Though PCR clinical laboratory testing is widely used, some scientists are concerned its specificity may limit the ability to identify all variants of bird flu in wastewater
Wastewater testing of infectious agents appears to be here to stay. At the same time, there are differences of opinion about which methodologies and clinical laboratory tests are best suited to screen for specific contagions in wastewater. One such contagion is avian influenza, the virus that causes bird flu.
Wastewater testing by public health officials became a valuable tool during the COVID-19 pandemic and has now become a common method for detecting other diseases as well. For example, earlier this year, scientists used wastewater testing to learn how the H5N1 variant of the bird flu virus was advancing among dairy herds across the country.
In late March, the bird flu was first detected in dairy cattle in Texas, prompting scientists to begin examining wastewater samples to track the virus. Some researchers, however, expressed concerns about the ability of sewage test assays to detect all variants of certain diseases.
“Right now we are using these sort of broad tests to test for influenza A viruses,” Denis Nash, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Epidemiology at City University of New York (CUNY) and Executive Director of CUNY’s Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health (SPH), told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s possible there are some locations around the country where the primers being used in these tests might not work for H5N1.” Clinical laboratory PCR genetic testing is most commonly used to screen for viruses in wastewater. (Photo copyright: CUNY SPH.)
Effectiveness of PCR Wastewater Testing
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are most commonly used to distinguish genetic material related to a specific illness such as the flu virus. For PCR tests to correctly identify a virus, the tests must be designed to look for a specific subtype. The two most prevalent human influenza A viruses are known as H1N1 (swine flu) and H3N2, which was responsible for the 1968 pandemic that killed a million people worldwide. The “H” stands for hemagglutinin and the “N” for neuraminidase.
Hemagglutinin is a glycoprotein that assists the virus to attach to and infect host cells. Neuraminidase is an enzyme found in many pathogenic or symbiotic microorganisms that separates the links between neuraminic acids in various molecules.
Avian flu is also an influenza A virus, but it has the subtype H5N1. Although human and bird flu viruses both contain the N1 signal, they do not share an H. Some scientists fear that—in cases where a PCR test only looks for H1 and H3 in wastewater—that test could miss the bird flu altogether.
“We don’t have any evidence of that. It does seem like we’re at a broad enough level that we don’t have any evidence that we would not pick up H5,” Jonathan Yoder, Deputy Director, Infectious Disease Readiness and Innovation at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told the Los Angeles Times.
The CDC asserts current genetic testing methods are standardized and will detect the bird flu. Yoder also affirmed the tests being used at all the testing sites are the same assay, based on information the CDC has published regarding testing for influenza A viruses.
Genetic Sequencing Finds H5N1 in Texas Wastewater
In an article published on the preprint server medRxiv titled, “Virome Sequencing Identifies H5N1 Avian Influenza in Wastewater from Nine Cities,” the authors wrote, “using an agnostic, hybrid-capture sequencing approach, we report the detection of H5N1 in wastewater in nine Texas cities, with a total catchment area population in the millions, over a two-month period from March 4th to April 25th, 2024.”
The authors added, “Although human to human transmission is rare, infection has been fatal in nearly half of patients who have contracted the virus in past outbreaks. The increasing presence of the virus in domesticated animals raises substantial concerns that viral adaptation to immunologically naïve humans may result in the next flu pandemic.”
“So, it’s not just targeting one virus—or one of several viruses—as one does with PCR testing,” Eric Boerwinkle, PhD, Dean of the UTHealth Houston School of Public Health told the LA Times. “We’re actually in a very complex mixture, which is wastewater, pulling down viruses and sequencing them. What’s critical here is it’s very specific to H5N1.”
Epidemiologist Blake Hanson, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences at the UT Health Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Science, agreed with Boerwinkle that though the PCR-based methodology is highly effective at detecting avian flu in wastewater samples, the testing can do more.
“We have the ability to look at the representation of the entire genome, not just a marker component of it. And so that has allowed us to look at H5N1, differentiate it from some of our seasonal fluids like H1N1 and H3N2,” Hanson told the LA Times. “It’s what gave us high confidence that it is entirely H5N1, whereas the other papers are using a part of the H5 gene as a marker for H5.”
Human or Animal Sources
Both Boerwinkle and Hanson are epidemiologists in the team studying wastewater samples for H5N1 in Texas. They are not sure where the virus originated but are fairly certain it did not come from humans.
