Explore the vast range of titles available.

Independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs) were introduced to monitor patient safety and study conduct in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but certain challenges regarding the utilization of IDMCs have developed. First, the roles and responsibilities of IDMCs are expanding, perhaps due to increasing trial complexity and heterogeneity regarding medical, ethical, legal, regulatory, and financial issues. Second, no standard for IDMC operating procedures exists, and there is uncertainty about who should determine standards and whether standards should vary with trial size and design. Third, considerable variability in communication pathways exist across IDMC interfaces with regulatory agencies, academic coordinating centers, and sponsors. Finally, there has been a substantial increase in the number of RCTs using IDMCs, yet there is no set of qualifications to help guide the training and development of the next generation of IDMC members. Recently, an expert panel of representatives from government, industry, and academia assembled at the Duke Clinical Research Institute to address these challenges and to develop recommendations for the future utilization of IDMCs in RCTs.

Background The independent oversight of clinical trials, which is recommended by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, is typically provided by an independent advisory Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) and an independent executive committee, to whom the DMC makes recommendations. The detailed roles and function of this executive committee, known as the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), have not previously been studied or reviewed since those originally proposed by the MRC in 1998. Methods An expert panel (n = 7) was convened comprising statisticians, clinicians and trial methodologists with prior TSC experience. Twelve questions about the role and responsibilities of the TSC were discussed by the panel at two full-day meetings. Each meeting was transcribed in full and the discussions were summarised. Results The expert panel reached agreement on the role of the TSC, to which it was accountable, the membership, the definition of independence, and the experience and training needed. The management of ethical issues, difficult/complex situations and issues the TSC should not ask the DMC to make recommendations on were more difficult to discuss without specific examples, but support existed for further work to help share issues and to provide appropriate training for TSC members. Additional topics discussed, which had not been identified by previous work relating to the DMCs but were pertinent to the role of the TSC, included the following: review of data sharing requests, indemnity, lifespan of the TSC, general TSC administration, and the roles of both the Funder and the Sponsor. Conclusions This paper presents recommendations that will contribute to the revision and update of the MRC TSC terms of reference. Uncertainty remains in some areas due to the absence of real-life examples; future guidance on these issues would benefit from a repository of case studies. Notably, the role of a patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor was not discussed, and further work is warranted to explore the role of a PPI contributor in independent trial oversight.

This article describes oversight mechanisms for clinical research that have developed substantially over the last few decades, including institutional review boards and data safety and monitoring boards. LeRoy Walters and others in the 1970s in the US thoughtfully described the importance of fundamental ethical principles and the application of bioethics to clinical research. Dr. Walters's important essay and work with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research helped identify and explain ethical principles that guide research. These principles, subsequently enunciated by the Commission in the Belmont Report, remain central to our understanding of the ethics of clinical research and are the foundation of our regulations. In this article, I review some history, successes, and challenges of IRBs and DSMBs to exemplify the significance of understanding and applying ethical principles to the design and conduct of clinical research, and to honor Dr. Walters's contributions.

Purpose Monitoring is a costly requirement when conducting clinical trials. New regulatory guidance encourages the industry to consider alternative monitoring methods to the traditional 100 % source data verification (SDV) approach. The purpose of this literature review is to provide an overview of publications on different monitoring methods and their impact on subject safety data, data integrity, and monitoring cost. Methods The literature search was performed by keyword searches in MEDLINE and hand search of key journals. All publications were reviewed for details on how a monitoring approach impacted subject safety data, data integrity, or monitoring costs. Results Twenty-two publications were identified. Three publications showed that SDV has some value for detection of not initially reported adverse events and centralized statistical monitoring (CSM) captures atypical trends. Fourteen publications showed little objective evidence of improved data integrity with traditional monitoring such as 100 % SDV and sponsor queries as compared to reduced SDV, CSM, and remote monitoring. Eight publications proposed a potential for significant cost reductions of monitoring by reducing SDV without compromising the validity of the trial results. Conclusions One hundred percent SDV is not a rational method of ensuring data integrity and subject safety based on the high cost, and this literature review indicates that reduced SDV is a viable monitoring method. Alternative methods of monitoring such as centralized monitoring utilizing statistical tests are promising alternatives but have limitations as stand-alone tools. Reduced SDV combined with a centralized, risk-based approach may be the ideal solution to reduce monitoring costs while improving essential data quality.

