The CDC suggests that hospitals treating patients for flu symptoms perform clinical laboratory tests for avian influenza A within 24 hours. This additional testing will pinpoint the specific type of flu infecting an individual patient and help prevent further spread of the bird flu virus.
“It’s the subtyping that takes us from knowing that a virus is in the general bucket of ‘influenza A’ to knowing more specifically whether it’s a garden-variety seasonal version of influenza A or, more rarely, a novel version of influenza A like H5N1,” CDC Principal Deputy Director Nirav Shah, MD, JD, told CNN.
According to the CDC, a panzootic of pathogenic avian H5N1 flu virus is currently affecting wild birds, poultry, dairy cows, and other animals throughout the country. There have been 67 total cases of bird flu identified in humans in the US since 2022, with 66 of those cases occurring in 2024.
The risk of humans contracting bird flu are low but is elevated among those who work closely with wild birds, poultry, and dairy cattle. The incidences of the flu virus in animals continues to increase, so CDC says it is important to identify potential bird flu cases in humans in a timely manner.
This demonstrates recognition by the CDC and the clinical laboratory profession that advances in molecular diagnostics and genetic testing now make it feasible for many hospital labs to perform these tests in-house on relevant patients. Such molecular testing is less expensive and produces a faster answer today, compared to just a few years ago.
This call for more lab tests in hospitals is also recognition of the value near-patient testing has from a public health perspective. Historically, it was regional and local public health labs that were sent specimens for testing from patients identified as having an infection that were a public health concern.
The good news is that this expands the role of hospital laboratories for all the right reasons. The downside is that hospital labs will probably see many test claims for these assays not be paid promptly by payers—or paid after unnecessary delays.
“The system right now tells us what has already happened. What we need is to shift to a system that tells us what’s happening in the moment. That is what we are doing today,” Nirav Shah, MD, JD (above), CDC principal deputy told CNN. Hospital and clinical laboratories will likely see an increase in orders for molecular and genetic testing for influenza A. (Photo copyright: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
CDC Recommendations to Clinical Laboratories
The CDC alert also acknowledges that most individuals infected with avian flu were exposed to the virus via the handling of infected dairy cows or poultry in unprotected workplaces. There are no known cases of human-to-human transmission of the disease.
Most cases of avian flu in humans have been clinically mild and the patients quickly recover. However, on January 6, the CDC announced that an elderly patient with underlying health conditions in Louisiana who was previously hospitalized with severe avian influenza A illness had passed away. This case was the first confirmed death in the US attributed to the illness.
The CDC’s Health Advisory makes the following recommendations to clinical laboratories:
Subtype respiratory specimens that are positive for influenza A, but negative for seasonal influenza A virus subtypes, and forward those specimens to a public health laboratory within 24 hours.
Refrain from batching specimens for consolidated or bulk shipment to public health laboratories if that process could result in shipping delays.
Notify public health officials if a hospital or clinical lab does not have access to influenza A virus subtyping and arrange for a public health or commercial lab with this testing capability to perform the analysis.
Clearly link specimens to clinical information from the patient to ensure the prioritization of severely ill and ICU patients.
Immediately contact local public health authority if a positive result for influenza A (H5) virus is obtained using a laboratory developed test (LDT) or another A (H5) subtyping test to initiate time-critical actions.
The CDC’s Health Advisory also states public health laboratories should complete influenza A subtyping assays within 24 hours of receipt and report those results to the CDC, as required.
“One of the motivators of accelerating testing [is] so that we are, again, able to faster see difference between signal and noise, given that the volume of hospitalizations is going up as expected in a rather routine flu season,” Demetre Daskalakis, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), told CNN.
Preparing for more Bird Flu in Humans
According to the CDC, approximately 100,000 Americans have been hospitalized with type-A flu this season. The agency expects another 100,000 hospitalizations due to the virus before the end of this year. CDC is tracking flu infections on a weekly basis. Data can be reviewed on its website.
