A survey-based assessment of United States clinical laboratory response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak

Initial Clinical Laboratory Response to COVID-19: A Survey of Medical Laboratory Professionals

Objective

To explore the experiences of medical laboratory professionals (MLPs) and their perceptions of the needs of clinical laboratories in response to COVID-19.

Methods

We surveyed laboratory professionals working in United States clinical laboratories during the initial months of the pandemic.

Results

Overall clinical laboratory testing and overtime work for laboratorians decreased during the first months of the pandemic. Laboratory professionals reported better or unchanged job satisfaction, feelings toward their work, and morale in their workplace, which were related to healthcare facility and laboratory leadership response. They reported receiving in-kind gifts, but no hazard pay, for their essential work. Important supply needs included reagents and personal protective equipment (PPE).

Conclusion

The response by healthcare facilities and laboratory leadership can influence MLPs job satisfaction, feelings toward their work, and laboratory morale during a pandemic. Current COVID-19 laboratory testing management, in the absence of sufficient reagents and supplies, cannot fully address the needs of clinical laboratories.

Responding to the Challenges of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): Perspectives from the Association for Molecular Pathology Infectious Disease Subdivision Leadership

Clinical molecular laboratory professionals are at the frontline of the response to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, providing accurate, high-quality laboratory results to aid in diagnosis, treatment, and epidemiology. In this role, we have encountered numerous regulatory, reimbursement, supply-chain, logistical, and systems challenges that we have struggled to overcome to fulfill our calling to provide patient care. In this Perspective from the Association for Molecular Pathology Infectious Disease Subdivision Leadership team, we review how our members have risen to these challenges, provide recommendations for managing the current pandemic, and outline the steps we can take as a community to better prepare for future pandemics.

Mapping of the US Domestic Influenza Virologic Surveillance Landscape

Influenza virologic surveillance is critical each season for tracking influenza circulation, following trends in antiviral drug resistance, detecting novel influenza infections in humans, and selecting viruses for use in annual seasonal vaccine production. We developed a framework and process map for characterizing the landscape of US influenza virologic surveillance into 5 tiers of influenza testing: outpatient settings (tier 1), inpatient settings and commercial laboratories (tier 2), state public health laboratories (tier 3), National Influenza Reference Center laboratories (tier 4), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laboratories (tier 5). During the 2015–16 season, the numbers of influenza tests directly contributing to virologic surveillance were 804,000 in tiers 1 and 2; 78,000 in tier 3; 2,800 in tier 4; and 3,400 in tier 5. With the release of the 2017 US Pandemic Influenza Plan, the proposed framework will support public health officials in modeling, surveillance, and pandemic planning and response.

Survey of Clinical Laboratory Practices for 2015 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Outbreak in the Republic of Korea

Background

It is crucial to understand the current status of clinical laboratory practices for the largest outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infections in the Republic of Korea to be well prepared for future emerging infectious diseases.

Methods

We conducted a survey of 49 clinical laboratories in medical institutions and referral medical laboratories. A short questionnaire to survey clinical laboratory practices relating to MERS-CoV diagnostic testing was sent by email to the directors and clinical pathologists in charge of the clinical laboratories performing MERS-CoV testing. The survey focused on testing volume, reporting of results, resources, and laboratory safety.

Results

A total of 40 clinical laboratories responded to the survey. A total of 27,009 MERS-CoV real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) tests were performed. Most of the specimens were sputum (73.5%). The median turnaround time (TAT) was 5.29 hr (first and third quartile, 4.11 and 7.48 hr) in 26 medical institutions. The median TAT of more than a half of the laboratories (57.7%) was less than 6 hr. Many laboratories were able to perform tests throughout the whole week. Laboratory biosafety preparedness included class II biosafety cabinets (100%); separated pre-PCR, PCR, and post-PCR rooms (88.6%); negative pressure pretreatment rooms (48.6%); and negative pressure sputum collection rooms (20.0%).

Conclusions

Clinical laboratories were able to quickly expand their diagnostic capacity in response to the 2015 MERS-CoV outbreak. Our results show that clinical laboratories play an important role in the maintenance and enhancement of laboratory response in preparation for future emerging infections.

The response of medical virology laboratories to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 outbreak in Paris Île-de-France region

The outbreak of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was a challenge for the laboratories of Paris Île-de-France region in charge of virological diagnosis. In order to evaluate the quality of their response to this challenge, a retrospective survey based on a self-administered standardized questionnaire was undertaken among the 18 hospital laboratories involved in A(H1N1)pdm09 virus detection over a period of 10 months from April 2009 to January 2010. All concerned laboratories responded to the survey. Due to imposed initial biosafety constraints and indications, virological diagnosis was performed in only two laboratories at the start of the studied period. Step by step, it was further settled in the other laboratories starting from June to November 2009. From the beginning, A(H1N1)pdm09-specific RT-PCR was considered the reference method while the use of rapid influenza detection tests remained temporary and concerned a minority of these laboratories. Among the overall 21,656 specimens received, a positive diagnosis of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 was obtained in 5,390 cases (25%), the positivity range being significantly higher among women as compared to men (P<0.0001) and subjects below 45 years of age as compared to those over 65 years (P<0.0001). Two peaks in positivity frequency were observed at weeks 24 (30%, 8-12 June 2009) and 44 (50%, 26-30 October 2009) respectively, the latter one occurring 2 weeks earlier than the peak of epidemic at the national level. In contrast, a low positivity rate was detected at weeks 38-40 in relationship with other respiratory virus infections which were clinically misinterpreted as a peak of influenza epidemic. These data demonstrate the ability of medical virology laboratories of Paris Île-de-France region to provide in real time a valuable diagnosis of A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection and a relevant view of outbreak evolution, suggesting they will be a crucial component in the management of future influenza epidemics.

Update on influenza diagnostics: lessons from the novel H1N1 influenza A pandemic

The menu of diagnostic tools that can be utilized to establish a diagnosis of influenza is extensive and includes classic virology techniques as well as new and emerging methods. This review of how the various existing diagnostic methods have been utilized, first in the context of a rapidly evolving outbreak of novel influenza virus and then during the different subsequent phases and waves of the pandemic, demonstrates the unique roles, advantages, and limitations of each of these methods. Rapid antigen tests were used extensively throughout the pandemic. Recognition of the low negative predictive values of these tests is important. Private laboratories with preexisting expertise, infrastructure, and resources for rapid development, validation, and implementation of laboratory-developed assays played an unprecedented role in helping to meet the diagnostic demands during the pandemic. FDA-cleared assays remain an important element of the diagnostic armamentarium during a pandemic, and a process must be developed with the FDA to allow manufacturers to modify these assays for detection of novel strains in a timely fashion. The need and role for subtyping of influenza viruses and antiviral susceptibility testing will likely depend on qualitative (circulating subtypes and their resistance patterns) and quantitative (relative prevalence) characterization of influenza viruses circulating during future epidemics and pandemics.