“Texas is really a confluence of a couple of different flyways for migratory birds, and Texas is also an agricultural state, despite having quite large cities,” Boerwinkle noted. “It’s probably correct that if you had to put your dime and gamble what was happening, it’s probably coming from not just one source but from multiple sources. We have no reason to think that one source is more likely any one of those things.”
“Because we are looking at the entirety of the genome, when we look at the single human H5N1 case, the genomic sequence has a hallmark amino acid change, compared to all of the cattle from that same time point,” Hanson said. “We do not see that hallmark amino acid present in any of our sequencing data. And we’ve looked very carefully for that, which gives us some confidence that we’re not seeing human-human transmission.”
CDC Updates on Bird Flu
In its weekly updates on the bird flu situation, the CDC reported that 48 states have outbreaks in poultry and 14 states have avian flu outbreaks in dairy cows. More than 238 dairy herds have been affected and, as of September 20, over 100 million poultry have been affected by the disease.
In addition, the CDC monitored more than 4,900 people who came into contact with an infected animal. Though about 230 of those individuals have been tested for the disease, there have only been a total of 14 reported human cases in the US.
The CDC posts information specifically for laboratory workers, healthcare providers, and veterinarians on its website.
The CDC also states that the threat from avian flu to the general public is low. Individuals at an increased risk for infection include people who work around infected animals and those who consume products containing raw, unpasteurized cow’s milk.
Symptoms of H5N1 in humans may include fever or chills, cough, headaches, muscle or body aches, runny or stuffy nose, tiredness and shortness of breath. Symptoms typically surface two to eight days after exposure.
Scientists and researchers have been seeking a reliable clinical laboratory test for disease organisms in a fast, accurate, and cost-effective manner. Wastewater testing of infectious agents could fulfill those goals and appears to be a technology that will continue to be used for tracking disease.
Already-existing clinical laboratory blood test may be new standard for detecting Alzheimer’s biomarkers
In Sweden, an independent study of an existing blood test for Alzheimer’s disease—called ALZpath—determined that this diagnostic assay appears to be “just as good as, if not surpass, lumbar punctures and expensive brain scans at detecting signs of Alzheimer’s in the brain,” according to a report published by The Guardian.
Alzheimer’s disease is one of the worst forms of dementia and it affects more than six million people annually according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Clinical laboratory testing to diagnose the illness traditionally involves painful, invasive spinal taps and brain scans. For that reason, researchers from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden wanted to evaluate the performance of the ALZpath test when compared to these other diagnostic procedures.
Motivated to seek a less costly, less painful, Alzheimer’s biomarker for clinical laboratory testing, neuroscientist Nicholas Ashton, PhD, Assistant Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, led a team of scientists that looked at other common biomarkers used to identify changes in the brain of Alzheimer’s patients. That led them to tau protein-based blood tests and specifically to the ALZpath blood test for Alzheimer’s disease developed by ALZpath, Inc., of Carlsbad, Calif.
In their JAMA article, they wrote, “the pTau217 immunoassay showed similar accuracies to cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in identifying abnormal amyloid β (Aβ) and tau pathologies.”
In an earlier article published in medRxiv, Ashton et al wrote, “Phosphorylated tau (pTau) is a specific blood biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, with pTau217 considered to have the most utility. However, availability of pTau217 tests for research and clinical use has been limited.”
Thus, the discovery of an existing pTau217 assay (ALZpath) that is accessible and affordable is a boon to Alzheimer’s patients and to the doctors who treat them.
“The ALZpath pTau217 assay showed high diagnostic accuracy in identifying elevated amyloid (AUC, 0.92-0.96; 95%CI 0.89-0.99) and tau (AUC, 0.93-0.97; 95%CI 0.84-0.99) in the brain across all cohorts. These accuracies were significantly higher than other plasma biomarker combinations and equivalent to CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] biomarkers,” an ALZpath press release noted.
“This is an instrumental finding in blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s, paving the way for the clinical use of the ALZpath pTau217 assay,” stated Henrik Zetterberg, MD, PhD (above), Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg and co-author of the study. “This robust assay is already used in multiple labs around the globe.” Clinical laboratories may soon be receiving doctors’ orders for pTau217 blood tests for Alzheimer’s patients. (Photo copyright: University of Gothenburg.)
Study Details
Ashton’s team conducted a cohort study that “examined data from three single-center observational cohorts.” The cohorts included:
“Participants included individuals with and without cognitive impairment grouped by amyloid and tau (AT) status using PET or CSF biomarkers. Data were analyzed from February to June 2023,” the researchers wrote.
