Researchers used CRISPR-based assays to develop new clinical laboratory point-of-care blood test which boasts accuracy, affordability, and accessibility
According to UPI, the test can “distinguish between influenza A and influenza B—the two main types of seasonal flu—as well as identifying more virulent strains like H1N1 and H3N2.”
Many research teams are working to develop paper-based diagnostic screening tests because of their lower cost to produce and usefulness in remote locations. Should this near-patient point-of-care test become clinically viable, it could mean shorter times to answer, enabling speedier diagnoses and earlier start of treatment.
It also means patient specimens do not have to be transported to a clinical laboratory for testing. And reduced cost per test makes it possible to test more people. This serves the public health aspect of monitoring outbreaks of influenza and other diseases and gives hope for improved treatment outcomes.
“Being able to tease apart what strain or subtype of influenza is infecting a patient has repercussions both for treating them and public health interventions, said Jon Arizti Sanz, PhD, co-lead study author and postdoctoral researcher at the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, in a Broad Institute news release.
“Ultimately, we hope these tests will be as simple as rapid antigen tests, and they’ll still have the specificity and performance of a nucleic acid test that would normally be done in a laboratory setting,” Cameron A. Myhrvold, PhD (above), Assistant Professor of Molecular Biology at Princeton University in New Jersey, told CIDRAP. Influenza tests that can be performed at the point of care and in remote locations may reduce the number of screening tests performed by clinical laboratories. (Photo copyright: Michael James Butts/Hertz Foundation.)
Her team developed their tests using Streamlined Highlighting of Infections to Navigate Epidemics (SHINE), “a clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-based RNA detection platform,” the researchers wrote in their Journal of Molecular Diagnostics paper.
“SHINE has a runtime of 90 minutes, can be used at room temperature and only requires an inexpensive heat block to heat the reaction. The SHINE technology has previously been used to identify SARS-CoV-2 and later to distinguish between the Delta and Omicron variants,” Bioanalysis Zone reported.
“The test uses genetically engineered enzymes to identify specific sequences of viral RNA in samples,” the researchers told UPI. Originally designed to detect COVID-19, the team adapted the technology to detect influenza in 2022 “with the aim of creating a screening tool that could be used in the field or in clinics rather than hospitals or high-tech diagnostic labs,” they said.
Influenza A and B as well as H1N1 and H3N2 subtypes were the targets of the four SHINE assays. “When tested on clinical samples, these optimized assays achieved 100% concordance with quantitative RT-PCR. Duplex Cas12a/Cas13a SHINE assays were also developed to detect two targets simultaneously,” the researchers wrote in their paper.
The team used “20 nasal swabs from people with flu-like symptoms during the 2020-2021 flu season, nasal fluid from healthy people as the control, and 2016-2021 influenza sequences downloaded from the National Center for Biotechnology Information Influenza (NICB) database. They compared the results with those from quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests,” CIDRAP reported.
The original 2020 test (shown above) takes 90 minutes to develop at room temperature. The test developers aim to drop this down to 15 minutes. In comparison, typical polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing requires medical laboratories to have specialized equipment, trained staff, and prolonged processing times, the Broad Institute news release notes. (Photo copyright: Broad Institute.)
Implications of the New Tests
The ease of the new tests is an important development since approximately only 1% of individuals who come down with the flu see doctors for testing, according to the news release. And researchers had this in mind, looking at speed, accuracy, and affordability as a means to “improve outbreak response and infection care around the world,” UPI reported.
There are great benefits to strain differentiation that be achieved with the new test. Doctors are hopeful the test will help dial in the best treatment plans for patients since some strains are resistant to the antiviral medication oseltamivir (Tamiflu), UPI noted. This is significant since Tamiflu “is a common antiviral,” said Sanz in the Broad Institute news release.
“These assays have the potential to expand influenza detection outside of clinical laboratories for enhanced influenza diagnosis and surveillance,” the Journal of Molecular Diagnostics paper noted. This allows for more strategic treatment planning.
“Using a paper strip readout instead of expensive fluorescence machinery is a big advancement, not only in terms of clinical care but also for epidemiological surveillance purposes,” said Ben Zhang, an MD candidate in the Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and co-first author of the study, in the Broad Institute news release.
Future Plans for Tests
“With further development, the test strip could be reprogrammed to distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and flu and recognize swine flu and avian flu, including the H5N1 subtype currently causing an outbreak in US dairy cattle,” the study authors told CIDRAP.
