Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:22:09.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Clinical laboratory equipment manufacturers’ lack of guidance for high consequence pathogen response is a critical weakness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2024

Aurora B. Le*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Claire E. Figi
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Jocelyn J. Herstein
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Global Center for Health Security, Omaha, NE, USA Department of Environmental, Agricultural, and Occupational Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, College of Public Health, Omaha, NE, USA
Peter C. Iwen
Affiliation:
Department of Pathology and Microbiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, College of Medicine, Omaha, NE, USA
Sean A. Buehler
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico, School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico
John J. Lowe
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Global Center for Health Security, Omaha, NE, USA Department of Environmental, Agricultural, and Occupational Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, College of Public Health, Omaha, NE, USA
Shawn G. Gibbs
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
*
Corresponding author: Aurora B. Le; Email: able@tamu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Clinical laboratory equipment (CLE) are invaluable diagnostic tools to support the management of patients suspected or confirmed to be infected with high consequence pathogens (HCP), such as Ebola virus (EBOV) or Nipah virus. 1 CLE need to safely evaluate specimens that may contain a HCP without voiding the manufacturer’s warranty or impacting subsequent use for routine clinical care. It is important for CLE manufacturers to provide this guidance because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defers to the manufacturers in HCP scenarios stating “laboratories should consult the manufacturers’ instructions, or the manufacturer directly, on whether there is a need and how to decontaminate the interior surfaces or areas of their specific laboratory instruments”. 2 The absence of this information from the manufacturer and uncertainty related to warranty/service implications after potential use for HCP directly impacts patient care and public health response, as some hospital administrators have opted not to use CLE on patients with confirmed or suspected HCP infection to avoid losing CLE use for other patients. Reference Budryk3

In response to manufacturers’ policies during the 2013 EBOV outbreak, a 2019 study contacted manufacturers regarding testing confirmed or suspected HCP specimens and the impact on CLE decontamination and warranty/service contracts. Reference Herstein, Buehler, Le, Lowe, Iwen and Gibbs4 Some manufacturers were uncertain of their policies or would void CLE warranties and/or service contracts; other manufacturers recommended CLE used for HCP specimens be either disposed or quarantined which not only conflicts with scientific evidence and federal/international agencies’ guidance but is also cost prohibitive, unsustainable, and could result in lack of life-saving diagnostics for other patients. Reference Herstein, Buehler, Le, Lowe, Iwen and Gibbs4 That study found insufficient availability of EBOV or HCP policies from manufacturers to support clinical laboratories. Reference Herstein, Buehler, Le, Lowe, Iwen and Gibbs4 This lack of guidance remains and is almost completely undocumented; not having such information continues to severely impact clinical care. Given the frequency and burden of HCP outbreaks (eg, Uganda-2022 with Sudan ebolavirus, 5 Nigeria-ongoing with Lassa fever virus, 6 Equatorial Guinea with Marburg virus-2023), 7 this study update was conducted to examine current policies from CLE manufacturers on how to handle equipment potentially exposed to a HCP.

Exploring manufacturers’ policies

Thirteen major manufacturers of CLE (labeled Company A-M) used for testing suspected or confirmed HCP specimens were contacted. Nine of these companies were contacted previously Reference Herstein, Buehler, Le, Lowe, Iwen and Gibbs4 ; four manufacturers were added due to company mergers/acquisitions. In Spring 2023, a standardized email and phone script was used (Supplemental Material, Appendix A) to contact manufactures regarding current HCP policies/guidance on warranties, decontamination, and CLE re-use. Of the current 13 companies, only three responded (23%). Figure 1 summarizes our timeline and challenges contacting CLE manufacturers.

Figure 1. Contact timeline and outcomes for contacting CLE manufacturers.

Twenty-six online inquiries were submitted to the companies with online portals. Only Company C responded (response rate [RR] = 7.7%). Despite follow-ups, Company C’s initial response was their only contact; no information on policies or recommendations were obtained from any company via online inquiry.

Despite multiple attempts, 40 emails (initial and follow-up) resulted in three responses (RR = 7.5%) (Figure 1). Company F’s customer service agent referred us to a sales agent who stated there were no contract restrictions for any type of pathogen but did not provide the requested recommendations or policies. A Company H representative stated that they do not provide regulatory or safety guidance to institutions that purchase their products. A Company K representative stated that they cannot comment on specific microorganisms beyond what was tested and published in their Instructions for Use (IFU) (of 11 tested pathogens included, only one was on our HCP list) and could not provide information regarding extrapolation to other pathogens (Supplemental Material, Appendix B). 8 Only 10 (77%) manufacturers had a functional telephone number; none responded.

