole slide imaging to be disruptive to both the clinical practice of pathology and the revenue and income earned by pathologists, it is recommended that pathology practice administrators and pathologist business leaders of their respective groups understand this new technology and how early-adopter pathology labs are using it to add value to their diagnostic services while generating new streams of revenue.
The four expert speakers for this critical Dark Daily webinar are (clockwise from upper left): Keith Kaplan, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Corista, Concord, Mass.; Liron Pantanowitz, MD, Professor of Pathology and Biomedical Informatics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh; Isaac R. Grindeland, MD, Gastrointestinal Pathology, Incyte Diagnostics, Spokane Valley, Wash.; and Dan Angress, for ClearPath Derm of Dayton, Ohio, and President of Angress Consulting, LLC, Los Angeles, Calif. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
To give practice administrators and interested pathologists this comprehensive knowledge of digital pathology and whole slide imaging, Dark Daily is presenting a special webinar, titled, “Primary Diagnosis with Digital Pathology Systems and Whole Slide Images: What Every Pathologist Needs to Know, Why It Will Be Disruptive, and How Innovative Pathology Groups Are Already Making Money with DP.”
This critical webinar takes place on Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 1:00 PM EDT.
Essential Knowledge about Digital Pathology Systems, Whole Slide Imaging
The webinar is organized to help all pathology groups, academic pathology departments, and pathology laboratories understand:
- The current capabilities of the technology for digital pathology and WSI;
- How these technologies are evolving in ways that add functionality and improve productivity; and—most importantly,
- Two case studies of pathology groups already using digital pathology and WSI imaging to add clinical value and develop new sources of revenue.
Speaking during this webinar will be:
- Keith Kaplan, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Corista, Concord, Mass.: For nearly a decade, Kaplan has been one of the leading commentators on the use of digital technologies and Web 2.0 capabilities in pathology. He will provide strategic context about why the FDA’s clearance of a digital pathology system for use in primary diagnosis is a trigger event for all pathology groups.
- Liron Pantanowitz, MD, Professor of Pathology and Biomedical Informatics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.: An internationally known expert on the use of digital pathology systems and whole slide imaging, Pantanowitz will give webinar participants a concise understanding of the technology’s current capabilities; how it is being used at UPMC; the lessons learned in the use of digital pathology to support UPMC’s international pathology collaborations; and what technology advances to expect in the near future.
- Dan Angress, for ClearPath Derm of Dayton, Ohio, and President of Angress Consulting, LLC, Los Angeles, Calif.: This is a fascinating case study of how ClearPath Derm is using digital pathology capabilities to support added value services for its referring physicians that, most importantly, generate additional revenue for the pathology group.
- Isaac R. Grindeland, MD, Gastrointestinal Pathology, Incyte Diagnostics, Spokane Valley, Wash.: This regional pathology super-group has 40 pathologists, four anchor locations, and contracts with multiple hospitals. Grindeland will explain how Incyte leverages its digital pathology capabilities to improve productivity and performance, while better meeting the needs of its hospital and physician clients.
Preparing Pathology Groups for Disruptive Potential of DB, WSI
Because of the potential for digital pathology systems and whole slide imaging to disrupt many long-established clinical practices, while at the same time creating new financial winners and losers among the nation’s pathology groups, it is imperative that pathologists and practice administrators gain the necessary knowledge to prepare their groups. Armed with these insights, they then can develop timely and appropriate strategies to ensure their group’s clinical excellence and financial sustainability moving forward.
For details about the August 17 webinar and to register, use this link (or copy this URL and paste it into your browser: https://ddaily.wpengine.com/webinar/primary-diagnosis-with-digital-pathology-systems-and-whole-slide-images-what-every-pathologist-needs-to-know-why-it-will-be-disruptive-and-how-innovative-pathology-groups-are-already-making-money-w).