The team is also looking at ways to help prevent H5N1 from crossing into human contamination, Sanz told UPI.
The new Princeton/MIT/Harvard tests echo the trend to bring in affordability and ease-of-use with accurate results as an end goal. Faster results mean the best treatments for each person can start sooner and may render the transport of specimens to a clinical laboratory as a second step unnecessary.
As research teams work to develop paper-based viral tests for their plethora of benefits, clinical laboratories will want to pay close attention to this development as it can have a big implication on assisting with future outbreaks.
Additional research is needed before these tests are going to be commonplace in homes worldwide, but this first step brings inspiration and hope of what’s to come.
Dogs’ acute sense of smell can even surpass effectiveness of some clinical laboratory testing in detecting certain diseases in humans
When it comes to COVID-19 testing, a recent Italian study demonstrates that trained dogs can detect SARS-CoV-2 with accuracy comparable to rapid molecular tests used in clinical laboratories. The researchers wanted to determine if dogs could be more effective at screening people for COVID-19 at airports, schools, and other high-traffic environments as a way to detect the coronavirus and reduce the spread of this infectious disease.
Scientists at the State University of Milan in Italy conducted a study that shows dogs can be trained to accurately identify the presence of the COVID-19 infection from both biological samples and by simply smelling an individual.
For their validation study, the Italian team trained three dogs named Nala, Otto, and Helix, “to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in sweat samples from infected people. At the end of the training, the dogs achieved an average sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 99%, showing a level of accuracy highly consistent with that of the RT-PCR [reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction] used in molecular tests and a moderate to strong reproducibility over time,” Nature reported.
RT-PCR tests are the current gold-standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection. This is yet another example of scientists training dogs to smell a disease with “acceptable” accuracy. This time for COVID-19.
“We only recruited dogs that showed themselves predisposed and positively motivated to carry out this type of activity. One of the fundamental aspects was not to cause stress or anxiety in the subjects used,” Federica Pirrone, PhD (above), Associate Professor, Department of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, University of Milan, and one of the authors of the study told Lifegate. “Training always takes place using positive reinforcement of a food nature: whether it’s a particularly appetizing morsel, a biscuit, or something that associates the dog’s search with a rewarding prize.” In some instances, dogs have been shown to be as good or more effective at detecting certain diseases than clinical laboratory testing. (Photo copyright: Facebook.)
Dogs More Accurate than Rapid Antigen Testing
Nala and four other dogs (Nim, Hope, Iris and Chaos) were later trained by canine technicians from Medical Detection Dogs Italy (MDDI) to identify the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by directly smelling people waiting in line in pharmacies to get a nasal swab to test for the coronavirus.
Working with their handlers, the five dogs accurately signaled the presence or absence of the virus with 89% sensitivity and 95% specificity. That rate is “well above the minimum required by the WHO [World Health Organization] for rapid swabs for SARS-CoV-2,” according to Nature.
“The results of studies published so far on the accuracy of canine smell in detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in biological samples (e.g., saliva, sweat, urine, trachea-bronchial secretions) from infected people suggest that sniffer dogs might reach percentages of sensitivity and specificity comparable to, or perhaps even higher, than those of RT-PCR,” the scientists wrote in Scientific Reports.
“However, although most of these studies are of good quality, none of them provided scientific validation of canine scent detection, despite this being an important requirement in the chemical analysis practice. Therefore, further applied research in this field is absolutely justified to provide definitive validation of this biodetection method,” the researchers concluded.
Other Studies into Using Dogs for Detecting Disease
Scientists from the Division of Biological and Health Sciences, Department of Agriculture and Livestock at the University of Sonora; and the Canine Training Center Obi-K19, both in Hermosillo, Mexico, conducted the study “as part of a Frontiers of Science Project of the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT), in which in addition to analyzing sweat compounds, trained dogs are put to sniff the samples and make detections in people who show symptoms or could be positive for coronavirus,” Mexico Daily Post reported.
The researchers trained four dogs with sweat samples and three dogs with saliva samples of COVID-19 positive patients. The samples were obtained from a health center located in Hermosillo, Sonora, in Mexico. The dogs were restricted to spend five minutes per patient and the researchers calculated the performance of the dogs by measuring sensitivity, specificity, and their 95% confidence intervals (CI).
