PREDICT: a checklist for preventing pre-analytical diagnostic errors in clinical trials
Groenlandia Tech
Creación de soluciones para el control y la trazabilidad del transporte en frío de muestras biológicas
In 2019, the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) developed a specific checklist – called PREDICT – for preventing preanalytical diagnostic errors in clinical trials.
This checklist is focused particularly on covering the most important pre-analytical aspects of blood sample management in clinical studies:?
Laboratory errors
Errors happen, also in laboratory diagnostics. Although many efforts have been made for improving standardization and harmonization across various activities of the total testing process have made in vitro diagnostic testing a relative safe environment compared to other diagnostic disciplines, some error opportunities persist, most of which originate from extra-analytical activities.?
Most of these errors (approximately 60–70%) are the result of manually intensive activities at the preanalytical phase, followed by post-analytical errors (approximately 20–30%) and analytical mistakes. The various consequences of these potential errors include increased patient risk and waste of economic resources, as well as organisational issues within and outside the laboratory.
Pre-analytical quality is an essential requirement of clinical trials, in that there is a tangible risk that some clinical studies may fail to generate their true outcomes because of a variety of laboratory errors, including those arising from the pre-analytical phase.
Laboratory testing in clinical trials
Laboratory diagnostics play an essential role in clinical trials, since many diagnostic tests are used for defining whether or not a study participant will fulfil eligibility criteria; they are also used for assessing the baseline values of many parameters that can then be modified by the clinical intervention, as well as for demonstrating the efficacy of investigational product(s) and for monitoring the safety of study participants throughout the clinical trial.
The adoption of strict pre-analytical requirements is equally mandatory for clinical diagnostic testing as it is for clinical trials, as the risk of errors in the latter scenario may generate several unfavourable consequences (eg, rejecting samples due to lack of conformity at pre-analytical stage could subsequently result in exclusion of not only the specific samples, but also the entire data of the individual involved).
Failures of clinical trials
There is consolidated evidence that the risk of obtaining a misleading outcome for a clinical trial (ie, either positive or negative) is particularly high – ie, an event included in the conventional concept of ‘lost in translation from the bench to the bedside’, encompassing the lack of translation of basic research findings into effective clinical interventions.
There are many factors leading to the failure of a clinical trial (beyond lack of efficacy or safety concerns with the intervention), including:?
Among these various factors, diagnostic errors (thus including pre-analytical mistakes) are usually overlooked as a possible cause of clinical trial failure, despite emerging evidence which seems to point to the contrary.
In a recent report published by Schultze and Irizarry, the major sources of uncertainty in laboratory data generated within safety assessment studies were:
It is worth noting that the risk of clinical trial failure for delayed processing of blood specimens for glucose testing has also been highlighted. In fact, blood tubes, which cannot be centrifuged for up to 24 hours after phlebotomy, will experience a gradual (spurious) decline of glucose concentration, which may finally impair data interpretation for assessing the health status of potential study participants. In multi-centre trials, the use of different types of blood collection tubes or additives may be a source of diverging results, heavily impacting the statistical evaluation.
In addition, evidence has been provided to demonstrate that using inadequate pre-analytical procedures or overlooking SOPs for collection, processing and storage of biospecimens, may generate a negative bias in experimental outcomes and could also impair the reproducibility of the scientific data.
It is crucial to have a standardised collection and documentation system for all pre-analytical conditions during the process of patient preparation, collection and storage of biospecimens – in order to be able to exclude any pre-analytical bias in results in future studies. In particular, the cumulative risk of pre-analytical bias gradually increases in parallel with the complexity of the study, being lower in single-centre studies, intermediate in multicentre studies characterised by multiple peripheral collection sites and local testing, and predictably highest in multi-centre studies, where there are many peripheral collection sites and a single reference laboratory (ie, centralised testing). In this last case, not only do local procedures for blood sample collection and handling need to be standardised, but strict harmonisation is also required in local management and specimen transportation to the reference laboratories.
Test selection
The most appropriate selection of laboratory tests is as critical in routine clinical practice as in clinical trials. In the case of the? latter, it is quite common to review study protocols, including obsolete, redundant and even useless tests, due to the persistence of old habits – along with inadequate or insufficiently updated knowledge on test significance – while drafting protocols. The use of the most appropriate and updated laboratory investigations in clinical trials – due to their potential use for establishing participant eligibility, for identifying side-effects and for defining clinical outcomes – is to be considered as mandatory here as it is in routine clinical practice.