—Michael McBride
Related Information:
Primary Diagnosis with Digital Pathology Systems and Whole Slide Images: What Every Pathologist Needs to Know, Why It Will Be Disruptive, and How Innovative Pathology Groups Are Already Making Money with DP
FDA Allows Marketing of First Whole Slide Imaging System for Digital Pathology
Whole Slide Imaging In Pathology: Advantages, Limitations, and Emerging Perspectives
Digital Images and the Future of Digital Pathology, Liron Pantanowitz, MD
Philips Awarded FDA Clearance for Digital Pathology Solution for Primary Diagnostic Use
What Does FDA Approval of a Digital Pathology System for Use in Primary Diagnosis Mean for the Pathology Industry? New Dark Daily Webinar to Provide Answers and Insights for Pathologists and Pathology Practice Administrators
Dark Daily Story on Pathology 2.0 and Digital Pathology Blog
Aug 11, 2017 | Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Meaningful use, accountable care organizations, and bundled payment initiatives work best together to reduce readmissions, UM research suggests
Ever since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) in 2012, healthcare organizations all over America have sought to prevent unnecessary hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge. For some clinical laboratories, this meant performing precise microbiology testing to ensure patients are discharged with prescriptions for oral antibiotics in-hand to combat possible infections. Now, a recent study reports that the effort could be paying off, and clinical laboratories played a critical role.
Research performed at the University of Michigan (UM) has linked lower readmission rates under the HRRP to voluntary value-based programs. The three value-based programs the UM researchers identified as contributing to the successful lowering of hospital readmission rates are:
The UM researchers published their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Internal Medicine. It could be the first study to demonstrate that synergistic value-based reward programs facilitate healthcare improvement and efficiency. As opposed to HRRP financial penalties alone that is, according to a UM news release.
Researchers Had No Expectations of Payment Reform Programs
Researchers at UM found that all three programs operating together in 2015 (the last year included in the longitudinal study) resulted in about 2,400 fewer readmissions and a $32-million savings to Medicare, the UM release noted.
The team analyzed data on patients treated at 2,877 hospitals from 2008 through 2015 for:
Their source of information was publicly available Hospital Compare readmission data.
“We had no real expectations that hospitals’ participation in voluntary reforms would be associated with additional reductions in readmissions. We thought that it was just as likely that hospital participation in meaningful use, accountable care organization programs, or the Bundled Payment for Care [Improvement] Initiative may be distracting to hospitals, limiting readmissions reduction,” stated Andrew Ryan, PhD, in ACEPNow, a publication of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) in Irving, Texas. Ryan is an Associate Professor, Health Management and Policy, at UM’s School of Public Health.
More Participation Leads to Greater Reduction in Readmissions
Nevertheless, the UM researchers linked more reductions in readmissions based on common diagnoses to value-based “reward-style” programs than to HRRP financial penalties. And the more value-based programs a provider implemented, the greater reduction in hospital readmission rates, the study found.
Nearly all hospitals studied were participating in at least one of the value-based programs by 2015, as compared to no program participants in 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, noted a Healthcare Dive article.
The chart above from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) illustrates the reduction in hospital readmissions starting in 2012, which multiple studies have linked to the CMS Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP). The rates, according to the KFF, are risk adjusted to account for age and certain medical conditions. (Image copyright: Kaiser Family Foundation.
For 56 providers that were not participating in value-based care programs by 2015, researchers found the following readmission reductions also were associated with HRRP:
- 3% drop in heart failure readmissions;
- 76% drop in heart attack readmissions; and
- 82% decline in pneumonia readmissions.
For the majority of providers, however, escalating value-based care program participation resulted in greater readmission rate reductions, the study noted.
Readmission Reductions for Heart Failure Patients
Noting the influence of value-based programs, HealthcareDIVE and FierceHealthcare reported the following results for the heart-failure patients studied:
- ACOs result in 2.1% annual readmission reduction;
- MU participation attributed to a 2.3% drop in annual readmission reduction;
- Involvement in all three programs (ACOs, MU, and bundled payments) result in the largest annual readmission declines for hospitals of 2.9%.
Readmission Reductions for Heart Attack, Pneumonia Patients
For myocardial infarction patients, the study showed these effects from value-based programs on readmission declines:
- 7% from ACO launch;
- 5% associated with MU; and
- 2% readmission reductions when all programs were in effect.
For pneumonia patients, the research suggested these changes in readmission declines were associated with value-based programs:
- 4% from ACO launch;
- 4% due to MU; and
- 9% when all programs were in effect.
