Clinical laboratories could play a key role in helping users collect their samples correctly, interpret results, and transfer flu test data to their health records
Clinical laboratories may have another opportunity to provide service to their clients and the physicians who treat them. With the success of at-home COVID-19 testing, consumer demand for self-tests is changing and advances in diagnostic technology now make it feasible to make more influenza (flu) tests available for consumers to buy and use at home.
At-home tests for SARS-CoV-2 can be found at pharmacies all across America. But that’s not the case with tests for influenza.
Should self-test flu kits eventually become available and common, clinical laboratories could offer the service of helping consumers understand:
that the test was conducted correctly (specimen collection and analysis),
“Home flu testing would ensure that those who do need and receive antiviral medication for influenza are the ones who need it the most,” and that “we are making our treatment decisions based on data,” infectious disease specialist Christina Yen, MD (above), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, told STAT News. At-home flu self-tests could also bring opportunities for clinical laboratories to provide service to healthcare consumers and the physicians who treat them. (Photo copyright: UT Southwestern Medical Center.)
Pros and Cons of Consumers Doing At-home Influenza Testing
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), COVID-19 and influenza are both upper respiratory illnesses with similar symptoms. So, why don’t we have more at-home flu tests available? Partly because at-home testing is a relatively new phenomenon in modern healthcare.
“It’s really rare, and it’s really new that people are allowed to know about what’s happening inside their body without a physician in the middle,” Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina, MD, PhD, told STAT News. The article uses the example of at-home pregnancy tests. Despite a prototype for an at-home pregnancy test being created in 1967, it took another decade before an over-the-counter pregnancy test became available to the public.
“The general thinking was, ‘How could a woman possibly know what to do if she found out she was pregnant on her own without a doctor in the room?’ That is a ridiculous concern because women have been doing that for millions of years,” Mina added.
So, why be cautious when it comes to giving patients the option of at-home flu testing?
There are some cons to at-home influenza tests. Average citizens are not clinical laboratory professionals. They might obtain too little sample for an accurate reading or read the results incorrectly. Then, there is the possibility for false-negatives or false-positives.
An at-home test user is not likely to consider the possibility of a false result, however clinicians look at the situation with more nuance. If the patient was still symptomatic or in a high-risk community, the provider could administer a more sensitive medical laboratory test to confirm the previous test results.
“In a Facebook post from mid-November with hundreds of responses, concertgoers compared symptoms and positive test results, many of those from tests taken at home. But those data weren’t added to state public health tallies of COVID’s spread,” STAT News noted.
The larger concern is that samples obtained by at-home self-test users are not submitted for genomic sequencing. This could lead to incomplete data and delay identifying new variants of the coronavirus in communities.
Another barrier to at-home flu testing is that rapid influenza diagnostic testing can be unreliable. In 2009, the rapid influenza tests could only detect the H1N1 influenza virus in a mere 11% of samples, STAT News reported. Because of this, the FDA now requires manufacturers to test their rapid tests against eight different strains that change every year depending upon which strains are prevalent. This could present a problem if individuals use leftover tests from the previous flu season.
Do Pros of At-home Testing Outweigh the Cons?
At-home testing is convenient and makes testing more accessible to patients who may not be able to get to a clinic. Being able to test at home also encourages individuals to take precautions necessary to stop the spread of whichever illness they may have. Given the similarities in symptoms between influenza and COVID-19, people could benefit from having tools at home that correctly identify their illness.
At-home COVID-19 tests are here to stay, and at-home influenza tests may be on the way soon. Clinical laboratories could play an important role in educating the public on the correct handling of these tests.
Clinical laboratories and point-of-care settings may have a new diagnostic test if this novel handheld device and related technology is validated by clinical trials
Efforts to develop breath analyzers that accurately identify viral infections, such as SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza, have been ongoing for years. The latest example is ViraWarn from Opteev Technologies in Baltimore, Maryland, and its success could lead to more follow-up PCR tests performed at clinical laboratories.
“Breath is one of the most appealing non-invasive sample types for diagnosis of infectious and non-infectious disease,” said Opteev in its FDA Pre-EUA application. “Exhaled breath is very easy to provide and is less prone to user errors. Breath contains a number of biomarkers associated with different ailments that include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), viruses, bacteria, antigens, and nucleic acid.”
Further clinical trials and the FDA Pre-EUA are needed before ViraWarn can be made available to consumers. In the meantime, Opteev announced that the CES (Consumer Electronic Show) had named ViraWarn as a 2023 Innovation Award Honoree in the digital health category.