Analytical methodology should also be selected according to the test’s aim, thus identifying in advance whether it is to be used for screening, diagnosis, prognostication, therapeutic monitoring or follow-up. In this way, the analysis, the analytical technique and the test concentration cut-offs can be selected according to diagnostic performance and customised for the study protocol’s intended use.
Patient preparation
It is essential that the process of patient preparation for sample collection is standardised. This will involve the accurate standardisation of blood collection from one patient to another when samples are drawn in a single centre, but also when blood is collected from different centres, a standardised process is essential. This will require the accurate collection of clinical information, followed by strict standardisation of fasting time, collection time, abstaining from cigarette smoking and drinking coffee, and a period of rest before drawing blood; the patient also needs to be in a standardized position during sampling.
Blood sample collection and handling
The study protocol will contain clear indications on sample type and volume, sample matrix, blood collection device and blood collection tubes/additives, as well as time of tourniquet application, preferred venipuncture site, order of draw and sample mixing. The use of identical automatic tube labeling devices is a reasonable option for improving standardisation.
Blood sample preparation, transportation and/or storage
The risk of analytical bias is lower with centralised testing, but local analysis would limit the risk of pre-analytical bias arising from sample transportation. Both solutions are suitable, provided that a detailed protocol, containing accurately standardised analytical or preanalytical procedures, is made available. For those clinical trials involving sample shipment from remote collection centres to the reference laboratory, it is essential to locally centrifuge the specimens when there is a tangible risk that the stability of analytes in serum or plasma may be jeopardised during transportation. Whether centrifugation is performed locally or in the reference laboratory, centrifuge conditions must be standardised, with serum or plasma separated as soon as possible after centrifugation.
The condition of sample transportation (ie, time and temperature) must be accurately standardised, recorded and monitored. In the case of samples where analysis cannot immediately be done, they need to be stored according to the evidence available, in terms of analyte stability at different temperatures and lengths of storage. Repeated freezing and thawing cycles should normally be avoided, preferably by aliquoting samples into volumes fitting the analytic need prior to storage, according to the study protocol.
Tools such as the platform developed by Groenlandia guarantee traceability in logistics processes of this type. The platform also has the Nuuk cooler as a key element: it’s a device that incorporates a real-time control system that optimizes the logistics process, improves content safety, and reduces laboratory costs.
Nuuk guarantees various aspects, such as real-time control of the interior temperature, it has an alert system incorporated -informs about possible impacts or damages in the transport process-, it offers total access control where only the initial user and the recipient end can access the content inside and has a cooling technology adaptable to different temperature ranges.
Specimen retrieval before testing
Finally, in those clinical trials entailing the use of biobanks for long-term storage of biological material, sample retrieval before testing may be an additional critical issue. It is recommended that SOPs be made available to all the participating laboratories, with the aim of standardising the procedures used for preparing samples for testing; they should also cover procedures for the thawing and mixing of specimens, as well as clear indications that unsuitable samples should not be analysed. This is particularly important for haemolysed samples, which are the first cause of test suppression in clinical laboratories.
