Assessment of the quality of sample labelling for clinical research

Objective: To assess the quality of the labels for clinical trial samples through current regulations, and to analyze its potential correlation with the specific characteristics of each sample. Method: A transversal multicenter study where the clinical trial samples from two third level hospitals were analyzed. The eleven items from Directive 2003/94/EC, as well as the name of the clinical trial and the dose on the label cover, were considered variables for labelling quality. The influence of the characteristics of each sample on labelling quality was also analyzed. Outcome: The study included 503 samples from 220 clinical trials. The mean quality of labelling, understood as the proportion of items from Appendix 13, was of 91.9%. Out of these, 6.6% did not include the name of the sample in the outer face of the label, while in 9.7% the dose was missing. The samples with clinical trial-type samples presented a higher quality (p < 0.049), blinding reduced their quality (p = 0.017), and identification by kit number or by patient increased it (p < 0.01). The promoter was the variable which introduced the highest variability into the analysis. Conclusions: The mean quality of labelling is adequate in the majority of clinical trial samples. The lack of essential information in some samples, such as the clinical trial code and the period of validity, is alarming and might be the potential source for dispensing or administration errors.

Endoluminal calprotectin measurement in assessment of pouchitis and a new index of disease activity: a pilot study

Pouchitis is the most common complication following proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis (UC). To provide a standardized definition of pouchitis clinical, endoscopic and histological markers were grouped and weighted in the pouch disease activity index (PDAI). However, the delay in the assessment of the final score due to the time requested for histological analysis remains the main obstacle to the index implementation in clinical practice so that the use of modified-PDAI (mPDAI) with exclusion of histologic subscore has been proposed. We tested the ability of calprotectin measurement in the pouch endoluminal content to mimic the histologic score as defined in the PDAI, the index that we adopted as gold standard for pouchitis diagnosis. Calprotectin was measured by ELISA in the pouch endoluminal content collected during endoscopy in 40 consecutive patients with J-pouch. In each patient PDAI and mPDAI were calculated and 15% of patients were erroneously classified by mPDAI. ROC analysis of calprotectin values vs. acute histological subscore ≥ 3 identified different calprotectin cut-off values with corresponding sensitivity and specificity allowing the definition and scoring of different range of calprotectin subscores. We incorporated the calprotectin score in the mPDAI obtaining a new score that shows the same specificity as PDAI for diagnosis of pouchitis and higher sensitivity when compared with mPDAI. The use of the proposed new score, once validated in a larger series of patients, might be useful in the early management of patients with symptoms of pouchitis.