“ViraWarn is designed to allow users an ultra-fast and convenient way to know if they are spreading a dangerous respiratory virus. With a continued increase in COVID-19 and a new surge in RSV and influenza cases, we’re eager to bring ViraWarn to market so consumers can easily blow into a personal device and find out if they are positive or negative,” said Conrad Bessemer (above), Opteev President and Co-Founder, in a news release.
Opteev is a subsidiary of Novatec, a supplier of machinery and sensor technology, and a sister company to Prophecy Sensorlytics, a wearable sensors company.
The ViraWarn breath analyzer uses a silk-based sensor that “traces the electric discharge of respiratory viruses coupled with an artificial intelligence (AI) processor to filter out any potential inaccuracies,” according to the news release.
Here is how the breath analyzer (mouthpiece, attached biosensor chamber, and attached printed circuit board chamber) is deployed by a user, according to the Opteev website:
The user turns on the device and an LED light indicates readiness.
The user blows twice into the mouthpiece.
A carbon filter stops bacteria and VOCs and allows virus particles to pass through.
As “charge carriers,” virus particles have a “cumulative charge.”
Electrical data are forwarded to the AI processor.
The AI processer delivers a result.
Within 60 seconds, a red signal indicates a positive presence of a virus and a green signal indicates negative one.
“The interaction of the virus with a specially designed liquid semiconductive medium, or a solid polymer semiconductor, generates changes in the conductivity of the electrical biosensor, which can then be picked up by electrodes. Such electrical data can be analyzed using algorithms and make a positive or negative call,” explains an Opteev white paper on the viral screening process.
While the ViraWarn breath analyzer can identify the presence of a virus, it cannot distinguish between specific viruses, the company noted. Therefore, a clinical laboratory PCR test is needed to confirm results.
Other Breath Tests
Opteev is not the only company developing diagnostic tests using breath samples.
For clinical laboratory managers and pathologists, Opteev’s ViraWarn is notable in breath diagnostics development because it is a personal hand-held tool. It empowers people to do self-tests and other disease screenings, all of which would need to be confirmed with medical laboratory testing in the case of positive results.
Further, it is important to understand that consumers are the primary target for this novel diagnostic device. This is consistent with investor-funding companies wanting to develop testing solutions that can be used by consumers. At the same time, a device like ViraWarn could be used by clinical laboratories in their patient service centers to provide rapid test results.
Staffing specialists advise medical laboratories to expect shortages to continue
Clinical laboratory and pathology group managers are keenly aware of the Great Resignation and how it has affected lab industry staffing and recruiting. Medical technologists (MTs) and clinical laboratory scientists (CLSs) are in particularly short supply and some experts do not see this critical shortage waning anytime soon.
In an exclusive interview with Dark Daily, Maggie Morrissey, Director of Recruiting and Staffing Services at Lighthouse Lab Services, explains the multi-faceted problem labs are facing meeting recruitment goals, and how understaffing can lead to bigger matters regarding morale and job satisfaction.
Based in Charlotte, N.C., Lighthouse Lab Services is a medical laboratory consulting and recruiting firm that employs 150 people and services more than 1,500 medical laboratory clients.
In July, Lighthouse released the results of its 2022 Survey on Wage and Morale Issues among Medical Laboratory Professionals. The collected data from 1,112 respondents found that only 27% indicated their clinical laboratories were adequately or well-staffed. Forty percent of respondents believe their labs were moderately understaffed while an additional 33% felt their labs were significantly understaffed.
The primary reasons, according to Lighthouse, for staffing shortages can be attributed to:
The number of schools offering medical technology programs has decreased.
People have been retiring at a higher rate than most industries.
It is difficult to become a medical technologist/clinical laboratory scientist.
There are hurdles to jump through to become a medical technologist.
Medical technology is not a well-known field.
“[Eastern Carolina University] told us they don’t have anyone graduating from the [medical technology] program this year because of COVID. There are all these issues exacerbating the problem,” said Maggie Morrissey (above), Director of Recruiting and Staffing Services at Lighthouse Lab Services, in an exclusive interview with Dark Daily. “Making it more attractive starts at the school level. People need to be introduced to the science of medical technology. It’s not something that many students know exists as a career.” This lack of interest in training programs is a major reason for the severe shortage of medical technologists on staff at clinical laboratories around the US. (Photo copyright: Lighthouse Lab Services.)
Stagnant Pay, Low Morale, Lack of Appreciation in Clinical Labs
“The major issue that we see with medical labs across the country is that they are understaffed,” Morrissey stated. “That tracks to low morale. It’s a major issue for laboratories because when a lab is understaffed and everyone is working very hard, lab staff may not feel appreciated and their morale starts to wane, which snowballs into larger issues.”