Formal monitoring of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is becoming more common. Wide variation exists in the structure and organisation of data monitoring committees (DMCs), with little guidance on how they should operate. We used various strategies to consider the behavioural, procedural, and organisational aspects of data monitoring in RCTs: systematic reviews of DMCs and small group processes in decision making; surveys of reports of RCTs, recently completed and ongoing RCTs, and the policies of major organisations connected with RCTs; detailed case studies of four DMCs that faced difficult decisions; and interviews with experienced DMC members. The findings aided the development of a template for a charter for DMCs. We summarise the findings and outline the key considerations at every stage of the data monitoring process. Widespread use of a charter for the structure and organisation of DMCs would promote a systematic and transparent approach, and enable them to operate more effectively and efficiently.

To examine whether primary reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in six high-impact, general medical journals reported (1) whether or not a Data Monitoring Committee/Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DMC/DSMB) was used and (2) the composition of the responsibilities of the reported DSMB/DMCs. Systematic review of RCTs published in 2014 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, NEJM, JAMA, JAMA Internal Medicine, and Lancet. Of the 294 articles identified, 174 (59%) mentioned using a DMC/DSMB. Of these 174, 126 (72%) indicated at least one responsibility of the DMC/DSMB, 26% listed the names of the DMC/DSMB members, and another 14% listed both their names and affiliations. Only one article stated that a DSMB was not used. The remaining 119 articles did not report whether or not a DMC/DSMB was used, although 59 had previously stated in a clinical trials registry entry or a published protocol that a DMC/DSMB was to be used. Considering the major role that DMC/DSMBs play in protecting participant safety, data quality, and interim analyses in RCTs, we recommend that authors of publications of RCTs report whether a DMC/DSMB was used and the responsibilities and members of DMC/DSMBs to increase transparency regarding study conduct.

Background Despite long-standing problems in decisions to stop clinical trials, stopping guidelines are often vague or unspecified in the trial protocol. Clear, well-conceived guidelines are especially important to assist the data monitoring committees for effectiveness trials. Main text To specify better stopping guidelines in the protocol for such trials, the clinical investigators and trial statistician should carefully consider the following kinds of questions: How should the relative importance of the treatment benefits and hazards be assessed? For decisions to stop a trial for benefit: What would be the minimum clinically important difference for the study population? How should the probability that the benefit exceeds that difference be assessed? When should the interim analyses include data from other trials? Would the evidence meet state-of-the-art standards for treatment recommendations and practice guidelines? Should less evidence be required to stop the trial for harm than for benefit? When should conventional stopping guidelines for futility be used for comparative effectiveness trials? Conclusion Both clinical and statistical expertise are required to address such challenging questions for effectiveness trials. Their joint consideration by clinical investigators and statisticians is needed to define better stopping guidelines before starting the trial.

Adjudication committees (ACs) are recommended in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to standardize the assessment of events. We aimed to assess the reporting and functioning of ACs (synonyms: clinical event committees, endpoint committees) in clinical trials. We searched five high-impact-factor medical journals for reports of RCTs with clinical event endpoints published between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2005. ACs were reported in 33.4% of the 314 reports of RCTs. ACs were reported in 29.6% of trials with low risk of misclassification (i.e., “hard” main outcome), in 47.5% of trials with medium risk of misclassification (i.e., subjective main outcome and intervention delivered in a blinded fashion) and in 31% of trials with high risk of misclassification (i.e., subjective main outcome without intervention delivered in a blinded fashion). Selected cases to be adjudicated consisted largely of events identified by site investigators (93.3%). Data provided to the AC were reported for 47.4% of ACs. Reporting of ACs is not fitted to the risk of biased misclassification. Important aspects of the functioning of ACs are insufficiently reported or raise methodological issues. We propose some recommendations for planning and reporting ACs in clinical trials.

Errors in the design, the conduct, the data collection process, and the analysis of a randomized trial have the potential to affect not only the safety of the patients in the trial, but also, through the introduction of bias, the safety of future patients. Trial monitoring, defined broadly to include methods of oversight which begin when the study is designed and continue until it is reported in a publication, has a role to play in eliminating such errors. On-site monitoring can be extremely inefficient for the identification of errors most likely to compromise patient safety or bias study results. However, a variety of other monitoring strategies offer alternatives to on-site monitoring. Each new trial should conduct a risk assessment to identify the optimal means of monitoring, taking into account the likely sources of error, their consequences for patients, the study's validity, and the available resources. Trial management committees should consider central statistical monitoring a key aspect of such monitoring. The systematic application of this approach would be likely to lead to tangible benefits, and resources that are currently wasted on inefficient on-site monitoring could be diverted to increasing trial sample sizes or conducting more trials. Clinical Trials 2008; 5: 49—55. http://ctj.sagepub.com

High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement, should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit of all stakeholders.