The researchers concluded that all four of the dogs could detect COVID-19 from either sweat or saliva samples “with sensitivity and specificity rates significantly different from random [sampling] in the field.” According to the Frontiers in Medicine study, the researchers found their results promising because, they said, it is reasonable to expect the detection rate would improve with longer exposure to the samples.
The objective of the Mexican researchers is for the dogs to ultimately reach the sensitivity range requested by WHO for the performance of an antigen test, which is at least 80% sensitivity and 97% specificity. If that goal is achieved, dogs could become important partners in the control of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientists wrote.
Data obtained so far from these studies indicate that biosensing dogs may represent an effective method of screening for COVID-19 as well as other diseases. More studies and clinical trials are needed before the widespread use of dogs might become feasible. Nevertheless, scientists all over the world are finding that Man’s best friend can be a powerful ally in the fight against the spread of deadly diseases.
In the meantime, the gold standard in COVID-19 testing will continue to be the FDA-cleared assays used by clinical laboratories throughout the United States.
The rapid diagnostic test costs less than $5 per unit and can be adapted for other diseases, the developers say, which opens a slew of possibilities for clinical laboratories
Just as the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus spurred deployment of new vaccine technology based on messenger RNA (mRNA), the COVID-19 pandemic also could prove to be a watershed for in vitro diagnostics (IVD) innovation in ways that benefit clinical laboratories.
A Penn Medicine news release noted that “The RAPID technology … transforms the binding event between the SARS-CoV-2 viral spike protein and its receptor in the human body, the protein ACE2 (which provides the entry point for the coronavirus to hook into and infect human cells), into an electrical signal that clinicians and technicians can detect. That signal allows the test to discriminate between infected and healthy human samples. The signal can be read through a desktop instrument or a smartphone.”
Though still in its early stages, the technique potentially offers dramatically lower costs and faster results than traditional RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) molecular tests. Moreover, the RAPID technology might be useful for identifying other types of biomarkers and could be the basis for diagnostic tests that help reduce the cost-per-test in medical laboratory testing while providing comparable sensitivity and specificity to existing methodologies.
Clinical trials began on January 5, 2021, and the Penn Medicine researchers say the IVD test technology can be applied to other infectious diseases, which, if proven accurate, would be a boon to clinical laboratory testing.
Diagnostic Test Results in Four Minutes for Less than $5/Test
According to the news release, the RAPID 1.0 (Real-time Accurate Portable Impedimetric Detection prototype 1.0) biosensor test costs less than $5 and can deliver results in four minutes. The researchers reported overall accuracy of 87.1% on (139) nasal swab samples and 90% on (50) saliva samples.
The technology uses electrodes that can be mass-produced at low cost on commercially-available screen printers, the researchers said. Results can be read on electronic devices connected to a PC or smartphone.
RAPID 1.0 (above) is a low-cost COVID-19 diagnostic test developed at the César de la Fuente clinical laboratory at the Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. At less than $5/test, plus the ability to be adapted to other diseases, clinical laboratories performing disease screenings in rural or remote locations may have a new tool in the fight against infections. (Photo copyright: University of Pennsylvania.)
Does Penn Medicine’s RAPID 1.0 Test Replace Traditional RT-PCR Testing?
In their published study, the Penn Medicine researchers cited the need for “fast, reliable, inexpensive, and scalable point-of-care diagnostics.”
RT-PCR tests, they said, “are limited by their requirement of a large laboratory space, high reagent costs, multistep sample preparation, and the potential for cross-contamination. Moreover, results usually take hours to days to become available.”
Researchers who have studied the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus know that it uses a spike-like protein to bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors on the surfaces of human cells.
As described in Penn Medicine’s published study, the biosensor contains ACE2 and other biochemical agents anchored to an electrode. When the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus attaches to the ACE2, the biosensor transforms the chemical reaction into an electrical signal that can be measured on a device known as a potentiostat.
The researchers tested their RAPID 1.0 technology with two commercially available potentiostat models:
The researchers initially developed the electrode as a printed circuit board, which is relatively expensive. To reduce costs, they constructed a version that uses filter paper as the main component. The researchers noted that one screen printer in a lab can produce 35,000 electrodes per day, including time needed to incorporate the chemical elements. “However, it must be noted that these steps can be fully automated into a production line for industrial purposes, drastically reducing time requirements,” they wrote.
The test can be performed at room temperature, they added, and total cost per unit is $4.67. Much of that—$4.50—is for functionalizing the ACE2 recognition agent. The cost for the bare electrode is just seven cents.