Morrissey pointed out that individuals who work for different sized clinical laboratories have dissimilar grievances about their jobs.
“Pay continues to be a concern for all, but benefits are also important,” she said. “Pay and lack of benefits, like not being able to get time off, not having a 401K, and not having health insurance are hurdles for people working in smaller labs.”
Professionals working in medium-sized and larger labs are also concerned about pay, but they have other complaints as well.
“They feel like they are a cog in the machine and feel underappreciated,” Morrissey said. “What we hear a lot from people who work in the clinical labs of large hospitals is that they feel unappreciated by those working in other departments.”
Too Few MT/MS Training Programs to Meet Demand
According to Forbes, the US currently has a shortage of approximately 20,000-25,000 medical technologists. The approximately 338,000 technologists working in the country equate to about one technologist per 1,000 people, which translates to a vacancy rate of 7% to 11% in almost every region.
Forbes also reported that medical technologists in the US had performed approximately 13 billion laboratory tests annually before the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the pandemic added 997 million SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests to the existing workload.
Intensifying the problem is that currently there are only 240 medical technologist and medical scientist training programs in the US, which represents a 7% decrease since 2000. Forbes notes there are some states that have no such training programs at all.
“Having the opportunity to train to be a medical technologist is an important thing,” Morrissey said. “More universities and community colleges need to offer associate’s and bachelor’s degrees in medical technology.”
However, even with an increase in available degrees, few students are enrolling in those programs.
Morrissey suggests that clinical lab professionals contact local educational institutions to inform them of the need for medical technology degrees and determine if they can do anything to help start such training programs.
“If you are a medical laboratory in an area that doesn’t have a school that offers a degree in medical technology, I would recommend banging down the doors of community colleges to see how you can get that type of program into place,” she proposed. “It really benefits you. It is really about getting those schools to realize there is a need for medical technologists.”
Morrissey added that schools are beginning to re-add medical technology programs to their curriculum. This may translate into more available MTs and CLSs to work in clinical laboratories and relieve some of the staffing shortages.
Laboratory Automation, More Federal Lobbying Could Help
Automating some medical laboratory operations could present another solution to staffing dilemmas.
“Automation will help a little bit,” she said. “A significant number of labs are adding automation—either at the technology or collection level—so they don’t need as many technologists to run the lab.”
Additionally, regionalization of clinical labs could help with staffing issues because high volumes of samples can allow for the streamlining of staff.
“Some integrated delivery networks (IDNs) that have multiple hospitals within a city or metro area are regionalizing their clinical laboratories and using couriers to transport the samples being collected, resulting in better efficiency and productivity,” she said.
Morrissey also believes there is room for lobbying for the occupation of medical technology at both the state and federal levels. She compared the clinical laboratory profession to how the nursing profession dealt with shortages in the past.
“Nursing is in all hospital and doctor groups,” she explained. “They have very large organizations that are advocating for them at the federal and state level and labs need more of that.”
Clinical Lab Recruiting Reverting to Pre-COVID Qualifications
Though more people are testing themselves for COVID at home, Morrissey says the need for more clinical laboratory professionals will not subside any time soon.
“Before COVID, there was a huge increase in requests for toxicology reports due to drug testing and screening,” she explained. “COVID caused those needs to go away, not because people didn’t need those things, but because everyone was focusing on COVID. If an individual is not going into work, does he or she really need a monthly drug screen? The needs shifted during COVID and now they are shifting back.”
During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical labs were more willing to train individuals who had some lab experience or a background that would indicate they could perform the job duties. It is probable that recruiters will start to have more stringent requirements for potential lab employees, reverting back to pre-COVID qualifications.
Nevertheless, Morrissey believes staffing shortages for medical laboratories will continue.
“In the short term, in the next one to three years, I think it is going to get worse before it gets better,” she said. “In the medium term, automation in clinical laboratories will probably ease the staffing shortage quite a bit. Potentially, we will see more medical technology training programs pop up as the staffing shortages become a better-known issue.”
Epidemiologists warn that elderly and other individuals may be at high-risk for co-infection by strains of both SAR-CoV-2 and influenza
As of October, the influenza (flu) season has begun in North America. With the COVID-19 pandemic still prevalent, clinical laboratories must be prepared not only for increased demand for SARS-CoV-2 tests, but also for an increased number of orders for flu tests as well. In fact, virologists are sounding the alarm that some patients may present with an uncommon double infection of both viruses.
