Standardizing in vitro diagnostics tasks in clinical trials: A call for action

Annals of Translational Medicine

Volumn 4, Issue 9, 2016, Pages

  Lippi, Giuseppe ^a   Simundic, Ana Maria ^a,b   Rodriguez Manas, Leocadio ^c   Bossuyt, Patrick ^d   Banfi, Giuseppe ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERONA   (Italy)

^b Croatian Academy of Medical Sciences   (Croatia)

^c HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DE GETAFE   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^e SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Preanalytical variability; Quality; Safety

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EUROPEAN UNION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LABORATORY TEST; MATERIALS HANDLING; MEDICAL ERROR; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SAFETY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RELIABILITY; REPEAT PROCEDURE; SAMPLING; STANDARDIZATION; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

EID: 85006216579     PISSN: 23055839     EISSN: 23055847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.21037/atm.2016.04.10     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. U.S. National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov-Clinical Trial Phases. Available online: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/ctphases.html, access 5 April 2016.
2. Mankoff SP, Brander C, Ferrone S, et al. Lost in Translation: Obstacles to Translational Medicine. J Transl Med 2004;2:14.
3. Lost in clinical translation. Nat Med 2004;10:879.
4. Lippi G, Jansen-Duerr P, Viña J, et al. Laboratory biomarkers and frailty: presentation of the FRAILOMIC initiative. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:e253-5.
5. Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C. The biomarker paradigm: between diagnostic efficiency and clinical efficacy. Pol Arch Med Wewn 2015;125:282-8.
6. Pepe MS, Janes H, Li CI, et al. Clin Chem 2016. [Epub ahead of print].
7. Banfi G, Lippi G. The impact of preanalytical variability in clinical trials: are we underestimating the issue? Ann Transl Med 2016;4:59.
8. Bossuyt PM, Cohen JF, Gatsonis CA, et al. STARD 2015: updated reporting guidelines for all diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Transl Med 2016;4:85.
9. Shapiro MA, Lewis JH. Causality assessment of druginduced hepatotoxicity: promises and pitfalls. Clin Liver Dis 2007;11:477-505, v.
10. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Drug-Induced Liver Injury: Premarketing Clinical Evaluation. Available online: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/./Guidances/UCM174090.pdf, access 5 April 2016.
11. European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on nonclinical evaluation of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Available online: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/07/WC500094591.pdf, access 5 April 2016.
12. Erusalimsky JD, Grillari J, Grune T, et al. In Search of 'Omics'-Based Biomarkers to Predict Risk of Frailty and Its Consequences in Older Individuals: The FRAILOMIC Initiative. Gerontology 2016;62:182-90.
13. Lippi G, Simundic AM. Laboratory networking and sample quality: a still relevant issue for patient safety. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1703-5.
14. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, et al. Influence of hemolysis on routine clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:311-6.
15. Agarwal S, Vargas G, Nordstrom C, et al. Effect of interference from hemolysis, icterus and lipemia on routine pediatric clinical chemistry assays. Clin Chim Acta 2015;438:241-5.
16. Simundic AM, Topic E, Nikolac N, Lippi G. Hemolysis detection and management of hemolysed specimens. Biochem Med. 2010;20:154-9.
17. Lippi G. Interference studies: focus on blood cell lysates preparation and testing. Clin Lab 2012;58:351-5.
18. Di Martino G, Stefani AL, Lippi G, et al. The degree of acceptability of swine blood values at increasing levels of hemolysis evaluated through visual inspection versus automated quantification. J Vet Diagn Invest 2015;27:306-12.
19. Simundic AM, Cornes M, Grankvist K, et al. Standardization of collection requirements for fasting samples: for the Working Group on Preanalytical Phase (WG-PA) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM). Clin Chim Acta 2014;432:33-7.
20. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, et al. Influence of short-term venous stasis on clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2005;43:869-75.
21. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, et al. Quality standards for sample collection in coagulation testing. Semin Thromb Hemost 2012;38:565-75.
22. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Lima-Oliveira G, et al. Postural change during venous blood collection is a major source of bias in clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chim Acta 2015;440:164-8.
23. Bowen RA, Remaley AT. Interferences from blood collection tube components on clinical chemistry assays. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014;24:31-44.
24. Lippi G, Cornes MP, Grankvist K, et al. EFLM WGPreanalytical phase opinion paper: local validation of blood collection tubes in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:755-60.
25. EudraCT. EudraCT statistics. Available online: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/statistics.html, access 5 April 2016.
26. Simundic AM, Cornes M, Grankvist K, et al. Survey of national guidelines, education and training on phlebotomy in 28 European countries: an original report by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for the preanalytical phase (WG-PA). Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:1585-93.
27. Groenen PJ, Blokx WA, Diepenbroek C, et al. Preparing pathology for personalized medicine: possibilities for improvement of the pre-analytical phase. Histopathology 2011;59:1-7.
28. Christenson RH, Duh SH. Methodological and analytic considerations for blood biomarkers. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2012;55:25-33.
29. Kellogg MD, Ellervik C, Morrow D, et al. Preanalytical considerations in the design of clinical trials and epidemiological studies. Clin Chem 2015;61:797-803.
30. Lippi G, Plebani M, Guidi GC. The paradox in translational medicine. Clin Chem 2007;53:1553.