“The overall cost of RAPID may be further reduced through recombinant production of ACE2 and ACE2 variants,” the researchers said, adding that the RAPID 1.0 test can detect the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus at low concentrations correlating to the earliest stages of the COVID-19 disease.
The Penn Medicine research team was led by César de la Fuente, PhD (above), an Assistant Professor in Psychiatry, Microbiology, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and Bioengineering at the Perelman School of Medicine. “Prior to the pandemic, our lab was working on diagnostics for bacterial infections,” he said in the Penn Medicine news release. “But then, COVID-19 hit. We felt a responsibility to use our expertise to help—and the diagnostic space was ripe for improvements.” (Photo copyright: University of Pennsylvania.)
Testing Penn Medicine’s RAPID 1.0 Test
The researchers evaluated the technology in blinded tests with clinical samples from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. The evaluation included 139 nasal swab samples, of which 109 were determined to be COVID-19 positive by RT-PCR tests and clinical assessments. Among these, the RAPID test successfully detected the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in 91 samples, for a sensitivity rate of 83.5%. One sample was from a patient diagnosed with the highly contagious SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant B.1.1.7, which the test correctly identified as positive.
Among the 30 samples determined to be COVID negative, the RAPID test scored a specificity rate of 100%, meaning no false positives. Overall accuracy, including sensitivity and specificity, was 87.1%.
The researchers also analyzed 50 saliva samples: 13 COVID-positive and 37 COVID-negative. The test correctly identified all 13 positive samples but produced five false-positives among the 37 negative samples, for a specificity rate of 86.5%. The researchers speculated that this could be due to interactions between ACE2 and other biomolecules in the saliva but suggested that performance “will improve when using fresh saliva samples at the point-of-care.”
Are There Other Applications for the RAPID Test?
The Penn Medicine news release said the RAPID technology can be adapted to detect other viruses, including those that cause Influenza and sexually-transmitted diseases.
Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, said the test points to one silver lining in the COVID-19 pandemic. “Researchers around the world intensified their work to find ways to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus that are faster, cheaper, and more accurate than the diagnostic technologies that existed at the time of the outbreak. In this regard, the COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated the development and refinement of useful diagnostic technologies that will disrupt long-established methods of testing.”
Marcelo Der Torossian Torres, PhD, postdoctoral researcher at Penn Medicine and lead author of the study, said in the news release, “Quick and reliable tests like RAPID allow for high-frequency testing, which can help identify asymptomatic individuals who, once they learn they are infected, will stay home and decrease spread.
“We envision this type of test being able to be used at high-populated locations such as schools, airports, stadiums, companies—or even in one’s own home,” he added.
Clinical laboratory managers may want to stay current on the development and possible commercialization of the RAPID 1.0 (Real-time Accurate Portable Impedimetric Detection prototype 1.0) biosensor test by the research team at Penn Medicine.
Developers of medical laboratory tests had high hopes that cheap saliva-based tests would compete with at-home OTC tests that use nasal swabs, but skepticism among scientists continues
Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technology has become the standard for clinical laboratory diagnostic testing used to detect the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. However, to enable more widespread testing, some public health experts have called for deployment of cheap, rapid, saliva-based antigen tests that could be self-administered by consumers in their homes.
Despite the technology’s lower sensitivity compared with RT-PCR testing, the idea of “fast-and-frequent” universal antigen testing has gained support as a possible game-changer against the outbreak, the New York Times reported.
The FDA recently took a step in this direction with its first emergency use authorization for the Ellume COVID-19 at-home antigen test. But other developments suggest that these tests may fall short of the lofty vision initially outlined by the experts.
Ellume’s COVID-19 Home Test (above) received emergency use authorization from the FDA on December 15. In a press release, Ellume claimed its rapid-antigen test, “demonstrated a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100%, and in asymptomatic individuals, the test demonstrated a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 96%. This level of accuracy across both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals is crucial in mitigating the spread of an infectious disease like COVID-19.” (Photo copyright: Ellume.)
The Promise of Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Tests
In a column he wrote for Time in July, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, a practicing General Internist and Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, described the promise of rapid antigen tests. “Imagine spitting on a special strip of paper every morning and being told two minutes later whether you were positive for COVID-19,” he wrote. “If everyone in the United States did this daily, we would dramatically drop our transmission rates and bring the pandemic under control.”
