Search

Clinical trials investigating novel or high risk interventions, or studying vulnerable participants, often use a data monitoring committee to oversee the progress of the trial. The data monitoring committee serves both an ethical and a scientific function, by protecting the interests of trial participants while ensuring the integrity of the trial results. A data monitoring committee charter, which typically describes the procedures by which data monitoring committees operate, contains details about the data monitoring committee's organizational structure, membership, meeting frequency, sequential monitoring guidelines, and the overall contents of data monitoring committee reports for interim review. These charters, however, are generally not reviewed by outside entities and are rarely publicly available. The result is that a key component of trial oversight remains in the dark. We recommend that ClinicalTrials.gov modify its system to allow uploading of data monitoring committee charters, as is already possible for other important study documents and that clinical trialists take advantage of this opportunity to voluntarily upload the data monitoring committee charter for trials that have one. The resulting cache of publicly available data monitoring committee charters should provide important insights for those interested in a particular trial, as well as for meta-researchers who wish to understand and potentially improve how this important component of trial oversight is actually being applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The threat of a possible Marburg virus disease outbreak in Central and Western Africa is growing. While no Marburg virus vaccines are currently available for use, several candidates are in the pipeline. Building on knowledge and experiences in the designs of vaccine efficacy trials against other pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, we develop designs of randomized Phase 3 vaccine efficacy trials for Marburg virus vaccines. Methods: A core protocol approach will be used, allowing multiple vaccine candidates to be tested against controls. The primary objective of the trial will be to evaluate the effect of each vaccine on the rate of virologically confirmed Marburg virus disease, although Marburg infection assessed via seroconversion could be the primary objective in some cases. The overall trial design will be a mixture of individually and cluster-randomized designs, with individual randomization done whenever possible. Clusters will consist of either contacts and contacts of contacts of index cases, that is, ring vaccination, or other transmission units. Results: The primary efficacy endpoint will be analysed as a time-to-event outcome. A vaccine will be considered successful if its estimated efficacy is greater than 50% and has sufficient precision to rule out that true efficacy is less than 30%. This will require approximately 150 total endpoints, that is, cases of confirmed Marburg virus disease, per vaccine/comparator combination. Interim analyses will be conducted after 50 and after 100 events. Statistical analysis of the trial will be blended across the different types of designs. Under the assumption of a 6-month attack rate of 1% of the participants in the placebo arm for both the individually and cluster-randomized populations, the most likely sample size is about 20,000 participants per arm. Conclusion: This event-driven design takes into the account the potentially sporadic spread of Marburg virus. The proposed trial design may be applicable for other pathogens against which effective vaccines are not yet available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: Noninferiority clinical trials are susceptible to false confirmation of noninferiority when the intention-to-treat principle is applied in the setting of incomplete trial protocol adherence. The risk increases as protocol adherence rates decrease. The objective of this study was to compare protocol adherence and hypothesis confirmation between superiority and noninferiority randomized clinical trials published in three high impact medical journals. We hypothesized that noninferiority trials have lower protocol adherence and greater hypothesis confirmation. Methods: We conducted an observational study using published clinical trial data. We searched PubMed for active control, two-arm parallel group randomized clinical trials published in JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and The Lancet between 2007 and 2017. The primary exposure was trial type, superiority versus noninferiority, as determined by the hypothesis testing framework of the primary trial outcome. The primary outcome was trial protocol adherence rate, defined as the number of randomized subjects receiving the allocated intervention as described by the trial protocol and followed to primary outcome ascertainment (numerator), over the total number of subjects randomized (denominator). Hypothesis confirmation was defined as affirmation of noninferiority or the alternative hypothesis for noninferiority and superiority trials, respectively. Results: Among 120 superiority and 120 noninferiority trials, median and interquartile protocol adherence rates were 91.5 [81.4–96.7] and 89.8 [83.6–95.2], respectively; P = 0.47. Hypothesis confirmation was observed in 107/120 (89.2%) of noninferiority and 64/120 (53.3%) of superiority trials, risk difference (95% confidence interval): 35.8 (25.3–46.3), P < 0.001. Conclusion: Protocol adherence rates are similar between superiority and noninferiority trials published in three high impact medical journals. Despite this, we observed greater hypothesis confirmation among noninferiority trials. We speculate that publication bias, lenient noninferiority margins and other sources of bias may contribute to this finding. Further study is needed to identify the reasons for this observed difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first rumblings about a new coronavirus spreading in China were heard in January 2020. By the end of that month, the World Health Organization, recognizing the severity of the disease and the potential for global spread, had declared a public health emergency. By February 2020, cases had been identified in multiple countries, clinical trials of treatments with some biological plausibility had begun in China, and the initial steps of vaccine development were underway. In mid-March, by which time countries around the world were experiencing rapidly increasing numbers of cases and deaths, the World Health Organization categorized the outbreak as a pandemic. This new coronavirus was designated SARS-COV-2 in recognition of its similarity to the coronavirus responsible for the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2002–2003. The race is on to develop treatments that can mitigate the severe consequences of infection and vaccines that can prevent infection and/or diminish the severity of disease in those who do get infected. Many challenges face these development efforts. Some are similar to those faced in the past; others are new. The urgency of finding ways to treat, and ultimately prevent, the consequences of this new and potentially deadly infection has led to unprecedented focus on clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Maintaining confidentiality of emerging data and ensuring the independence of Data Monitoring Committees are best practices of considerable importance to the ability of these committees to achieve their