References
1. Lippi G, Guidi GC, Plebani M. One hundred years of laboratory testing and patient safety. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:797–8.10.1515/CCLM.2007.176Search in Google ScholarPubMed
2. Lippi G, Plebani M. A Six-Sigma approach for comparing diagnostic errors in healthcare-where does laboratory medicine stand? Ann Transl Med 2018;6:180.10.21037/atm.2018.04.02Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
3. Lippi G, Betsou F, Cadamuro J, Cornes M, Fleischhacker M, Fruekilde P, et al. Preanalytical challenges – time for solutions. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:974–81.10.1515/cclm-2018-1334Search in Google ScholarPubMed
4. Padoan A, Sciacovelli L, Zhou R, Plebani M. Extra-analytical sources of uncertainty: which ones really matter? Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1488–93.10.1515/cclm-2019-0197Search in Google ScholarPubMed
5. Plebani M, Aita A, Padoan A, Sciacovelli L. Decision support and patient safety. Clin Lab Med 2019;39:231–44.10.1016/j.cll.2019.01.003Search in Google ScholarPubMed
6. Schiff GD, Hasan O, Kim S, Abrams R, Cosby K, Lambert BL, et al. Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1881–7.10.1001/archinternmed.2009.333Search in Google ScholarPubMed
7. Lippi G, Bonelli P, Cervellin G. Prevalence and cost of hemolyzed samples in a large urban emergency department. Int J Lab Hematol 2014;36:e24–6.10.1111/ijlh.12135Search in Google ScholarPubMed
8. Cadamuro J, Fiedler GM, Mrazek C, Felder TK, Oberkofler H, Kipman U, et al. In-vitro hemolysis and its financial impact using different blood collection systems. J Lab Med 2016;40:49–55.10.1515/labmed-2015-0078Search in Google Scholar
9. Simundic AM, Lippi G. Preanalytical phase – a continuous challenge for laboratory professionals. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22:145–9.10.11613/BM.2012.017Search in Google Scholar
10. Lippi G, von Meyer A, Cadamuro J, Simundic AM. Blood sample quality. Diagnosis (Berl) 2019;6:25–31.10.1515/dx-2018-0018Search in Google ScholarPubMed
11. Banfi G, Lippi G. The impact of preanalytical variability in clinical trials: are we underestimating the issue? Ann Transl Med 2016;4:59.10.21037/atm.2016.04.10Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
12. Lippi G. The irreplaceable value of laboratory diagnostics: four recent tests that have revolutionized clinical practice. EJIFCC 2019;30:7–13.Search in Google Scholar
领英推荐
13. Badrick T. Evidence-based laboratory medicine. Clin Biochem Rev 2013;34:43–6.Search in Google Scholar
14. Lippi G, Simundic AM, Rodriguez-Manas L, Bossuyt P, Banfi G. Standardizing in vitro diagnostics tasks in clinical trials: a call for action. Ann Transl Med 2016;4:181.10.21037/atm.2016.04.10Search in Google Scholar
15. Simon R. Lost in translation: problems and pitfalls in translating laboratory observations to clinical utility. Eur J Cancer 2008;44:2707–13.10.1016/j.ejca.2008.09.009Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
16. Hwang TJ, Carpenter D, Lauffenburger JC, Wang B, Franklin JM, Kesselheim AS. Failure of investigational drugs in late-stage clinical development and publication of trial results. JAMA Intern Med 2016;176:1826–33.10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6008Search in Google ScholarPubMed
17. Morgan B, Hejdenberg J, Hinrichs-Krapels S, Armstrong D. Do feasibility studies contribute to, or avoid, waste in research? PLoS One 2018;13:e0195951.10.1371/journal.pone.0195951Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
18. Wong CH, Siah KW, Lo AW. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics 2019;20:273–86.10.1093/biostatistics/kxx069Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
19. Cummings JL, Morstorf T, Zhong K. Alzheimer’s disease drug-development pipeline: few candidates, frequent failures. Alzheimers Res Ther 2014;6:37.10.1186/alzrt269Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
20. Ioannidis JP, Bossuyt PM. Waste, leaks, and failures in the biomarker pipeline. Clin Chem 2017;63:963–72.10.1373/clinchem.2016.254649Search in Google ScholarPubMed
21. Fogel DB. Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: a review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2018;11:156–64.10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
22. Crucitti T, Fransen K, Maharaj R, Tenywa T, Massinga Loembé M, Murugavel KG, et al. Obtaining valid laboratory data in clinical trials conducted in resource diverse settings: lessons learned from a microbicide phase III clinical trial. PLoS One 2010;5:e13592.10.1371/journal.pone.0013592Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
23. Lippi G, Simundic AM. The preanalytical phase in the era of high-throughput genetic testing. What the future holds. Diagnosis (Berl) 2019;6:73–4.10.1515/dx-2018-0022Search in Google ScholarPubMed