Another advocate for this approach is Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a core member of the School’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics (CCDD). In a commentary for Time in November he wrote, “Widespread and frequent rapid antigen testing (public health screening to suppress outbreaks) is the best possible tool we have at our disposal today—and we are not using it.”
However, one major issue with antigen testing is sensitivity. “Antigen tests require higher levels of virus than qPCR [quantitative polymerase chain reaction] to return a positive result,” Jha wrote in Time. However, he contends, “the frequency of testing and the speed of results” counter concerns about accuracy.
Even with lower sensitivity, Jha wrote, the quicker test results from antigen tests “would identify viral loads during the most infectious period, meaning those cases we care most about identifying—at the peak period of infectiousness—are less likely to be missed.”
As the FDA explains, RT-PCR molecular tests “detect the virus’ genetic material,” whereas, according to an article published in Nature, titled, “Fast Coronavirus Tests: What They Can and Can’t Do,” antigen tests can “detect specific proteins … on the surface of the virus, and can identify people who are at the peak of infection, when virus levels in the body are likely to be high.”
At-Home Antigen Tests Receive EUAs
The new antigen test developed by Ellume is “the first over-the-counter (OTC) fully at-home diagnostic test for COVID-19,” the FDA said in a press release. The user self-administers a nasal swab and places it in an analyzer connected to a smartphone app. It can deliver results in 20 minutes. The company states that its test has overall sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 97% based on a clinical study of 198 subjects in a simulated home setting.
Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, Director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the FDA press release, “This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab. However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”
Ellume expects to deliver about 20 million tests to the US by the end of June 2021. Multiple outlets reported that the test will cost about $30, AP News reported.
Meanwhile, the FDA also authorized at-home use of Abbott’s BinaxNOW rapid antigen test, which was previously authorized for use in point-of-care settings. This test, which requires a prescription, will sell for $25.
In a series of tweets, Harvard’s Mina applauded both moves, but he wrote that they [antigen tests] still fall short of his vision for fast and frequent testing. He described Abbott’s BinaxNOW as “the type of rapid test I have been calling for,” but said he’d like to see tests priced far less and available without a prescription.
Diminishing Prospects for Saliva-based Antigen Tests?
All rapid antigen tests authorized by the FDA so far require nasopharyngeal and/or nasal swab specimens, and it appears that it may be a long time, if ever, before saliva-based antigen tests are available. The New York Times (NYT) reported in October that two companies working on antigen tests—E25Bio and OraSure (NASDAQ:OSUR)—have dropped plans to enable use of saliva.
“If I was placing a bet—which I am, because I’m leading an antigen-based testing company—I would say it’s going to be very difficult for antigen-based testing to work on saliva samples,” E25Bio founder Bobby Brooke Herrera, PhD (above with E25Bio co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Irene Bosch) told the NYT. (Photo copyright: WCVB-TV.)
One advantage of a saliva-based test is that it would be easier to self-administer. “But as they continued to tinker with their tests, researchers at both E25Bio and OraSure found saliva’s performance to be more lackluster than anticipated, and were forced to pivot,” the New York Times reported. Instead, both companies will seek authorization for use of their tests with nasal swabs.
HHS Contract for Antigen Tests Brings High Rates of False Positives
A recent investigative story in ProPublica, titled, “Rapid Testing Is Less Accurate than the Government Wants to Admit,” raised additional questions about rapid antigen testing. In August, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced it had awarded a $760 million contract for 150 million Abbott BinaxNOW tests to be distributed to schools and nursing homes. But later, according to ProPublica, healthcare workers in Nevada and Vermont reported high rates of false positives.
“With the benefit of hindsight, experts said the Trump administration should have released antigen tests primarily to communities with outbreaks instead of expecting them to work just as well in large groups of asymptomatic people,” ProPublica reported. “Understanding they can produce false results; the government could have ensured that clinics had enough for repeat testing to reduce false negatives and access to more precise PCR tests to weed out false positives.”
A few weeks after the reports from Nevada and Vermont, the FDA issued a letter advising clinical laboratories and healthcare providers about the possibility of false positives, along with steps they could take to improve accuracy.
Though some experts remain hopeful about “fast-and-frequent” testing, others are skeptical and say more research is needed to assess the value of this approach. “We are open to thinking outside the box and coming up with new ways to handle this pandemic,” Esther Babady PhD, D(ABMM) of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told the New York Times. However, she added, “the data for that is what’s missing.”
Nevertheless, were at-home rapid saliva-based antigen tests to become a common choice for healthcare consumers, clinical laboratories that perform RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 could see a marked decrease in orders. Thus, regardless of the current state of antigen testing, its development is worth watching.
