Dataset Information

An evaluation of risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials in UK Clinical Trials Units.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Good Clinical Practice guidelines issued in 2016 encourage risk-based approaches to monitoring clinical trials. This study compared current risk assessment and monitoring approaches in UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) with the published guidance and makes recommendations for risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials.

Methods

An online survey of UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered CTUs was administered via email invitation. Forty-nine units were invited, and 23 responded. Respondents were also invited to share copies of risk assessment templates.

Results

Most CTUs reported using remote combined with on-site monitoring. All reported undertaking a risk assessment for Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) and 21?units did so for non-CTIMPs. Most CTIMP risk assessments used MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) classifications, although some also employed staff judgement. Almost all units based their monitoring on perceived risk level; this number was higher for CTIMPs (n = 22) than for non-CTIMPs (n = 19). In most cases, monitoring plans were produced. More CTUs revisited risk assessments during trials in CTIMPs (n = 21) than in non-CTIMPs (n = 18). Small numbers of units reviewed the monitoring approach always (n = 4) or sometimes (n = 9) and few used the reflection to guide future monitoring.

Conclusions

A high proportion of UK CTUs are using risk-based monitoring in the UK, as recommended by guidelines, for both CTIMPs and non-CTIMPs. This has the potential to make trials more efficient and reduce costs. However, there appears to be a lack of reflection on the value of these revised approaches. There may be a benefit in CTUs collaborating nationally to improve processes for reflection and making changes during the life course of a trial.

SUBMITTER: Beever D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6734501 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An evaluation of risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials in UK Clinical Trials Units.

Beever Daniel D Swaby Lizzie L

Trials 20190910 1

<h4>Background</h4>Good Clinical Practice guidelines issued in 2016 encourage risk-based approaches to monitoring clinical trials. This study compared current risk assessment and monitoring approaches in UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) with the published guidance and makes recommendations for risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials.<h4>Methods</h4>An online survey of UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered CTUs was administered via email invitation. Forty-nine units were invited, and 23 ...[more]

PMID: 31500656

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBlinding is an established approach in clinical trials which aims to minimise the risk of performance and detection bias. There is little empirical evidence to guide UK clinical trials units (CTUs) about the practice of blinding statisticians. Guidelines recommend that statisticians remain blinded to allocation prior to the final analysis. As these guidelines are not based on empirical evidence, this study undertook a qualitative investigation relating to when and how statisticians should be blinded in clinical trials.MethodsData were collected through online focus groups with various stakeholders who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts.ResultsThirty-seven participants from 19 CTUs participated in one of six focus groups. Four main themes were identified, namely statistical models of work, factors affecting the decision to blind statisticians, benefits of blinding/not blinding statisticians and practicalities. Factors influencing the decision to blind the statistician included available resources, study design and types of intervention and outcomes and analysis. Although blinding of the statistician is perceived as a desirable mitigation against bias, there was uncertainty about the extent to which an unblinded statistician might impart bias. Instead, in most cases, the insight that the statistician offers was deemed more important to delivery of a trial than the risk of bias they may introduce if unblinded. Blinding of statisticians was only considered achievable with the appropriate resource and staffing, which were not always available. In many cases, a standard approach to blinding was therefore considered unrealistic and impractical; hence the need for a proportionate risk assessment approach identifying possible mitigations.ConclusionsThere was wide variation in practice between UK CTUs regarding the blinding of trial statisticians. A risk assessment approach would enable CTUs to identify risks associated with unblinded statisticians conducting the final analysis and alternative mitigation strategies. The findings of this study will be used to design guidance and a tool to support this risk assessment process.

Project description:Institutional review boards, which are charged with overseeing research, must classify the riskiness of proposed research according to a federal regulation known as the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A) and by regulations governing the US Food and Drug Administration codified in 21 CFR 50. If an institutional review board determines that a clinical trial constitutes "minimal risk," there are important practical implications: the institutional review board may then allow a waiver or alteration of the informed consent process; the study may be carried out in certain vulnerable populations; or the study may be reviewed by institutional review boards using an expedited process. However, it is unclear how institutional review boards should assess the risk levels of pragmatic clinical trials. Such trials typically compare existing, widely used medical therapies or interventions in the setting of routine clinical practice. Some of the therapies may be considered risky of themselves but the study comparing them may or may not add to that pre-existing level of risk. In this article, we examine the common interpretations of research regulations regarding minimal-risk classifications and suggest that they are marked by a high degree of variability and confusion, which in turn may ultimately harm patients by delaying or hindering potentially beneficial research. We advocate for a clear differentiation between the risks associated with a given therapy and the incremental risk incurred during research evaluating those therapies as a basic principle for evaluating the risk of a pragmatic clinical trial. We then examine two pragmatic clinical trials and consider how various factors including clinical equipoise, practice variation, research methods such as cluster randomization, and patients' perspectives may contribute to current and evolving concepts of minimal-risk determinations, and how this understanding in turn affects the design and conduct of pragmatic clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe costs of medical research are a concern. Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) need to better understand variations in the costs of their activities.MethodsRepresentatives of ten CTUs and two grant-awarding bodies pooled their experiences in discussions over 1.5 years. Five of the CTUs provided estimates of, and written justification for, costs associated with CTU activities required to implement an identical protocol. The protocol described a 5.5-year, nonpharmacological randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at 20 centres. Direct and indirect costs, the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) and the FTEs attracting overheads were compared and qualitative methods (unstructured interviews and thematic analysis) were used to interpret the results. Four members of the group (funding-body representatives or award panel members) reviewed the justification statements for transparency and information content. Separately, 163 activities common to trials were assigned to roles used by nine CTUs; the consistency of role delineation was assessed by Cohen's κ.ResultsMedian full economic cost of CTU activities was £769,637 (range: £661,112 to £1,383,323). Indirect costs varied considerably, accounting for between 15% and 59% (median 35%) of the full economic cost of the grant. Excluding one CTU, which used external statisticians, the total number of FTEs ranged from 2.0 to 3.0; total FTEs attracting overheads ranged from 0.3 to 2.0. Variation in directly incurred staff costs depended on whether CTUs: supported particular roles from core funding rather than grants; opted not to cost certain activities into the grant; assigned clerical or data management tasks to research or administrative staff; employed extensive on-site monitoring strategies (also the main source of variation in non-staff costs). Funders preferred written justifications of costs that described both FTEs and indicative tasks for funded roles, with itemised non-staff costs. Consistency in role delineation was fair (κ = 0.21-0.40) for statisticians/data managers and poor for other roles (κ < 0.20).ConclusionsSome variation in costs is due to factors outside the control of CTUs such as access to core funding and levels of indirect costs levied by host institutions. Research is needed on strategies to control costs appropriately, especially the implementation of risk-based monitoring strategies.