The potential for contracting the co-infection was dubbed “flurona” by the Israeli Outbreak Management Advisory Team in 2020. The Israeli Team coined the term flurona to describe the potential of contracting both COVID-19 and influenza after two young Israeli pregnant women were diagnosed with influenza and COVID-19. Since then, cases of co-infections have been confirmed in multiple countries around the world, according to The Washington Post.
The symptoms of influenza and COVID-19 are extremely similar. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), symptoms for both influenza and COVID-19 include fever, cough, chills, sore throat, and body aches. However, without a clinical laboratory test it is nearly impossible to distinguish one virus from the other.
Therefore, during this cold and flu season, clinical laboratory testing will be extremely important. And though co-infection with COVID-19 and the flu is rare, lab leaders should be on the lookout for spikes in testing.
“Co-infection is rare with COVID-19 and the flu, or COVID-19 and other types of infections that you might get as far as upper respiratory infections, because COVID-19 tends to take over,” Stephen McMullan, MD, a Mayo Clinic family medicine physician, told Mayo Clinic News. “Once COVID-19 is in your body, it’s going to be the predominant virus, but there are some rare cases where we have seen people getting both COVID-19 and the flu. So, it is possible, but it’s certainly not common.” Clinical laboratories should prepare for a spike in viral infections this winter that could indicate flurona. (Photo copyright: Mayo Clinic.)
.
What Exactly Is a Flurona?
Although it is possible—albeit rare—to contract the flu and COVID-19 at the same time, flurona does not appear to be a “twindemic,” nor is it a distinct disease or a mutation of the two viruses, The Washington Post reported.
“The name seems to suggest that the viruses have somehow combined—and that’s not the case. It’s just that a person may get infected with two respiratory viruses at the same time or in short succession,” epidemiologist Judith O’Donnell, MD, Director, Department of Infection Prevention and Control, and Section Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases at Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, told an NPR affiliate in Pittsburg.
“It’s rare, but it’s not surprising that during a typical influenza season—which here in the northern hemisphere is right now during the winter months—that you will see multiple respiratory viruses circulating at the same time, and that people can get infected with more than one respiratory virus at the same time,” she added.
Though flurona may not be a hybrid virus, that does not mean it is of no concern.
“Although a low proportion of COVID-19 patients have influenza co-infection, the importance of such co-infection, especially in high-risk individuals and the elderly, cannot be ignored,” wrote the authors of a study published in Frontiers of Medicine titled, “COVID-19 and Influenza Co-infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.”
Did COVID-19 Lockdowns, Social Distancing Cause Flurona?
According to the Washington Post, the US had record lows of influenza during the 2020-2021 flu season, however this was likely due to lockdown measures. With lockdown measures and social distancing even less prevalent this flu season, there is a risk of individuals being at risk for multiple respiratory viruses.
“We’re all a little bit more back together than we were a year ago,” McMullan told Mayo Clinic News. “The kids are back in school, and we have more events that people are attending, which could explain why we’re seeing flu cases rise.”
Thus, clinical laboratories should prepare for not only a higher number of flu tests, but also COVID-19 tests as well. That is because patients will not be able to distinguish which virus they are sick with based on symptoms alone. Further, because COVID-19 and the flu have similar symptoms, individuals may seek out multiple tests, or test for one virus and not the other.
McMullan asserts that a co-infection of the flu and COVID-19—though rare—is not impossible. For the best chance to avoid both diseases he suggests high-risk individuals “Get vaccinated against COVID-19, including your booster if eligible, and make sure to get your flu vaccine, continue to do the same strategies to protect yourself and others, such as wearing a mask in high-risk situations, washing your hands, and staying home if you feel ill.”
Meanwhile, clinical laboratory managers will want to track developments during this flu season. For example, flurona may be uncommon at this time, but emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2 and different strains of influenza might increase the number of patients diagnosed as infected with both COVID-19 and influenza.
Experts cite high vaccination rates and behavioral changes among at-risk groups, but warn about complacency; clinical laboratories should remain vigilant
In July, Scott Gottlieb, MD, Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from May 2017 to April 2019, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times titled, “Monkeypox Is About to Become the Next Public Health Failure.” In it, he wrote, “Our country’s response to monkeypox has been plagued by the same shortcomings we had with COVID-19.” But has it improved? Clinical laboratory leaders and pathology group managers will find it informative to find out what has taken place since Gottlieb made his stark prediction.