These trials from the US, Canada, and Spain featured 786 participants and featured “either a lumbar puncture or an amyloid PET scan to identify signs of amyloid and tau proteins—hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease,” The Guardian reported, adding that results of the University of Gothenburg’s study showed that the ALZpath pTau217 blood test “was superior to brain atrophy assessments, in identifying signs of Alzheimer’s.”
“80% of individuals could be definitively diagnosed on a blood test without any other investigation,” Ashton told The Guardian.
Diagnosis Needed to Receive Alzheimer’s Disease Treatments
“If you’re going to receive [the new drugs], you need to prove that you have amyloid in the brain,” Ashton told The Guardian. “It’s just impossible to do spinal taps and brain scans on everyone that would need it worldwide. So, this is where the blood test [has] a huge potential.”
Even countries where such drugs were not yet available (like the UK) would benefit, Ashton said, because the test, “Could potentially say that this is not Alzheimer’s disease and it could be another type of dementia, which would help to direct the patient’s management and treatment routine.”
However, Ashton himself noted the limitations of the new findings—specifically that there is no success shown yet in Alzheimer’s drugs being taken by symptom-free individuals.
“If you do have amyloid in the brain at 50 years of age, the blood test will be positive,” he said. “But what we recommend, and what the guidelines recommend with these blood tests, is that these are to help clinicians—so someone must have had some objective concern that they have Alzheimer’s disease, or [that] their memory is declining,” he told The Guardian.
Experts on the Study Findings
“Blood tests could be used to screen everyone over 50-years old every few years, in much the same way as they are now screened for high cholesterol,” David Curtis, MD, PhD, Honorary Professor in the Genetics, Evolution and Environment department at University College London, told The Guardian.
“Results from these tests could be clear enough to not require further follow-up investigations for some people living with Alzheimer’s disease, which could speed up the diagnosis pathway significantly in future,” Richard Oakley, PhD, Associate Director of Research and Innovation at the Alzheimer’s Society, UK, told The Guardian.
Though Oakley found the findings promising, he pointed out what should come next. “We still need to see more research across different communities to understand how effective these blood tests are across everyone who lives with Alzheimer’s disease,” he said.
“Expanding access to this highly accurate Alzheimer’s disease biomarker is crucial for wider evaluation and implementation of AD blood tests,” the researchers wrote in JAMA Neurology.
“ALZpath makers are in discussions with labs in the UK to launch it for clinical use this year, and one of the co-authors, Henrik Zetterberg, MD, PhD, Professor of Neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, is making the assay available for research use as part of the ‘biomarker factory’ at UCL,” The Guardian reported.
In the US, to be prescribed any of the available Alzheimer’s medications, a doctor must diagnose that the patient has amyloid in the brain. A pTau217 diagnostic blood test could be used to make such a diagnosis. Currently, however, the test is only available “for research studies through select partner labs,” Time reported.
“But later this month, doctors in the US will be able to order the test for use with patients. (Some laboratory-developed tests performed by certain certified labs don’t require clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration.),” Time added.
It may be that the University of Gothenburg study will encourage Alzheimer’s doctors in the UK and around the world to consider ordering pTau217 diagnostic blood tests from clinical laboratories, rather than prescribing spinal taps and brains scans for their Alzheimer’s patients.
The KCL researchers’ new models for predicting which patients will need hospitalization and breathing support may be useful for pathologists and clinical laboratory scientists
One more window into understanding the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus may have just opened. A British study identified six distinct “clusters” of symptoms that the research scientists believe may help predict which patients diagnosed with COVID-19 will require hospitalization and respiratory support. If further research confirms these early findings, pathologists and medical laboratory managers may gain new tools to diagnose infections faster and more accurately.
Launched in March in the United Kingdom and extended to the United States and Sweden, the app has attracted more than four million users who track their health and potential COVID symptoms on a daily basis.
Increased Accuracy in Predicting COVID-19 Hospitalizations
KCL researchers identified six distinct “types” of COVID-19, each distinguished by a particular cluster of symptoms. They include headaches, muscle pains, fatigue, diarrhea, confusion, loss of appetite, shortness of breath, and more. The researchers also found that COVID-19 disease progression and outcome also vary significantly between people, ranging from mild flu-like symptoms or a simple rash to severe or fatal conditions.
Using app data logged by 1,600 users in March and April, the researchers developed an algorithm that combined information on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and pre-existing conditions with recorded symptoms from the onset of the illness through the first five days. The researchers then tested the algorithm using a second independent dataset of 1,000 users, logged in May.