Project description:BackgroundOpinions and practices vary around the issue of performing multiple statistical tests in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We carried out a study to collate information about opinions and practices using a methodological rapid review and a survey, specifically of publicly funded pragmatic RCTs that are not seeking marketing authorisation. The aim was to identify the circumstances under which researchers would make a statistical adjustment for multiplicity.MethodsA review was performed extracting information from articles reporting primary analyses of pragmatic RCTs in one of seven high quality medical journals, in January to June (inclusive) 2018. A survey (Survey Monkey) eliciting opinions and practices around multiplicity was distributed to the 47 registered clinical trials units (CTUs) in the UK.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-eight RCTs were included in the review, and survey responses were received from 27/47 (57%) CTUs. Both the review and survey indicated that adjusting for multiplicity was considered most important for multiple treatment comparisons; adjustment was performed for 11/23 (48%) published trials, and 24/27 (89%) CTU statisticians reported they would consider adjustment. Opinions and practices varied around adjustment for multiplicity arising from multiple primary outcomes and interim analyses. Adjustment was considered less important for multiplicity due to multiple secondary outcomes (adjustment performed for 17/136 [13%] published trials and 3/27 [11%] CTU statisticians would consider adjustment) and subgroup analyses (8/85 [9%] published trials adjusted and 6/27 CTU [22%] statisticians would consider adjustment).ConclusionsThere is variation in opinions about adjustment for multiplicity among both statisticians reporting RCTs and applied statisticians working in CTUs. Further guidance is needed on the circumstances in which adjustment should be considered in relation to primary trial hypotheses, and if there are any situations in which adjustment would be recommended in the context of secondary analyses.

Project description:PurposeGeneral notification offers a possible alternative to written informed consent for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs). It involves patients being informed through brochures, posters, and letters that research is being conducted simultaneously to providing clinical care and that patients will be enrolled in pRCTs without study-specific consent. A previous survey found that a substantial minority of respondents endorsed general notification. We aimed to know who is willing to enroll in this type of trials using general notification rather than written consent.MethodsThe previous study was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Two scenarios were assessed: two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar benefit/risk ratio and the other taking the same drug in the morning or at night. Each scenario had two routes: written consent vs verbal consent and written consent vs general notification. In this study, we were interested in the latter route in both scenarios. Respondents' preferences were measured based on their recommendation to the research ethics committee and the respondent's personal preference. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of those supporting general notification in either outcome or the variables explaining consistency and inconsistency between their personal preference and their recommendation. Based on the results of the original survey, we aimed to have at least 200 inconsistent respondents; to this end, the sample size was increased accordingly in a second wave of the survey.ResultsOne thousand six hundre and ten respondents were included; 1003 from the original survey and 607 new ones belonging to the second wave. Thirty-nine percent of respondents chose general notification as personal preference and/or recommendation. Respondents with lower education levels were more prone to accept general notification than those holding a university degree [OR (95% CI)], primary school [2.959 (2.069-4.232)], secondary school [2.899 (2.09-4.021)], or high school [1.620 (1.184-2.217)]. Also unemployed [1.372 (1.064-1.770)] and retired [1.445 (1.049-1.990)], but not students, showed preference for general notification in comparison with those employed. Individuals more than 24 years old and having received high school or university (or postgraduate) education were statistically significantly more consistent in their decisions.ConclusionsThirty-nine percent of respondents is open to not to be asked for their informed consent in low-risk pRCTs; of these, those being less educated and not having current job or being retired are significantly more open to general notification. The use of this alternative method to written consent for simultaneous conduct of pRCTs and care should be considered and educational programs settled up to, in the case of public acceptance, ensure its ethical appropriateness.

Dataset Information

An evaluation of risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials in UK Clinical Trials Units.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

An evaluation of risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials in UK Clinical Trials Units.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets