European Good Laboratory and Clinical Practices: their relevance to clinical pathology laboratories

The requirements for Good Laboratory (GLP) and Good Clinical Practices (CGP) were established as a matter of urgency by the United States in the early 1970s. These were in response to gross misconduct and, in many instances, fraud. Over the next 15 years, a plethora of regulatory principles, guidelines, and regulations was produced by many countries of the world, culminating in single standards for European, Japanese, and United States authorities. Although with regard to GLP this has basically become a worldwide recognized standard within the preclinical (toxicology) studies, in the veterinary, chemical, agrochemical, and pharmaceutical industries, the GCPs are now seeing a rebirth. Within a clinical trials environment, there is most certainly a requirement for compliance with GCP, especially with regard to the harmonization of data within the European Community. The goal of this article is to cover the following aspects: Why should we have good practices? Why should laboratory data be audited? Why is there a need for a QA unit or function? What is the QA operational approach? How does a laboratory audit take place within laboratories? In discussing the laboratories and their subsequent data audits, the pitfalls and benefits are addressed and an examination of the data from the sponsor's viewpoint is compared with that produced by the laboratory. The types of laboratories present in a clinical environment are examined. They obviously comprise clinical pathology, microbiology, and analytical as well as ancillary hospital areas such as X-ray and cardiology. These laboratories may also be in the private sector, the National Health Service, contract laboratories, universities, or the general practitioner population.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)