In a news release, the KCL researchers identified the six clusters of symptoms as:
Flu-like with No Fever: Headache, loss of smell, muscle pains, cough, sore throat, chest pain, no fever.
Flu-like with Fever: Headache, loss of smell, cough, sore throat, hoarseness, fever, loss of appetite.
Gastrointestinal: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, diarrhea, sore throat, chest pain, no cough.
Severe Level One, Fatigue: Headache, loss of smell, cough, fever, hoarseness, chest pain, fatigue.
Severe Level Two, Confusion: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, cough, fever, hoarseness, sore throat, chest pain, fatigue, confusion, muscle pain.
Severe Level Three, Abdominal and Respiratory: Headache, loss of smell, loss of appetite, cough, fever, hoarseness, sore throat, chest pain, fatigue, confusion, muscle pain, shortness of breath, diarrhea, abdominal pain.
Using the data, the researchers were able to more accurately predict—78.8% versus 69.5%—which of the six symptom clusters placed patients at higher risk of requiring hospitalization and breathing support (ventilation or additional oxygen) than with prediction models based on personal characteristics alone. For example, nearly 50% of the patients in cluster six (Severe Level Three, Abdominal and Respiratory) ended up in the hospital, compared with 16% of those in cluster one (Flu-like with No Fever).
“These findings have important implications for care and monitoring of people who are most vulnerable to severe COVID-19,” Claire Steves, MD, PhD (above left), Clinical Senior Lecturer at King’s College London, said in the KCL news release. “If you can predict who these people are at day five, you have time to give them support and early interventions, such as monitoring blood oxygen and sugar levels, and ensuring they are properly hydrated—simple care that could be given at home, preventing hospitalizations and saving lives.” (Photo copyright: King’s College London.)
According to the Zoe website, the ongoing research is led by:
Prof. Tim Spector, FMedSci, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London and Director of TwinsUK, an adult registry of twins in the United Kingdom;
Andrew Chan, MD, Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Chief of the Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit, CTEU Massachusetts General Hospital; and
Encouraging Everyone to Use the COVID-Symptom Study App
The study points out that—broadly speaking—people with cluster four, five, or six COVID-19 symptoms tended to be older and frailer and were more likely to be overweight and have pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes or lung disease, than those with cluster one, two, or three symptoms.
“Our study illustrates the importance of monitoring symptoms over time to make our predictions about individual risk and outcomes more sophisticated and accurate,” said lead researcher Carole Sudre, PhD (above), a Research Fellow at King’s College London and the study’s lead researcher, in the KCL news release. “This approach is helping us to understand the unfolding story of this disease in each patient so they can get the best care.” (Photo copyright: University College London.)
Tim Spector, FMedSci, Head of the Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, and Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, encourages everyone to download the COVID Symptom Study app and help increase the data available to researchers.
“Data is our most powerful tool in the fight against COVID-19,” Spector said in the KCL news release. “We urge everyone to get in the habit of using the app daily to log their health over the coming months, helping us to stay ahead of any local hotspots or a second wave of infections.”
As the body of knowledge surrounding COVID-19 grows, clinical laboratory professionals would be well advised to remain informed on further research regarding not only the potential for COVID-19 variants to exist, but also the evolving guidance on infection prevention and testing.
In the absence of a “gold standard,” researchers are finding a high frequency of false negatives among SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests
Serology tests designed to detect antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness have been dogged by well-publicized questions about accuracy. However, researchers also are raising concerns about the accuracy of molecular diagnostics which claim to detect the actual presence of the coronavirus itself.
“Diagnostic tests, typically involving a nasopharyngeal swab, can be inaccurate in two ways,” said Steven Woloshin, MD, MS, in a news release announcing a new report that “examines challenges and implications of false-negative COVID-19 tests.” Woloshin is an internist, a professor at Dartmouth Institute, and co-director of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.
“A false-positive result mistakenly labels a person infected, with consequences including unnecessary quarantine and contact tracing,” he stated in the news release. “False-negative results are far more consequential, because infected persons who might be asymptomatic may not be isolated and can infect others.”
Woloshin led a team of Dartmouth researchers who analyzed two studies from Wuhan, China, and a literature review by researchers in Europe and South America that indicated diagnostic tests for COVID-19 are frequently generating false negatives. The team published their results in the June 5 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
For example, one research team in Wuhan collected samples from 213 hospitalized COVID-19 patients and found that an approved RT-PCR test produced false negatives in 11% of sputum samples, 27% of nasal samples, and 40% of throat samples. Their research was published on the medRxiv preprint server and has not been peer-reviewed.