The researchers advise that providers, aiming for quality improvement and cost savings, should leverage as many of these programs as possible.
“There is a reason to believe these [value-based] programs are reinforcing the broader push to value-based care. Our findings show the importance of a multi-pronged Medicare strategy to improve quality and value,” noted Ryan in the UM news release.
Clinical Laboratories Play Key Role in Reducing Readmissions
Accurate medical laboratory testing plays a critical role in the success of these hospital readmission reduction programs. Thus, all pathologists and laboratory personnel should congratulate themselves for a job well done. And commit to continuing their outstanding performance.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Association Between Hospitals’ Engagement in Value-Based Reforms and Readmission Reduction in the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program
Voluntary Value-Based Health Programs Dramatically Reduce Hospital Readmissions
Value-Based Reforms Linked to Readmission Reductions
Hospitals Participating in Value-Based Programs Have Lower Readmission Rates
Study: Value-Based Care Programs Reduce Readmissions
Involving Patient’s Family in Discharge Process Linked to 25% Reduction in Hospital Readmissions
Integrating Caregivers at Discharge Significantly Cuts Patient Readmissions, Pitt Study Finds
Hospitals with Lowest 30-Day Readmission Rates Succeed at Reducing Rates by Improving Care Coordination and Monitoring of Patients After Discharge
Aug 9, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Additionally, the device also could help reduce antibiotic-resistant infections and other HAIs and HACs, though this result was not part of the study
Research findings indicate how a new system-in-a-box device that phlebotomists and clinical laboratories would use when drawing blood could reduce contamination of blood cultures and lower patients’ use of antibiotics. In a study involving 1,800 blood cultures done on 904 patients at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), use of the device was attributed to an 88% reduction in the blood culture contamination rate.
Developed by Magnolia Medical Technologies, the SteriPath Initial Specimen Diversion Device (ISDD) is compatible with standard BD and bioMérieux blood collection tubes and culture bottles, and has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing in the United States.
According to a press release by researchers at UNMC who studied the device, “With traditional blood draws, about 30% to 40% of patients with contaminated blood cultures are prescribed antibiotics unnecessarily. This contributes to antibiotic resistance and undermines nationwide efforts to improve antimicrobial stewardship.” The researchers reported their findings in an article published in the Oxford Academic journal Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID).
Blood Culture Contamination Harms Patients and Increases Cost of Care
The UNMC researchers noted that, during a blood draw, a significant percentage of blood cultures become contaminated when skin fragments containing bacteria are dislodged and mix with the patient’s blood. For the thousands of patients each day who have their blood drawn, contaminated blood cultures, which lead to false positive results for sepsis, often result in unnecessary antibiotic treatment. This in turn can lead to serious and deadly antibiotic-resistant infections with various multi-drug-resistant organisms such as Clostridium difficile infection (C. diff), as well as, other hospital-acquired infections and conditions (HAIs & HACs) due to unnecessary extended length of stay, according to Mark Rupp, MD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, and Medical Director, Department of Healthcare Epidemiology-Infection Control at UNMC.
In the CID article, Rupp and colleagues reported on a prospective, controlled trial conducted in the emergency department (ED) at UNMC’s partner hospital Nebraska Medicine. Results of the trial showed that the SteriPath ISDD diverts and sequesters the first 1.5 to 2 mL portion of blood. The researchers presumed that these initial drops of blood would contain the contaminating skin cells and microbes.
SteriPath is a self-contained, preassembled, sterile blood collection system. It provides proprietary vein-to-bottle technology that significantly reduces blood culture contamination, according to Magnolia Medical Technologies. This could be useful for helping phlebotomists and clinical laboratories improve the quality of specimens collected for use in blood culture testing. Click on the image above to view videos on the SteriPath ISDD. (Photo copyright: Magnolia Medical Technologies.)
The researchers tested the SteriPath ISDD during standard phlebotomy procedures in patients requiring blood cultures. After drawing 1,808 blood cultures from 904 study subjects, the researchers concluded that the ISDD significantly reduced blood culture contamination compared with standard phlebotomy procedures. The blood culture contamination among phlebotomists who used the ISDD decreased by nearly 90%, compared to phlebotomy procedures conducted by nurses who did not use the ISDD.