The limited engagement that persists five years after our initial study is concerning and affirms clinical laboratories’ concerns. Literature on this topic remains scarce with only two additional studies addressing the topic of manufacturers’ policies for CLE use for HCP. Reference Pentella9,Reference Cornish, Anderson and Arambula10 Both studies emphasized the importance of the clinical laboratory’s ability to respond to an unknown pathogen quickly, effectively, and safely; however, lack of support from manufacturers could result in poor outcomes that could be avoided with prompt communication and assistance. Reference Pentella9,Reference Cornish, Anderson and Arambula10

Given the continued lack of HCP-related guidance from manufacturers post-purchase, we recommend laboratories ask HCP-related questions, document responses, and make response receipt a condition of purchase. Clinical laboratories and healthcare settings must have easy—preferably online—access to manufacturers for prompt responses to questions regarding warranties, contracts, and decontamination policies. Ideally, these would be in the IFU. The challenge of identifying appropriate manufacturer contacts and the absence of response to inquiries have negative implications during outbreaks. Previous manufacturer recommendations to dispose of CLE used for HCP Reference Budryk3 may result in clinical laboratories electing to limit or avoid CLE usage to test patient specimens with potential HCP. Reduction in CLE use can delay or adversely affect the quality of patient care. To optimize patient care, clinical laboratories require support, rapid communication, and clear guidance from CLE manufacturers. It is equally important to ensure manufacturer guidance conforms with scientific evidence and protocols deemed safe and effective by federal and international agencies. We recommend regulatory agencies address these issues, including the timeliness of response to information requests, the availability and monitoring of contact portals, and online availability of existing information. In conclusion, our findings underscore how nonresponse is informative but alarming; this continued dearth of information is detrimental to patient management and public health.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.39.

Acknowledgments

We thank Josefina Carrasco Martinez (Texas A&M University) for helping us transform our data into Figure 1.

Financial support

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Competing interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical standard

This study was deemed exempt by the Texas A&M University’s Institutional Review Board (#: IRB2022-1362).

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology. Diseases and specialty areas [Internet], 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/ncezid/dhcpp/diseases-specialty-areas.html. Accessed December 22, 2023Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Guidance for U.S. Hospitals and Clinical Laboratories on Performing Routine Diagnostic Testing for Patients with Suspected Ebola Disease [Internet], 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/laboratory-personnel/safe-specimen-management.html#anchor_1670347531971. Accessed December 22, 2023Google Scholar
Budryk, Z. Device manufacturers restrict service amid Ebola fears [Internet], 2014. https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/device-manufacturers-restrict-service-amid-ebola-fears. Accessed January 3, 2024Google Scholar
Herstein, JJ, Buehler, SA, Le, AB, Lowe, JJ, Iwen, PC, Gibbs, SG. Clinical laboratory equipment manufacturer policies on highly hazardous communicable diseases. Public Health Reports. 2019;134:332–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (WHO). Ebola disease caused by Sudan ebolavirus - Uganda [Internet], 2023. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2023-DON433. Accessed December 22, 2023Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO). Lassa fever - Nigeria [Internet], 2023. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2023-DON463. Accessed December 22, 2023Google Scholar
World Health Organization (WHO). Marburg virus disease - Equatorial Guinea and the United Republic of Tanzania [Internet], 2023. https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2023-DON467. Accessed December 22, 2023Google Scholar
Hologic, Inc. ThinPrep 2000 system instructions for use [Internet], 2021. Report No.: MAN-02624-001 Rev. 006. https://www.hologic.com/file/50326/download?token=QdNf8HI6. Accessed December 22, 2023Google Scholar
Pentella, MA. Update on biosafety and emerging infections for the clinical microbiology laboratory. Clin Lab Med 2020;40:473–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornish, NE, Anderson, NL, Arambula, DG, et al. Clinical laboratory biosafety gaps: lessons learned from past outbreaks reveal a path to a safer future. Clin Microbiol Rev 2021;34:101128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Contact timeline and outcomes for contacting CLE manufacturers.

Supplementary material: File

Le et al. supplementary material

Le et al. supplementary material
Download Le et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20.9 KB