Other government organizations also are developing methods intended to curb the spread of the influenza virus. The federal Department of Agriculture recently launched a national program to test for bird flu in untreated milk. And the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) allocated $211 million in new funding to address emerging infectious diseases.
On January 17, the HHS announced it would give $590 million to Moderna to “accelerate the development of mRNA-based pandemic influenza vaccines and enhance mRNA platform capabilities so that the US is better prepared to respond to other emerging infectious diseases.”
“The funding will allow us to bring the benefits of mRNA vaccine technology to bear against a wider array of emerging threats,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Dawn O’Connell, JD, in the announcement. “mRNA technology can be faster to develop and easier to update than other vaccines making it a helpful tool to have against viruses that move fast and mutate quickly.
Hospital laboratories and public health labs should prepare for a spike in test orders for avian influenza A as this year’s flu season progresses. As bird flu increases in animals, it increases the possibility that the disease might infect humans.
Clinical laboratories are being squeezed on both sides as rising healthcare costs affect their patients while increasing health plan costs impact their employees’ health coverage
When UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered on Dec. 4, the nation’s attention focused on the negative impact ever-increasing costs of healthcare coverage is having on the average American. Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups experience this trend firsthand as annual increases in the cost of health plans affect their employees.
To understand just how raw the public is feeling about health insurance, consider that in a recent Emerson College poll, 41% of respondents ages 18-29 stated that Thompson’s murder was “completely” or “somewhat” acceptable.
While the majority of the country believes that such violence is not an acceptable way to solve one’s problems, the message is clear that Americans’ waning trust in health insurance companies has reached unhealthy levels.
“Health insurance costs are far outpacing inflation, leaving more consumers on the hook each year for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses. At the same time, some insurers are rejecting nearly one in five claims. That double whammy is leaving Americans paying more for coverage yet sometimes feeling like they’re getting less in return,” CBS News reported.
Twenty-five years of increases from the insurance industry make it clear why the relationships between healthcare consumers and insurance companies has soured.
“Employers are shelling out the equivalent of buying an economy car for every worker every year to pay for family coverage,” said Kaiser Family Foundation President and CEO Drew Altman (above) in a news release. “In the tight labor market in recent years, they have not been able to continue offloading costs onto workers who are already struggling with healthcare bills.” Clinical laboratories and pathology groups are among those employers struggling to provide affordable health coverage for their employees. (Photo copyright. Kaiser Family Foundation.)
People Are Frustrated
The cost of living in America has risen dramatically in the past decade. So much so that people are increasingly becoming frustrated and lashing out against companies that appear to be making record profits while their customers struggle to pay for their products and services.
A recent Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Health Tracking Poll found that “About one in five adults (19%) say they have difficulty affording their bills each month and about four in 10 (37%) say they are just able to afford their bills each month, while a little over four in 10 (44%) say they are both able to pay their bills and have some money left over.”
Simultaneously, according to KFF, “Employees’ share of their [health insurance] premiums are also on the rise, with a worker with family coverage typically paying premiums of $5,700 per year in 2017, the most recent year for that data, up from about $1,600 in 2000. … The average family deductible—the amount paid out-of-pocket before insurance kicks in—has increased from $2,500 in 2013 to $3,700 in 2023.”
This double-whammy in costs has a growing number of American’s worrying about unexpected healthcare bills and the overall cost of keeping their families adequately covered for the future.
“We’ve gotten to a point where healthcare is so inaccessible and unaffordable, people are justified in their frustrations,” said Céline Gounder, MD, a CBS News medical contributor and editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News.
The chart above taken from a KFF Health Tracking Poll (Jan. 30-Feb. 7, 2024) shows participants’ answers when asked, “How worried, if at all, are you about being able to afford each of the following for you and your family?” Results indicate, according to KFF, that three in four people polled are worried about paying future healthcare bills and covering increasing insurance costs. (Graphic copyright: KFF.)
AI and Coverage Denials
Coverage denials is another sore spot for many people, impacting nearly one in five claims in nongroup qualified health plans in 2021, KFF found. This ranged from 2% to 49% depending on the company.