“We were able to decrease the false positive rate significantly through use of this device—from 1.78% down to 0.2%, which represents an 88% reduction,” Rupp noted in the UNMC press release. “The 1.78% baseline rate of contamination may seem small, but we should strive to decrease adverse events to the lowest possible level, because of the impact to the patient and the burden to our healthcare system.
“The device is innovative in that it diverts the first couple of milliliters of blood into the sequestration chamber,” Rupp explained. “That’s where we think the contaminants are. The remaining blood being drawn is then diverted into the sterile pathway into the blood culture vial, thereby preventing the contamination.”
Billions of Healthcare Dollars Could Be Saved with SteriPath’s ISDD
During a conference call with reporters, Rupp admitted that cynics might scoff at such a low rate of improvement. “Many of those folks don’t understand that we do tens of millions of blood cultures in this country every year,” he explained. “Every year, we do about 30 million or so blood cultures. That many cultures means a 2% contamination rate equates to somewhere in the neighborhood of about 600,000 contamination events. And 2% is a very respectable level. Usually clinicians are satisfied anywhere below about 3%, which is about 900,000 events each year.”
For about 40% to 50% of patients whose blood is contaminated, physicians will prescribe antibiotics, order another blood test, and require patients to stay several days in the hospital, he added. “All of this results in thousands of extra dollars being spent,” he declared. If each blood contamination case costs about $4,000, then reducing such contamination in potentially 600,000 cases each year could save more than $1 billion healthcare dollars.
According to the researchers, costs associated with blood culture contamination ranged from $1,000 per patient in 1998 to $8,700 per patient in 2009. “If a midpoint cost estimate of $4,850 is used, and the added cost of the device is not taken into account, it equates to a cost avoidance of $1.8 million per year at our institution alone,” Rupp stated. “If the low rate of contamination that we observed in the study, 0.22%, was applied to all blood cultures throughout the country, billions of dollars of excess costs could be avoided.”
This clinical study offers strong evidence that the SteriPath ISDD might prove to be a useful tool that clinical laboratories could use to help prevent unnecessary exposure to antibiotics and hospital stays, lower healthcare costs, and improve patient test outcomes. If the UNMC clinical study outcomes are replicated in future studies, then it is a technology and a solution that has the potential to be adopted by phlebotomists in medical laboratories and hospitals.
—Joseph Burns
Related Information:
Reduction in Blood Culture Contamination Through Use of Initial Specimen Diversion Device
Study Shows Device Reduces Blood Draw Contamination
Novel Device Significantly Reduces Blood Draw Contamination, Reduces Risks to Patients, Study Shows
Better Care by Reducing Blood Culture Contamination: Sepsis, SteriPath and Antimicrobial Stewardship
Study by Mark Rupp, MD, in Clinical Infectious Diseases: Reduction in Blood Culture Contamination Through Use of Initial Specimen Diversion Device (SteriPath)
Aug 7, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Phenotypic data combined with artificial intelligence provides a new biomarker for genetic laboratories to use when diagnosing disease
Researchers are demonstrating that facial analysis and facial recognition technology can play a useful role in helping pathology and medical laboratory scientists diagnose disease. This is just the latest example of how advances in different technologies can add new sources of biomarkers for clinical laboratories.
Biomarkers used by clinical laboratories and anatomic pathologists are usually biological substances or states that can be measured during testing either in vivo or in vitro. However, clinical laboratories may soon be working with biomarkers based on measurable aspects of external human anatomy. One such biomarker employs facial analysis and facial recognition technology to produced phenotypic data that could help pathologists diagnose rare genetic disorders. A human phenotype is data comprised of a person’s “observable characteristics or traits.”
Phenotypic Data from Photographs
Three genomics companies: FDNA, GeneDx, and Blueprint Genetics, are collaborating on a unique project, dubbed Face2Gene Labs. They are using a facial recognition application called Face2Gene developed by FDNA. The application uses artificial intelligence (AI) and phenotyping technology to extract data from facial photographs of patients. The data is then examined and compared to a database of hundreds of thousands of patterns that were generated from photos of patients with known rare genetic disorders. The algorithm then compiles a list of possible diagnoses. The goal is to produce phenotypic data that clinicians can transmit in real-time directly to medical laboratories for analysis.