24. Schultze AE, Irizarry AR. Recognizing and reducing analytical errors and sources of variation in clinical pathology data in safety assessment studies. Toxicol Pathol 2017;45:281–7.10.1177/0192623316672945Search in Google ScholarPubMed
25. Lippi G, Nybo M, Cadamuro J, Guimaraes JT, van Dongen-Lases E, Simundic AM. Blood glucose determination: effect of tube additives. Adv Clin Chem 2018;84:101–23.10.1016/bs.acc.2017.12.003Search in Google ScholarPubMed
26. Betsou F. Biospecimen processing method validation. Biopreserv Biobank 2015;13:69.10.1089/bio.2015.1321Search in Google ScholarPubMed
27. Ellervik C, Vaught J. Preanalytical variables affecting the integrity of human biospecimens in biobanking. Clin Chem 2015;61:914–34.10.1373/clinchem.2014.228783Search in Google ScholarPubMed
28. Gaignaux A, Ashton G, Coppola D, De Souza Y, De Wilde A, Eliason J, et al. A biospecimen proficiency testing program for biobank accreditation: four years of experience. Biopreserv Biobank 2016;14:429–39.10.1089/bio.2015.0108Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
29. Stellino C, Hamot G, Bellora C, Trouet J, Betsou F. Preanalytical robustness of blood collection tubes with RNA stabilizers. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:1522–9.10.1515/cclm-2019-0170Search in Google ScholarPubMed
30. Lehmann S, Guadagni F, Moore H, Ashton G, Barnes M, Benson E, et al. Standard preanalytical coding for biospecimens: review and implementation of the sample preanalytical code (SPREC). Biopreserv Biobank 2012;10:366–74.10.1089/bio.2012.0012Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
31. Robb JA, Gulley ML, Fitzgibbons PL, Kennedy MF, Cosentino LM, Washington K, et al. A call to standardize preanalytic data elements for biospecimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014;138:526–37.10.5858/arpa.2013-0250-CPSearch in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
32. Robb JA, Bry L, Sluss PM, Wagar EA, Kennedy MF, College of American Pathologists Diagnostic Information, et al. A call to standardize preanalytic data elements for biospecimens, part ii. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015;139:1125–8.10.5858/arpa.2014-0572-CPSearch in Google ScholarPubMed
33. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Standard 20387:2018: biotechnology – biobanking – general requirements for biobanking. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2018.Search in Google Scholar
34. Moore HM, Kelly A, Jewell SD, McShane LM, Clark DP, Greenspan R, et al. Biospecimen reporting for improved study quality. Biopreserv Biobank 2011;9:57–70.10.1089/bio.2010.0036Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
35. Vaught J, Abayomi A, Peakman T, Watson P, Matzke L, Moore H. Critical issues in international biobanking. Clin Chem 2014;60:1368–74.10.1373/clinchem.2014.224469Search in Google ScholarPubMed
36. Kellogg MD, Ellervik C, Morrow D, Hsing A, Stein E, Sethi AA. Preanalytical considerations in the design of clinical trials and epidemiological studies. Clin Chem 2015;61:797–803.10.1373/clinchem.2014.226118Search in Google ScholarPubMed
37. National Institutes of Health. Guidelines for good clinical laboratory practice standards. Bethesda, MD, USA: National Institutes of Health, 2019.Search in Google Scholar
38. World Health Organization. Good Clinical Laboratory Practice (GCLP). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
39. Ezzelle J, Rodriguez-Chavez IR, Darden JM, Stirewalt M, Kunwar N, Hitchcock R, et al. Guidelines on good clinical laboratory practice: bridging operations between research and clinical research laboratories. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2008;46:18–29.10.1016/j.jpba.2007.10.010Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
40. Tuck MK, Chan DW, Chia D, Godwin AK, Grizzle WE, Krueger KE, et al. Standard operating procedures for serum and plasma collection: early detection research network consensus statement standard operating procedure integration working group. J Proteome Res 2009;8:113–7.10.1021/pr800545qSearch in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
41. Guest PC, Rahmoune H. Blood bio-sampling procedures for multiplex biomarkers studies. Methods Mol Biol 2017;1546:161–8.10.1007/978-1-4939-6730-8_12Search in Google ScholarPubMed
42. Lippi G, Plebani M, Guidi GC. The paradox in translational medicine. Clin Chem 2007;53:1553.10.1373/clinchem.2007.087288Search in Google ScholarPubMed
43. Lippi G, Bovo C, Ciaccio M. Inappropriateness in laboratory medicine: an elephant in the room? Ann Transl Med 2017;5:82.10.21037/atm.2017.02.04Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
44. Cadamuro J, Ibarz M, Cornes M, Nybo M, Haschke-Becher E, von Meyer A, et al. Managing inappropriate utilization of laboratory resources. Diagnosis (Berl) 2019;6:5–13.10.1515/dx-2018-0029Search in Google ScholarPubMed