“When you are paying for something, they don’t give it to you, and they keep raising prices … you will be frustrated by that,” Holden Karau, a software engineer and creator of Fight Health Insurance, a free online service that helps people appeal their denials, told CBS News. Karau’s company uses artificial intelligence (AI) to help customers create appeal letters.
But the use of AI in healthcare coverage has also drawn criticism. Insurance companies are increasingly using AI to review claims and issue denials, and the lack of transparency has led to lawsuits. Last year, CBS News covered lawsuits brought by the families of two deceased individuals who accused UnitedHealthcare of “knowingly” using a “faulty” AI algorithm to deny the patients medically necessary treatments.
Karau noted, “With AI tools on the insurance side, they have very little negative consequences for denying procedures,” CBS News reported. “We are seeing really high denial rates triggered by AI. And on the patient and provider side, they don’t have the tools to fight back,” she added.
“Unhappiness with insurers stems from two things: ‘I’m sick and I’m getting hassled,’ and the second is very much cost—‘I’m paying more than I used to, and I’m paying more than my wages went up,’” Rob Andrews, CEO of Health Transformation Alliance, a company that helps healthcare providers and other self-insured companies improve coverage for their employees, told CBS News. “A lot of people think they are getting less,” he added.
Effects on Clinical Laboratories
Even as individuals and families pay more money each year in healthcare premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses, clinical laboratories have seen payers cut reimbursement for many lab tests. Thus, labs are dealing with a double-squeeze on their finances. On the income side, reimbursement for tests is under pressure, while on the cost side, the cost of health benefits for employees climbs annually.
Clinical lab and pathology managers will want to stay aware of these trends and take advantage of any opportunity to lower costs and pass on those savings to their patients.
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory professionals should play a key role in the ordering and use of microbiome testing
International experts in the field of microbiome testing recently published a consensus document that establishes guidelines for the use and distribution of microbiota diagnostics they claim are long overdue. Companies offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome test kits continue to increase in number and popularity. But some experts in the human microbiome field—including microbiologists and clinical laboratory professionals—remain apprehensive regarding the science behind this type of home testing.
A Gemelli University news release states, “The intestinal microbiota could perhaps one day become a routine tool for the early diagnosis of many diseases and treatment guidance, but at the moment there is a lack of solid scientific evidence to support these indications. Yet, day by day, the offers of commercial kits are multiplying to carry out do-it-yourself tests, at the moment completely devoid of scientific significance and solidity.”
It continues, “To put a stop to this drift, a panel of international experts, coordinated by Dr. Gianluca Ianiro, has drafted the ‘instructions for use’ for best practices related to microbiota testing and recommendations for its indications, analysis methods, presentation of results and potential clinical applications.”
“This document marks a decisive step towards a standardization that has become indispensable making the microbiota an increasingly integrated element in personalized medicine,” said gastroenterologist Antonio Gasbarrini, MD (above), dean of the faculty of medicine and surgery and full professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. “In the clinical context, these guidelines will be essential to translate research progress into concrete applications, improving the management of many gastroenterological and systemic diseases related to the microbiota,” he added. Microbiologists and clinical laboratory managers may want to follow efforts to promote these guidelines, both within healthcare and as they relate to consumers ordering their own microbiome tests. (Photo copyright: Agostino Gemelli University.)
Our Second Brain
The gut microbiome consists of the microorganisms that reside in the human gut and the small and large intestines. This ecosystem plays a major role in an individual’s health as it aids in digestion and metabolism. It also helps control inflammation and can strengthen the immune system.
“[The gut microbiome] contains all the microbes that reside within our intestinal tract. And those microbes are comprised of bacteria, fungi, yeast and viruses,” said Gail Cresci, PhD, RD, Director, Nutrition Research Center for Human Nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in a Health Essentials article.
“What we’ve learned over the years is that there’s a lot of crosstalk between your gut microbiome and your body,” she added.
A healthy gut microbiome is imperative for good human health. An unhealthy gut microbiome can lead to certain diseases and even have a negative effect on mental health and mood.
