Legislating in the time of a pandemic: window of opportunity or invitation for recklessness?

The North American opioid epidemic: opportunities and challenges for clinical laboratories

Since 1999, the opioid epidemic in North America has resulted in over 1 million deaths, and it continues to escalate despite numerous efforts in various arenas to combat the upward trend. Clinical laboratories provide drug testing to support practices such as emergency medicine, substance use disorder treatment, and pain management; increasingly, these laboratories are collaborating in novel partnerships including drug-checking services (DCS) and multidisciplinary treatment teams. This review examines drug testing related to management of licit and illicit opioid use, new technologies and test strategies employed by clinical laboratories, barriers hindering laboratory response to the opioid epidemic, and areas for improvement and standardization within drug testing. Literature search terms included combinations of "opioid," "opiate," "fentanyl," "laboratory," "epidemic," "crisis," "mass spectrometry," "immunoassay," "drug screen," "drug test," "guidelines," plus review of PubMed "similar articles" and references within publications. While immunoassay (IA) and point-of-care (POC) test options for synthetic opioids are increasingly available, mass spectrometry (MS) platforms offer the greatest flexibility and sensitivity for detecting novel, potent opioids. Previously reserved as a second-tier application in most drug test algorithms, MS assays are gaining a larger role in initial screening for specific patients and DCS. However, there are substantial differences among laboratories in terms of updating test menus, algorithms, and technologies to meet changing clinical needs. While some clinical laboratories lack the resources and expertise to implement MS, many are also slow to adopt available IA and POC tests for newer opioids such as fentanyl. MS-based testing also presents challenges, including gaps in available guidance for assay validation and ongoing performance assessment that contribute to a dramatic lack of standardization among laboratories. We identify opportunities for improvement in laboratory operations, reporting, and interpretation of drug test results, including laboratorian and provider education and laboratory-focused guidelines. We also highlight the need for collaboration with providers, assay and instrument manufacturers, and national organizations to increase the effectiveness of clinical laboratory and provider efforts in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use and misuse.

Toward improvement of screening through mass spectrometry-based proteomics: ovarian cancer as a case study

Ovarian cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths affecting United States women. Early-stage detection of ovarian cancer has been linked to increased survival, however, current screening methods, such as biomarker testing, have proven to be ineffective in doing so. Therefore, further developments are necessary to be able to achieve positive patient prognosis. Ongoing efforts are being made in biomarker discovery towards clinical applications in screening for early-stage ovarian cancer. In this perspective, we discuss and provide examples for several workflows employing mass spectrometry-based proteomics towards protein biomarker discovery and characterization in the context of ovarian cancer; workflows include protein identification and characterization as well as intact protein profiling. We also discuss the opportunities to merge these workflows for a multiplexed approach for biomarkers. Lastly, we provide our insight as to future developments that may serve to enhance biomarker discovery workflows while also considering translational potential.

Temporary Regulatory Deviations and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) PCR Labeling Update Study Indicate What Laboratory-Developed Test Regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Could Look Like

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response necessitated innovations and a series of regulatory deviations that also affected laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). To examine real-world consequences and specify regulatory paradigm shifts, legislative proposals were aligned on a common timeline with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of LDTs and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-orchestrated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) labeling update study. The initial EUA adoption by LDT developers shows that the FDA can have oversight over LDTs. We used efficiency-corrected microcosting of our EUA PCR assay to estimate the national cost of the labeling update study to $0.3 to $1.4 million US dollars. Labeling update study performance data showed lower average detection limits in commercial in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays versus LDTs (32,000 ± 75,000 versus 71,000 ± 147,000 nucleic acid amplification tests/mL; P = 0.04); however, comparison also shows that FDA review of IVD assays and LDTs did not prevent differences between initial and labeling update performance (IVD assay, P < 0.0001; LDT, P = 0.003). The regulatory shifts re-emphasized that both commercial tests and LDTs rely heavily on laboratory competence and procedures; however, lack of performance data on authorized tests, when clinically implemented, precludes assessment of the benefit related to regulatory review. Temporary regulatory deviations during the pandemic and regulatory science tools (ie, reference material) have generated valuable real-world evidence to inform pending legislation regarding LDT regulation.