The global monkeypox outbreak that emerged last spring appears to have subsided in the US and Europe, though it remains to be seen if the disease can be completely eradicated, according to multiple media reports. As of Oct. 26, 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a 7-day rolling average of 30 cases per day in the US, down from a peak of nearly 440/day in early August.
Cases are also down in cities that earlier reported heavy outbreaks. For example, the New York City Health Department reported a 7-day average of just two cases per day on Oct. 25, compared with 73/day on July 30.
And the San Francisco Department of Public Health announced on Oct. 20 that it would end the city’s public health emergency on monkeypox (MPX) effective on Oct. 31. “MPX cases have slowed to less than one case per day and more than 27,000 San Franciscans are now vaccinated against the virus,” the agency stated in a press release.
“Once again, we caution that a declining outbreak can be the most dangerous outbreak, because it can tempt us to think that the crisis is over and to let down our guard,” said World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, in an Oct. 12 global press briefing. “That’s not what WHO is doing. We are continuing to work with countries around the world to increase their testing capacity, and to monitor trends in the outbreak.” Clinical laboratories should not assume the outbreak has passed but continue to be vigilant and prepared for increased demand in monkeypox testing. (Photo copyright: ITU Pictures.)
Changing Behavior Lowers Infection Rates
In addition to high vaccination rates, public health experts have attributed the decline to behavioral changes among at-risk groups. “There were really substantial changes among men who have sex [with] men,” infectious disease physician Shira Doron, MD, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston, told ABC News.
On September 2, the CDC published the results of a survey indicating that about half of men who have sex with men “reported reducing their number of sex partners, one-time sexual encounters, and use of dating apps because of the monkeypox outbreak.”
Another likely factor is the disease’s limited transmissibility. “Initially, there was a lot of concern that monkeypox could spread widely at daycares or in schools, but, overall, there has been very little spread among children,” NPR reported.
But citing multiple studies, the NPR story noted “that often there isn’t very much virus in the upper respiratory tract,” where it might spread through talking or coughing. “Instead, the highest levels of virus occur on sores found on the skin and inside the anus.”
These studies, along with earlier research, “explain why monkeypox is spreading almost exclusively through contact during sex, especially anal and oral sex, during the current outbreak,” NPR reported.
Monkeypox Could Mutate, experts say
Despite the promising numbers, public health experts are warning that monkeypox could remain as a long-term threat to public health. According to an article in Nature, “At best, the outbreak might fizzle out over the next few months or years. At worst, the virus could become endemic outside Africa by reaching new animal reservoirs, making it nearly impossible to eradicate.”
In addition to the limited transmissibility of the virus, Nature noted that the outbreak stems from a relatively mild form of the pathogen and is rarely fatal. As of Oct. 28, the CDC reported a total of just six confirmed deaths in the US out of a total of 28,302 confirmed cases since the first infections were reported in May.
It is possible that the virus could mutate into a more contagious form, but Nature noted that monkeypox is a DNA virus, and that they tend to mutate more slowly than RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and HIV. Nevertheless, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine bioinformatician Elliot Lefkowitz, PhD, warned that a “worrisome mutation” could arise if the outbreak continues for much longer.
“I have no confidence that all the people who need to be tested are being tested,” she told Nature. She expressed concerns that people could resume risky behavior if they think the danger has passed.
Another question is whether currently available vaccines offer long-lasting protection. And though reported case numbers are down in the US and Europe, they are rising in parts of Africa and South America, Nature noted.
Gottlieb’s Dire Prediction
The decline in new infections followed dire warnings last summer about the possible consequences of the outbreak. In his New York Times op-ed, former Gottlieb criticized the CDC for being slow to test for the virus. He wrote, “[I]f monkeypox gains a permanent foothold in the United States and becomes an endemic virus that joins our circulating repertoire of pathogens, it will be one of the worst public health failures in modern times not only because of the pain and peril of the disease but also because it was so avoidable.”
At the time of his writing, Gottlieb was right to be concerned. On July 29, the CDC reported a seven-day moving average of 390 reported cases per day. According to the federal agency, a reported case “Includes either the positive laboratory test report date, CDC call center reporting date, or case data entry date into CDC’s emergency response common operating platform, DCIPHER.”
Quashing the outbreak, Gottlieb estimated, would have required about 15,000 tests per week among people presenting symptoms resembling monkeypox. But between mid-May and the end of June, he noted, the CDC had tested only about 2,000 samples, according to the federal agency’s July 15 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
As a remedy, Gottlieb called on the Biden administration to re-focus the CDC’s efforts more on disease control “by transferring some of its disease prevention work to other agencies,” including the FDA.