As mandatory screenings for private industry workers increases, some states launch free COVID-19 testing for state employees, while engaging medical laboratories to provide such testing
Amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, welcoming employees back to work is not as simple as opening the company’s doors. Businesses based in some areas of the US and Canada are being required by state and provincial governments to conduct employee COVID-19 screenings. For clinical laboratories, the increase in mandatory screening programs could mean an expanding market for employee testing programs and opportunities for lab outreach programs.
But companies and medical laboratories may also face legal and regulatory risks as workplaces reopen and people return.
For example, how do clinical laboratory managers ensure their labs have the information they need to respond to new rules and regulations, and do employers have recourse should an employee receive a COVID-19 test report with an incorrect result?
Not COVID-19 Screening Can Lead to Fines, Imprisonment
Is there existence of “new or worsening symptoms,” such as fever or chills, difficulty breathing, and cough?
Has the employee travelled outside Canada in the past 14 days?
Has the employee had close contact with other confirmed or “probable” COVID-19 cases?
A “probable” case is “a person with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 AND in whom laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is inconclusive,” according to a blog post by Justin P’ng, Employment and Labor Lawyer/Associate at international law firm Fasken in Toronto.
“Employers [in Ontario] must now specifically comply with the requirements of the Screening Tool and to implement such screening at any physical workplaces it operates in the province,” P’ng wrote. “Failure to comply can lead to significant penalties, including potentially fines and imprisonment under the legislation.”
It is possible the new requirements may ease Ontario workers’ minds about heading back to work during the pandemic. A Canadian workforce survey of employers and employees during July 2020 by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Canada found:
Most employers (78%) expect a return to the workplace in 2020.
Just one in five employees indicated they want to go back to the workplace full-time.
Michigan Makes Remote Work Mandatory
In the US, state rules enforced by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) require employers—for infection prevention reasons—to establish remote work programs for employees, unless it is not feasible for employees to work away from the workplace.
“The employer shall create a policy prohibiting in-person work for employees to the extent that their work activities can feasibly be completed remotely,” MIOSHA said.
Similar to the Ontario law, Michigan employers are also required to establish COVID-19 screenings. The MIOSHA rules direct employers to “conduct a daily entry self-screening protocol for all employees or contractors entering the workplace, including, at a minimum, a questionnaire covering symptoms and suspected or confirmed exposure to people with possible COVID-19, together with, if possible, a temperature screening.”
Michigan employers not in compliance with the state’s requirements for office work may be fined up to $7,000 per violation, a McDonald Hopkins Insights article noted.
Furthermore, anti-retaliation law in Michigan prohibits employers from terminating or “retaliating against” employees who oppose violation of the law or report COVID-19 “health violations,” the McDonald Hopkins Insights article added.
However, Michigan businesses may have protection under the COVID-19 Response and Reopening Liability Assurance Act. The law states a “person who acts in compliance with all federal, state, and local statutes, rules, regulations, executive orders, and agency orders related to COVID-19 that had not been denied legal effect at the time of the conduct or risk that allegedly caused harm is immune from liability for a COVID-19 claim.”
The law defines a “person” as “an individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity, including, but not limited to, a school, a college or university, an institution of higher education, and a nonprofit charitable organization. Person includes an employee, agent, or independent contractor of the person, regardless of whether the individual is paid or an unpaid volunteer.”
New York Launches Free RT-PCR Tests for Transit Employees
Meanwhile, in New York, free COVID-19 tests are now available on a voluntary basis to 2,000 frontline employees of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a news release states.
“Quality COVID-19 testing is critical to helping our nation’s frontline workers do their jobs as safely as possible,” Wendi Mader, Executive Director of Employer Population Health at Quest Diagnostics, said in the news release.
New Special Report Available on COVID-19 Employee Testing Programs
As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic progresses, laws, regulations, and rules pertaining to COVID-19 employee testing and screening will likely continue to develop—and they will vary by area and by test type—making them a challenge to interpret, track, and ensure compliance.
This exclusive report offers guidance, best practices, and insights necessary to launch and operate high quality, compliant COVID-19 employee testing programs. Clinical laboratories and employers tasked with developing and maintaining coronavirus testing programs will gain critical insights and data from this invaluable special report. (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group.)
Included in the report:
Ten regulatory essentials for launching a COVID-19 testing program
