Regulatory Approach to Point-of-Care/At-Home Testing in the United States.

The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) classifications were activated in the 1990s in partnership with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Food and Drug Administration and included waived, moderate, and high complexity testing. The waived section of CLIA certificates allows laboratories to perform testing of analytes and methods of samples by the Food and Drug Administration. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many molecular or antigen laboratory testing methods for COVID-19 virus were quickly approved by emergency use authorization. Waived testing is now done in highly complex, moderately complex, and waived testing laboratories, and some at-home testing.

Impact of the loss of Laboratory Developed Mass Spectrometry testing at a major academic medical center.

Background: Our laboratory historically performed immunosuppressant and definitive opioid testing in-house as laboratory developed (LDT) mass spectrometry-based tests. However, staffing constraints and supply chain challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to refer this testing to a national reference laboratory. The VALID Act could impose onerous requirements for laboratories to develop LDTs. To explore the potential effect of these additional regulatory hurdles, we used the loss of our own LDT tests to assess the impact on patient care and hospital budgets. Methods: Laboratory information systems data and historical data associated with test costs were used to calculate turnaround times and financial impact. Results: Referral testing has extended the reporting of immunosuppressant results by an average of approximately one day and up to two days at the 95th percentile. We estimate that discontinuing in-house opioid testing has cost our health system over half a million dollars in the year since testing was discontinued. Conclusions: Barriers that discourage laboratories from developing in-house testing, particularly in the absence of FDA-cleared alternatives, can be expected to have a detrimental effect on patient care and hospital finances.

Current state of diagnostic, screening and surveillance testing methods for COVID-19 from an analytical chemistry point of view.

Since December 2019, we have been in the battlefield with a new threat to the humanity known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this review, we describe the four main methods used for diagnosis, screening and/or surveillance of SARS-CoV-2: Real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); chest computed tomography (CT); and different complementary alternatives developed in order to obtain rapid results, antigen and antibody detection. All of them compare the highlighting advantages and disadvantages from an analytical point of view. The gold standard method in terms of sensitivity and specificity is the RT-PCR. The different modifications propose to make it more rapid and applicable at point of care (POC) are also presented and discussed. CT images are limited to central hospitals. However, being combined with RT-PCR is the most robust and accurate way to confirm COVID-19 infection. Antibody tests, although unable to provide reliable results on the status of the infection, are suitable for carrying out maximum screening of the population in order to know the immune capacity. More recently, antigen tests, less sensitive than RT-PCR, have been authorized to determine in a quicker way whether the patient is infected at the time of analysis and without the need of specific instruments.