“Your gut health is so important because studies really do indicate that our gut health plays a huge role in our overall health,” stated Kristin Kirkpatrick, MS, RDN, a dietician at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Wellness and Preventative Medicine, in the article. “It impacts our risk of chronic conditions, our ability to manage our weight, even our immune system. … There is so much attention and research on the microbiome and gut health now that experts often refer to it as the ‘second brain.’”
Future of Microbiome Testing
In their consensus document, the scientists wrote, “We convened an international multidisciplinary expert panel to standardize best practices of microbiome testing for clinical implementation, including recommendations on general principles and minimum requirements for their provision, indications, pre-testing protocols, method of analyses, reporting of results, and potential clinical value. We also evaluated current knowledge gaps and future directions in this field.”
The team’s intent is to provide guidelines and define quality standards and accuracy for microbiome testing to ensure consumers are receiving factual information.
“In recent years, the intestinal microbiota has taken on a key role as a diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic tool,” said gastroenterology surgeon Serena Porcari, MD, of Gemelli University Hospital in Italy, in the Gemelli news release. “From this point of view, the first step, for a targeted modulation of the microbiota itself, is to obtain a standardization of its analysis, regulated according to the definition of minimum criteria for performing the test.”
The team also evaluated disparities between various tests and anticipated what lies ahead for the future of microbiome testing. In addition, they assessed ways to minimize inappropriate testing and established a framework for the development of evidence-based testing and the use of human microbiota diagnostics in clinical medicine.
“This consensus document represents a crucial step towards bringing order to the current panorama of diagnostic tests on the intestinal microbiota,” said Maurizio Sanguinetti, MD, director of the department of laboratory and hematological sciences at Gemelli Polyclinic Foundation, in the news release. “The diagnostic characterization of the intestinal microbiota must be based on rigorous standards, in order to guarantee reliable and clinically useful results. It is not a simple laboratory test, but a complex tool that requires a deep understanding of microbial dynamics and their impact on human health.
“This is why these analyses must be conducted by highly qualified personnel with specific expertise in clinical microbiology and bioinformatics,” he emphasized. “In our microbiology laboratory at the Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli, we already apply diagnostic tests on the intestinal microbiota following the principles and best practices outlined in the document.
“It is essential to invest in the training of future physicians and microbiologists so that they acquire the necessary skills to correctly interpret the results of these tests and apply them effectively in clinical practice. This document provides a valuable basis to guide not only the current use of the tests, but also their future development, always with a view to evidence-based and personalized medicine,” Sanguinetti concluded.
With popularity of microbiome testing on the rise, it’s important that microbiologists and clinical laboratory professionals stay informed on the latest developments in the field of microbiome diagnostics to protect healthcare consumers and their patients.
Nearly 100,000 patients submitted saliva samples to a genetic testing laboratory, providing insights into their disease risk
Researchers at Mayo Clinic have employed next-generation sequencing technology to produce a massive collection of exome data from more than 100,000 patients, offering a detailed look at genetic variants that predispose people to certain diseases. The study, known as Tapestry, was administered by doctors and scientists from the clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine and produced the “largest-ever collection of exome data, which include genes that code for proteins—key to understanding health and disease,” according to a Mayo Clinic news release.
For our clinical laboratory professionals, this shows the keen interest that a substantial portion of the population has in using their personal genetic data to help physicians identify their risk for many diseases and types of cancer. This support by healthcare consumers is a sign that labs should be devoting attention and resources to providing these types of gene sequencing services.
As Mayo explained in the news release, the exome includes nearly 20,000 genes that code for proteins. The researchers used the dataset to analyze genes associated with higher risk of heart disease and stroke along with several types of cancer. They noted that the data, which is now available to other researchers, will likely provide insights into other diseases as well, the news release notes.