The literature review Woloshin’s team studied was also published on medRxiv, titled, “False-Negative Results of Initial Rt-PCR Assays for COVID-19: A Systematic Review.” It indicated that the rate of false negatives could be as high as 29%. The authors of the review looked at five studies that had enrolled a total of 957 patients. “The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability,” they wrote. “Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection.”
Another literature review, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, titled, “Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction–Based SARS-CoV-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure,” estimated the probability of false negatives in RT-PCR tests at varying intervals from the time of exposure and symptom onset. For example, the authors found that the median false-negative rate was 38% if a test was performed on the day of symptom onset, versus 20% three days after onset. Their analysis was based on seven studies, five of which were peer-reviewed, with a total of 1330 test samples.
Doctors also are seeing anecdotal evidence of false negatives. For example, clinicians at UC San Diego Health medical center treated a patient with obvious symptoms of COVID-19, but two tests performed on throat samples were negative. However, a third test, using a sample from a bronchial wash, identified the virus, reported Medscape.
Sensitivity and Specificity of COVID-19 Clinical Laboratory Tests
The key measures of test accuracy are sensitivity, which refers to the ability to detect the presence of the virus, and specificity, the ability to determine that the targeted pathogen is not present. “So, a sensitive test is less likely to provide a false-negative result and a specific test is less likely to provide a false-positive result,” wrote Kirsten Meek, PhD, medical writer and editor, in an article for ARUP Laboratories.
“Analytic” sensitivity and specificity “represent the accuracy of a test under ideal conditions in which specimens have been collected from patients with either high viral loads or a complete absence of exposure,” she wrote. However, “sensitivity and specificity under real-world conditions, in which patients are more variable and specimen collection may not be ideal, can often be lower than reported numbers.”
In a statement defending its ID Now molecular point-of-care test, which came under scrutiny during a study of COVID-19 molecular tests by NYU Langone Health, Northwell Health, and Cleveland Clinic, according to MedTech Dive, Abbott Laboratories blamed improper sample collection and handling for highly-publicized false negatives produced by its rapid test. An FDA issued alert about the test on May 14 noted that Abbott had agreed to conduct post-market studies to identify the cause of the false negatives and suggest remedial actions.
Issues with Emergency Use Authorizations
In their NEJM analysis, Woloshin et al point to issues with the FDA’s process for issuing Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs). For example, they noted variations in how manufacturers are conducting clinical evaluations to determine test performance. “The FDA prefers the use of ‘natural clinical specimens’ but has permitted the use of ‘contrived specimens’ produced by adding viral RNA or inactivated virus to leftover clinical material,” they wrote.
When evaluating clinical performance, manufacturers ordinarily conduct an index test of patients and compare the results with reference-standard test, according to the Dartmouth researchers. For people showing symptoms, the reference standard should be a clinical diagnosis performed by an independent adjudication panel. However, they wrote, “it is unclear whether the sensitivity of any FDA-authorized commercial test has been assessed in this way.” Additionally, a reference standard for determining sensitivity in asymptomatic people “is an unsolved problem that needs urgent attention to increase confidence in test results for contact-tracing or screening purposes.”
“To truly determine false negatives, you need a gold standard test, which is essentially as close to perfect as we can get,” Stephen Rawlings, MD, PhD, (above), a resident physician of internal medicine and infectious diseases fellow at UC San Diego’s Center for AIDS Research (CFAR), who has been working on SARS-CoV-2 test validation since March. “But there just isn’t one yet for coronavirus,” he told Medscape. (Photo copyright: University of California, San Diego.)
Continued adherence to current measures, such as physical distancing and surface disinfection.
Development of highly sensitive and specific tests or combinations of tests to minimize the risk of false-negative results and ongoing transmission based on a false sense of security.
Improved RT-PCR tests and serological assays.
Development and communication of clear risk-stratified protocols for management of negative COVID-19 test results.
“These protocols must evolve as diagnostic test, transmission, and outcome statistics become more available,” they wrote.
Meanwhile, clinical laboratories remain somewhat on their own at selecting which COVID-19 molecular and serology tests they want to purchase and run in their labs. Complicating such decisions is the fact that many of the nation’s most reputable in vitro diagnostics manufacturers cannot produce enough of their COVID-19 tests to meet demand.
Consequently, when looking to purchase tests for SARS-CoV-2, smaller medical laboratory organizations find themselves evaluating COVID-19 kits developed by little-known or even brand-new companies.