45. Kiechle FL, Arcenas RC, Rogers LC. Establishing benchmarks and metrics for disruptive technologies, inappropriate and obsolete tests in the clinical laboratory. Clin Chim Acta 2014;427:131–6.10.1016/j.cca.2013.05.024Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
46. Kaul KL, Sabatini LM, Tsongalis GJ, Caliendo AM, Olsen RJ, Ashwood ER, et al. The case for laboratory developed procedures: quality and positive impact on patient care. Acad Pathol 2017;4:2374289517708309.10.1177/2374289517708309Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
47. Morse JE, Calvert SB, Jurkowski C, Tassinari M, Sewell CA, Myers ER. Evidence-based pregnancy testing in clinical trials: recommendations from a multi-stakeholder development process. PLoS One 2018;13:e0202474.10.1371/journal.pone.0202474Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
48. Montagnana M, Trenti T, Aloe R, Cervellin G, Lippi G. Human chorionic gonadotropin in pregnancy diagnostics. Clin Chim Acta 2011;412:1515–20.10.1016/j.cca.2011.05.025Search in Google ScholarPubMed
49. Lippi G, Sanchis-Gomar F. “Ultra-sensitive” cardiac troponins: requirements for effective implementation in clinical practice. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2018;28:030501.10.11613/BM.2018.030501Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
50. Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. A statement from the ACB and LIMS manufacturers regarding CKD-EPI issued 09th February 2016. https://www.acb.org.uk/docs/default-source/documents/ckd-epi-statement-feb-2016-.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Last accessed, October 20, 2019.Search in Google Scholar
51. Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C. The biomarker paradigm: between diagnostic efficiency and clinical efficacy. Pol Arch Med Wewn 2015;125:282–8.10.20452/pamw.2788Search in Google ScholarPubMed
52. Simundic AM, B?lenius K, Cadamuro J, Church S, Cornes MP, van Dongen-Lases EC, et al. Joint EFLM-COLABIOCLI Recommendation for venous blood sampling. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:2015–38.10.1515/cclm-2018-0602Search in Google ScholarPubMed
53. Lippi G, Simundic AM. The EFLM strategy for harmonization of the preanalytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:1660–6.10.1515/cclm-2017-0277Search in Google ScholarPubMed
54. Simundic AM, Cornes M, Grankvist K, Lippi G, Nybo M. 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;432:33–7.10.1016/j.cca.2013.11.008Search in Google ScholarPubMed
55. Kong FS, Zhao L, Wang L, Chen Y, Hu J, Fu X, et al. Ensuring sample quality for blood biomarker studies in clinical trials: a multicenter international study for plasma and serum sample preparation. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2017;6:625–34.10.21037/tlcr.2017.09.13Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
56. Cureau FV, Bloch KV, Henz A, Schaan CW, Klein CH, Oliveira CL, et al. Challenges for conducting blood collection and biochemical analysis in a large multicenter school-based study with adolescents: lessons from ERICA in Brazil. Cad Saude Publica 2017;33:e00122816.10.1590/0102-311x00122816Search in Google ScholarPubMed
57. Casson PR, Krawetz SA, Diamond MP, Zhang H, Legro RS, Schlaff WD, et al. Proactively establishing a biologic specimens repository for large clinical trials: an idea whose time has come. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2011;57:217–21.10.3109/19396368.2011.604818Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
58. Marton MJ, Weiner R. Practical guidance for implementing predictive biomarkers into early phase clinical studies. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:891391.10.1155/2013/891391Search in Google ScholarPubMed PubMed Central
59. Favaloro EJ, Oliver S, Mohammed S, Ahuja M, Grzechnik E, Azimulla S, et al. Potential misdiagnosis of von Willebrand disease and haemophilia caused by ineffective mixing of thawed plasma. Haemophilia 2017;23:e436–43.10.1111/hae.13305Search in Google ScholarPubMed
60. Lippi G, Cadamuro J, von Meyer A, Simundic AM. Practical recommendations for managing hemolyzed samples in clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:718–27.10.1515/cclm-2017-1104Search in Google ScholarPubMed
61. Simundic AM, Baird G, Cadamuro J, Costelloe SJ, Lippi G. Managing hemolyzed samples in clinical laboratories. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2019:1–21. doi: 10.1080/10408363.2019.1664391. [Epub ahead of print].10.1080/10408363.2019.1664391Search in Google ScholarPubMed
62. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Mattiuzzi C. Public perception of diagnostic and laboratory errors among Internet users. Diagnosis (Berl) 2019;6:385–6.10.1515/dx-2018-0103Search in Google ScholarPubMed