“What we’ve accomplished with the Tapestry study is a blueprint for future endeavors in medical science,” said gastroenterologist and lead researcher Konstantinos Lazaridis, MD (above), in the news story. “It demonstrates that through innovation, determination and collaboration, we can deeply advance our understanding of DNA function and eventually other bio-molecules like RNA, proteins and metabolites, turning them into novel diagnostic tools to improve health, prevent illness, and even treat disease.” Some of these newly identified genetic markers may be incorporated into new clinical laboratory assays. (Photo copyright: Mayo Clinic.)
How Mayo Conducted the Tapestry Study
One notable aspect of the study was its methodology. The study launched in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since many patients were quarantined, researchers conducted the study remotely, without the need for the patients to visit a Mayo facility. It ran for five years through May 31, 2024. The news release notes that it’s the largest decentralized clinical trial ever conducted by the Mayo Clinic.
The researchers identified 1.3 million patients from the main Mayo Clinic campuses in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida who met the following eligibility criteria:
Participants had to be 18 or older,
they had to have internet and email access, and
be sufficiently proficient in speaking and reading English.
More than 114,000 patients consented to participate, but some later withdrew, resulting in a final sample of 98,222 individuals. Approximately two-thirds were women. Mean age was 57 (61.9 for men and 54.3 for women).
“It was a tremendous effort,” said Mayo Clinic gastroenterologist and lead researcher Konstantinos Lazaridis, MD, in the news release. “The engagement of such a number of participants in a relatively short time and during a pandemic showcased the trust and the dedication not only of our team but also of our patients.”
He added that the researchers “learned valuable lessons about some patients’ decisions not to participate in Tapestry, which will be the focus of future publications.”
Three Specific Genes
Enrolled patients were invited to visit a website, where they could view a video and submit an eligibility form. Once approved, they completed a digital consent agreement and received a saliva collection kit. Participants were also invited to provide information about their family history.
Helix, a clinical laboratory company headquartered in San Mateo, Calif., performed the exome sequencing.
Though Helix performed whole exome sequencing, the researchers were most interested in three specific sets of genes:
Patients received clinical results directly from Helix along with information about their ancestry. Clinical results were also transmitted to Mayo Clinic for inclusion in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs).
Among the participants, approximately 1,800 (1.9%) had what the researchers described as “actionable pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants.” About half of these were BRCA1/2.
These patients were invited to speak with a genetic counselor and encouraged to undergo additional testing to confirm the variants.
Tapestry Genomic Registry
In addition to the impact on the participants, Mayo Clinic’s now has an enormous amount of raw sequencing data stored in the Tapestry Genomic Registry, where it will be available for future research.
The database “has become a valuable resource for Mayo’s scientific community, with 118 research requests submitted,” the researchers wrote in the news release. Mayo has distribution more than a million exome datasets to other genetic researchers.
“What we’ve accomplished with the Tapestry study is a blueprint for future endeavors in medical science,” Lazaridis noted. “It demonstrates that through innovation, determination, and collaboration, we can deeply advance our understanding of DNA function and eventually other bio-molecules like RNA, proteins and metabolites, turning them into novel diagnostic tools to improve health, prevent illness, and even treat disease.”
Everything about this project is consistent with precision medicine, and the number of individuals discovered to have risk of cancers is relevant. Clinical laboratory professionals understand these ratios and the importance of early detection and early intervention.
Though the No Surprises Act was enacted to prevent such surprise billing, key aspects of the legislation are apparently not being enforced
Dani Yuengling thought she had properly prepared herself for the financial impact of a breast biopsy. After all, it’s a simple procedure, especially if done by fine needle aspiration (FNA). Then, the 35-year-old received a bill for $18,000! And that was after insurance and though she had received a much lower advanced quote, according to an NPR/Kaiser Health News (NPR/KHN) bill-of-the-month investigation.
So, what happened? And what can anatomic pathology groups and clinical laboratories do to ensure their patients don’t receive similar surprise bills?
Yuengling had lost her mother to breast cancer in 2017. Then, she found a lump in her own breast. Following a mammogram she decided to move forward with the biopsy. Her doctor referred her to Grand Strand Medical Center in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
But she needed to know how much the procedure would cost. Her health plan had a $6,000 deductible. She worried she might have to pay for the entire amount of a very expensive procedure.