“Trying to diagnose patients with genetic sequencing is like searching for a pin in a 22,000-needle haystack,” stated Dekel Gelbman, CEO, FDNA, in a news release. “By providing accurate phenotypic and clinical data to the lab directly at the point of genetic interpretation, we are truly realizing the promise of precision medicine. And, with the power of artificial intelligence behind it, clinicians will be pointed toward potential diagnoses that they may have never otherwise considered.”
The Face2Gene application developed by FDNA uses artificial intelligence to compare digital photographs of patients’ faces against hundreds of thousands of stored patterns to help clinicians identify genetic disorders in children. (Photo copyright: FDNA.)
Solomon goes on to praise GeneDx and Blueprint Genetics as examples of innovative and renowned labs adopting technology that will lead the way in pinpointing rare disease and promote further medical advancements.
“This is an important collaboration for several reasons,” states Ben Solomon, MD, a Clinical Geneticist and Managing Director of GeneDx, in the news release. “It’s a great way to leverage clinical and genetic information and machine learning approaches to find answers for the clinicians, patients, and families GeneDx serves. Aside from providing answers, this integration will make the diagnostic testing process easier, smoother, and more enjoyable for clinicians.”
85% Increase in Diagnostic Yield with Addition of Phenotypic Data
A recent multi-center study called PEDIA (short for Prioritization of Exome Data by Image Analysis) looked into the accuracy of genetic testing when using FDNA’s Face2Gene tool. The study, conducted by researchers at the Berlin Institute of Health and Charité University of Medicine in Berlin, showed promising results of the collaboration.
“We estimate that the addition of phenotypic features [encoded in HPO terms] increases the diagnostic yield to about 60% [from 25% without],” stated Peter Krawitz, MD, PhD, and Principal Investigator for PEDIA. “When adding facial analysis, FDNA’s technology, to that process, the diagnostic yield increases to more than 85%,” he explained in the FDNA news release.
The Rarity Paradox and Diagnosing Genetic Disorders in Children
According to Global Genes, a rare disease patient advocacy non-profit organization, one in 10 Americans (approximately 30 million people) suffer from a rare genetic disorder. These disorders also affect the same percentage of people worldwide, or about 350 million people. There are more than 7,000 distinct rare diseases known to exist and approximately 80% of those illnesses are caused by faulty genes. In addition, about half of the people affected by rare genetic illnesses are children.
“We call it the rarity paradox,” stated Gelbman in an article published in Wired. “Each rare disease in itself affects very few people, but on aggregate the effect is pretty staggering.”
The three companies hope their collaboration will help clinicians determine faster, more accurate diagnoses, while diminishing anxiety among patients and their families regarding the unknowns of rare genetic disorders.
“Since 2012, Blueprint Genetics has been developing technological innovations in sequencing and clinical interpretation to improve the quality and performance of rare disease diagnostics,” noted Tero-Pekka Alastalo, MD, PhD, President, Chief Medical Officer of Blueprint Genetics, in the FDNA news release. “It’s great to see how these innovations are now helping the genetics community and patients suffering from inherited disorders. Combining these technological innovations with our transparent approach to diagnostics and next generation phenotyping tools like Face2Gene represents the next steps forward in molecular genetic diagnostics.”
Pathology groups and clinical laboratories are advised to monitor this exciting development in genomic research. It illustrates how unrelated technologies, such as facial analysis software, could soon be used for diagnostic purposes to detect the presence of genetic disorders, and to determine the best therapies for patients. Labs will want to be prepared to engage with clinicians who adopt this technology and to answer patients’ questions about it.
—JP Schlingman
Related Information:
FDNA Announces Collaboration with GeneDx and Blueprint Genetics in the Launch of Face2Gene LABS
FDNA Expands Facial Analysis Reach to 2,000 Syndromes
Groups Explore Facial Analysis Software for Inherited Disease Diagnosis, Research
Your Face Could Reveal if You Have a Rare Disease
Face2Gene: Take a Headshot – Get a Diagnosis