mission of safeguarding the interests of study participants and enhancing the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. Even with the wide recognition of these principles, there are circumstances where confidentiality issues remain challenging, controversial or inconsistently addressed. First, consider settings where a clinical trial's interim data could provide the evidence regulatory authorities require for decisions about marketing approval, yet where such a trial would be continued post-approval to provide more definitive evidence about principal safety and/or efficacy outcomes. In such settings, data informative about the longer term objectives of the trial should remain confidential until pre-specified criteria for trial completion have been met. Second, for those other than Data Monitoring Committee members, access to safety and efficacy outcomes during trial conduct, even when presented as data pooled across treatment arms, should be on a limited ''need to know'' basis relating to the ability to carry out ethical or scientific responsibilities in the conduct of the trial. Third, Data Monitoring Committee members should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable timely and informed judgments about risks and benefits. Fourth, it should be recognized that a mediator potentially could be useful in rare settings where the Data Monitoring Committee would have serious ethical or scientific concerns about the sponsor's dissemination or lack of dissemination of information. Data Monitoring Committee Contract Agreements, Indemnification Agreements and Charters should be developed in a manner to protect Data Monitoring Committee members and their independence, in order to enhance the Data Monitoring Committee's ability to effectively address their mission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Data monitoring committees are responsible for safeguarding the interests of study participants and assuring the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. The independence of data monitoring committees from sponsors and investigators is essential in achieving this mission. Creative approaches are needed to address ongoing and emerging challenges that potentially threaten data monitoring committees' independence and effectiveness. Methods: An expert panel of representatives from academia, industry and government sponsors, and regulatory agencies discussed these challenges and proposed best practices and operating principles for effective functioning of contemporary data monitoring committees. Results and Conclusions: Prospective data monitoring committee members need better training. Options could include didactic instruction as well as apprenticeships to provide real-world experience. Data monitoring committee members should be protected against legal liability arising from their service. While avoiding breaches in confidentiality of interim data remains a high priority, data monitoring committees should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable informed judgments about risks and benefits. Because overly rigid procedures can compromise their independence, data monitoring committees should have the flexibility necessary to best fulfill their responsibilities. Data monitoring committee charters should articulate principles that guide the data monitoring committee process rather than list a rigid set of requirements. Data monitoring committees should develop their recommendations by consensus rather than through voting processes. The format for the meetings of the data monitoring committee should maintain the committee's independence and clearly establish the leadership of the data monitoring committee chair. The independent statistical group at the Statistical Data Analysis Center should have sufficient depth of knowledge about the study at hand and experience with trials in general to ensure that the data monitoring committee has access to timely, reliable, and readily interpretable insights about emerging evidence in the clinical trial. Contracts engaging data monitoring committee members for industry-sponsored trials should have language customized to the unique responsibilities of data monitoring committee members rather than use language appropriate to consultants for product development. Regulatory scientists would benefit from experiencing data monitoring committee service that does not conflict with their regulatory responsibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In any clinical trial, it is essential to monitor the accumulating data to be sure that the trial continues to be safe for participants and that the trial is being conducted properly. Data monitoring committees, independent expert panels who undertake regular reviews of the data as the trial progresses, serve an important role in safeguarding the interests of research participants and ensuring trial integrity in many trials. Many pragmatic clinical trials, which aim to inform healthcare decisions by comparing alternate interventions in heterogeneous healthcare delivery settings, will warrant review by an independent data monitoring committee due to their potential impact on clinical practice. However, the very features that make a trial “pragmatic” may pose challenges in terms of which aspects of a trial to monitor and when it is appropriate for a data monitoring committee to intervene. Using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary tool that draws distinctions between pragmatic and explanatory clinical trials, we review characteristics of pragmatic clinical trials that may have implications for data monitoring committees and interim monitoring plans. These include broad eligibility criteria, a focus on subjective patient-centered outcomes, and in some cases a lack of standardized follow-up procedures across study sites. Additionally, protocol adherence is often purposefully not addressed in pragmatic trials in order to accurately represent the clinical practice setting and maintain practicability of implementation; there are differing viewpoints as to whether adherence should be assessed and acted upon by data monitoring committees in these trials. Some other issues not specifically related to the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary criteria may also merit special consideration in pragmatic trials. Thresholds for early termination of a pragmatic clinical trial might be controversial. The distinguishing features of pragmatic clinical trials require careful consideration when developing interim data monitoring plans, and trial sponsors, investigators, and data monitoring committees should agree on a plan before trial inception. Finally, special expertise, such as an informatics, may be helpful on data monitoring committees for some pragmatic clinical trials. Patient representatives may provide particularly valuable insights in the monitoring process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents information on data monitoring. The practice of establishing expert committees for the purpose of interim monitoring of the accumulating data in a clinical trial is growing. This practice developed out of early experiences at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). During the 1970s and 1980s, such committees became used more widely in federally funded trials and occasionally in trials funded by industry. But beginning in the 1990s, use of these committees rapidly expanded. They became required for virtually all federally financed randomized trials.