However, the hospital’s online “Patient Payment Estimator” informed her that an uninsured patient typically pays about $1,400 for the procedure. Yuengling was relieved. She assumed that with insurance the amount would be even less, and thankfully, clinical laboratory test results of the biopsy found that she did not have breast cancer.
Then came the sticker shock! The bill broke down like this:
$17,979 was the total for her biopsy and everything that came with it.
Her insurer, Cigna, brought the cost down to the in-network negotiated rate of $8,424.14.
Her insurance then paid $3,254.47.
Yuengling was responsible for $5,169.67 which was the balance of her deductible.
So, why was the amount Yuengling owed higher than the bill would have been if she had been uninsured and paid cash for the procedure?
According to the NPR/KHN investigation, this is not an uncommon occurrence. The investigators reported that nearly 30% of American workers have high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and may face larger expenses than what a hospital’s cash price would have been for uninsured individuals.
Dani Yuengling (above) knew she had to take the lump in her breast seriously. Her mother had died of breast cancer. “It was the hardest experience, seeing her suffer,” Yuengling told NPR/KHN. Fortunately, following a biopsy procedure, clinical laboratory testing showed she was cancer free. But the bill for the procedure was shockingly higher than she’d expected based on the hospital’s patient payment estimator. (Photo copyright: Kaiser Health News.)
Take the Cash Price
In 2021, Bai was part of a John’s Hopkins research team that analyzed US hospital cash prices compared with commercial negotiated rates for specific healthcare services.
“The 70 CMS-specified hospital services represent 74 unique Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) diagnosis related group codes (four services were represented by two codes),” the authors wrote. “Cash prices and payer-specific negotiated prices for the 70 services were obtained from Turquoise Health, a data service company that specializes in collecting pricing information from hospitals.”
They continued, “Cash prices can affect the cost exposure of 26 million uninsured individuals and concern nearly one-third of US workers enrolled in high-deductible health plans, who are often responsible to pay for medical bills without a third-party contribution and thus are interested in having access to low cash prices. In contrast with the commercial price negotiated bilaterally between hospitals and insurers providing insurance plans, the cash price is determined unilaterally by the hospital and might be expected to be higher than negotiated prices.”
However, the team’s research found otherwise. “Across the 70 CMS-specified services … some hospitals set their cash price comparable to or lower than their commercial negotiated price,” they concluded.
Bai advises patients to ask healthcare providers about the cash price before undergoing any procedure no matter what their insurance status is. “It should be a norm,” she told NPR/KHN.
Federal No Surprises Act is not Foolproof
Yuengling was charged an extraordinarily high amount for her procedure compared to other hospitals in her area. Fair Health Consumer estimates the cost of the procedure Yuengling received cost an average of $3,500 at other local hospitals. Uninsured patients likely pay even less.
A spokesperson for Grand Street Medical Center blamed the inaccurate estimate on “a glitch” in the payment estimator system. The hospital has since removed some procedures from the tool until it can be corrected. Yuengling initially disputed the charge with the hospital but in the end decided to pay the full amount she owed.
NPR/KHN recommends that insured patients consult with their health insurance company to get an estimate before any procedure. That is the purpose of the No Surprises Act which was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA).
The law requires health insurance companies to provide their members with an estimate of medical costs upon their request. The Act also empowers patients to file federal complaints about their medical bills.
Patients who find themselves in a similar situation to Yuengling may want to consider paying the cash price for the procedure. Although this may not be common practice, Jacqueline Fox, JD, a healthcare attorney and professor of law at the University of South Carolina’s Joseph F. Rice School of Law, told NPR/KHN that there is not a law she is aware of that would prohibit patients from doing so.
Anatomic pathology groups and clinical laboratories should check that their online prices and estimation tools comply with the No Surprises Act to ensure that what happened to Yuengling does not happen with their patients. They also could inform patients on how to pay cash for procedures if insurance rates are too high. Medical professionals and patients can work together to achieve transparency in healthcare pricing.
What researchers call “the largest proteomic study in the world” could lead to new clinical laboratory assays for determining genetic risk for multiple cancers
Examining blood proteins may be superior to clinical information in determining an individual’s risk for developing multiple diseases. That’s according to a new study conducted by researchers from the UK, America, and Germany who determined that measuring thousands of proteins from a single drop of blood can predict the onset of several illnesses.
The findings may provide clinical laboratories and physicians with new assays to more accurately predict an individual’s risk for more than 60 diseases.
“With data on genetic, imaging, lifestyle factors and health outcomes over many years, this will be the largest proteomic study in the world to be shared as a global scientific resource,” said Naomi Allen, MSc, DPhil, chief scientist at UK Biobank and professor of epidemiology, University of Oxford, in a UK Biobank news release. “These combined data could enable researchers to make novel scientific discoveries about how circulating proteins influence our health, and to better understand the link between genetics and human disease.”
“Measuring protein levels in the blood is crucial to understanding the link between genetic factors and the development of common life-threatening diseases,” said Naomi Allen, MSc, DPhil (above), chief scientist at UK Biobank and professor of epidemiology, University of Oxford, in a news release. With further study, this research could lead to new clinical laboratory assays that help physicians predict an individual’s risk for certain diseases including many forms of cancer. (Photo copyright: UK Biobank.)
Protein Signatures Outperform PSA Testing
To conduct their research, the team collected data from the UK Biobank Pharma Proteomics Project (UKB-PPP). This initiative is “one of the world’s largest studies of blood protein concentrations” and “aims to significantly enhance the field of ‘proteomics,’ enabling better understanding of disease processes and supporting innovative drug development,” according to the Biobank’s website.
The scientists analyzed the values of approximately 3,000 plasma proteins among 41,931 participants in the UKB-PPP. They examined the 10-year potential of developing certain diseases by measuring the plasma proteome and linking those observations to incident cases noted in electronic health records (EHRs).
The team specifically looked at the pathology types for several illnesses and utilized advanced techniques to identify a signature of proteins associated with those various diseases. They found their protein-based model exceeded traditional prediction methods when comparing the models with polygenic risk scores.
“We are therefore extremely excited about the opportunities that our protein signatures may have for earlier detection and ultimately improved prognosis for many diseases, including severe conditions such as Multiple myeloma and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis,” she added. “We identified so many promising examples; the next step is to select high priority diseases and evaluate their proteomic prediction in a clinical setting.”
Identifying Individuals at High Risk for Certain Diseases
Of the thousands of known proteins in humans, the team focused on about 20 proteins found in blood. With as few as five proteins and as many as 20, they were able to do a risk assessment on 67 diseases, including:
The model could prove to be beneficial in the development of new therapies for certain diseases.
“A key challenge in drug development is the identification of patients most likely to benefit from new medicines. This work demonstrates the promise in the use of large-scale proteomic technologies to identify individuals at high risk across a wide range of diseases, and aligns with our approach to use tech to deepen our understanding of human biology and disease,” said Robert Scott, vice president and head of human genetics and genomics, GSK, and co-lead author of the study in the UCL news release.
“Further work will extend these insights and improve our understanding of how they are best applied to support improved success rates and increased efficiency in drug discovery and development,” he added.
“We are extremely excited about the opportunity to identify new markers for screening and diagnosis from the thousands of proteins circulating and now measurable in human blood,” said Claudia Langenberg, PhD, director of the Precision Healthcare University Research Institute (PHURI) at Queen Mary University of London and professor of computational medicine at the Berlin Institute of Health, in the UCL news release. “What we urgently need are proteomic studies of different populations to validate our findings, and effective tests that can measure disease relevant proteins according to clinical standards with affordable methods.”
More research and studies are needed before the protein-based model can be used to predict disease in clinical settings. However, the model could someday provide clinical laboratories, pathologists, and physicians with new assays that more accurately forecast an individual’s risk for certain illnesses.
