Dataset Information

A randomized evaluation of on-site monitoring nested in a multinational randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence from prospectively designed studies to guide on-site monitoring practices for randomized trials is limited. A cluster randomized study, nested within the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial, was conducted to evaluate on-site monitoring.

Methods

Sites were randomized to either annual on-site monitoring or no on-site monitoring. All sites were centrally monitored, and local monitoring was carried out twice each year. Randomization was stratified by country and projected enrollment in START. The primary outcome was a participant-level composite outcome including components for eligibility errors, consent violations, use of antiretroviral treatment not recommended by protocol, late reporting of START primary and secondary clinical endpoints (defined as the event being reported more than 6?months from occurrence), and data alteration and fraud. Logistic regression fixed effect hierarchical models were used to compare on-site versus no on-site monitoring for the primary composite outcome and its components. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals comparing on-site monitoring versus no on-site monitoring are cited.

Results

In total, 99 sites (2107 participants) were randomized to receive annual on-site monitoring and 97 sites (2264 participants) were randomized to be monitored only centrally and locally. The two monitoring groups were well balanced at entry. In the on-site monitoring group, 469 annual on-site monitoring visits were conducted, and 134 participants (6.4%) in 56 of 99 sites (57%) had a primary monitoring outcome. In the no on-site monitoring group, 85 participants (3.8%) in 34 of 97 sites (35%) had a primary monitoring outcome (odds ratio?=?1.7; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.7; p?=?0.03). Informed consent violations accounted for most outcomes in each group (56 vs 41 participants). The largest odds ratio was for eligibility violations (odds ratio?=?12.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.8-85.2; p?=?0.01). The number of participants with a late START primary endpoint was similar for each monitoring group (23 vs 16 participants). Late START grade 4 and unscheduled hospitalization events were found for 34 participants in the on-site monitoring group and 19 participants in the no on-site monitoring group (odds ratio?=?2.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-3.7; p?=?0.02). There were no cases of data alteration or fraud. Based on the travel budget for on-site monitoring and the hours spent conducting on-site monitoring, the estimated cost of on-site monitoring was over US$2?million.

Conclusion

On-site monitoring led to the identification of more eligibility and consent violations and START clinical events being reported more than 6?months from occurrence as compared to no on-site monitoring. Considering the nature of the excess monitoring outcomes identified at sites receiving on-site monitoring, as well as the cost of on-site monitoring, the value to the START study was limited.

SUBMITTER: Wyman Engen N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6992467 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized evaluation of on-site monitoring nested in a multinational randomized trial.

Wyman Engen Nicole N Huppler Hullsiek Kathy K Belloso Waldo H WH Finley Elizabeth E Hudson Fleur F Denning Eileen E Carey Catherine C Pearson Mary M Kagan Jonathan J

Clinical trials (London, England) 20191024 1

<h4>Background</h4>Evidence from prospectively designed studies to guide on-site monitoring practices for randomized trials is limited. A cluster randomized study, nested within the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial, was conducted to evaluate on-site monitoring.<h4>Methods</h4>Sites were randomized to either annual on-site monitoring or no on-site monitoring. All sites were centrally monitored, and local monitoring was carried out twice each year. Randomization was strat ...[more]

PMID: 31647325

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 2019, investigators from China, South Korea and the United States of America initiated a coordinated multinational trial. The trial included three parallel randomized studies with a planned pooled analysis of individual patient data, to test the effectiveness of acupuncture on hot flash-related symptoms in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients prescribed adjuvant endocrine therapy. Given the study's approach, there was no central coordinating center or data monitoring committee for the study, so a site performance self-monitoring toolkit was developed and implemented to support study teams in collecting and maintaining high-quality regulatory information, and consistent review of study data and documentation.MethodsThe site performance self-monitoring toolkit was created based on best practices related to post-approval quality assurance/quality improvement (QA/QI) procedures that support data quality. The toolkit included: (1) a binder of essential study management documents and related monitoring logs for sites to complete and maintain (herein called regulator binder), (2) a study start-up checklist, (3) a self-assessment study conduct and oversight checklist to be completed regularly, and (4) a study close-out checklist. In addition, a process of regular virtual meetings to discuss documentation progress coupled with periodic external remote review of completed logs and checklists provided accountability checks.ResultsOver the course of the study, the sites in China and South Korea completed the entirety of the site performance self-monitoring toolkit, and successfully submitted their completed materials for review. The process of implementing a self-monitoring toolkit in a multinational integrative medicine study is described qualitatively. Periodic external review of the completed toolkit materials revealed categories of findings. Written follow-up reports were provided to sites and discussion of the documents occurred via separate virtual meetings.ConclusionsSite study team self-monitoring provides a feasible, consistent, and effective way to review the collection and maintenance of data and regulatory documentation for quality assessment in minimal risk clinical research studies and can augment formal study monitoring activities in higher risk studies. Iterative feedback and support appeared to drive a disciplined approach to maintaining regulatory document compliance and helped sustain investigator and study team engagement in the process.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03783546 (21/12/2018).

Project description:Reviewing clinical trial site performance identifies strategies to control outcomes. Performance across 5 geographical regions (36 sites across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and Latin America) was investigated in a study that randomised 322 HIV-infected individuals.Regional performance was compared using descriptive analysis for time to site opening, recruitment, quality of data and laboratory samples. Follow-up consisted of 10 visits (96 weeks), electronic data collection (EDC) within 7 days of a visit and serious adverse events (SAEs) reported within 24 hours of site awareness.Median days to site opening was 250 (188 to 266), ranging from 177 (158 to 200) (Australia) to 265 (205 to 270) (Europe). Median days to ethics and regulatory approval was 182 (120 to 241) and 218 (182 to 341) days, respectively. Within regions, time to approval ranged from 187 (91 to 205) days (Australia) to 276 (175 to 384) days (Europe). Time to first randomisation ranged from 282 (250 to 313) days (Australia) to 426 (420 to 433) days (North America). Recruitment was lower than forecasted in Asia, Australia, Europe and North America at 89%, 77%, 91% and 43%, respectively. The converse was true in Latin America where despite ethics, regulatory and contractual delays, recruitment was 104% of predicted. Median days to EDC was 7 (3 to 16), ranging from 3 (1 to 16) (Asia) to 13 (8 to 14) days (North America). Median days for initial SAE submission to sponsor was 6 (2 to 20), ranging from 4 (2 to 18) (Latin America) to 24 (5 to 46) days (Australia). Sites took longer to submit final reports, overall median of 28 (7 to 91) days, ranging from 7 days (Australia) to 67 (23 to 103) days (Europe).Population availability and time to ethics and regulatory approvals influence recruitment; therefore accurate feasibility assessments are critical to site selection. Time to ethics and regulatory approval may not limit site inclusion if compensated by rapid recruitment. Identifying potential delays and methods for reduction can decrease time and costs for sponsors.Clinical Trials.Gov identifier: NCT00335322. Date of registration: 8 June 2006.

Project description:BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend regular serum lithium monitoring every 3 to 6 months. However, in the real world, only a minority of patients receive adequate monitoring.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine whether the use of the electronic health record (EHR)-nested reminder system for serum lithium monitoring can help achieve serum lithium concentrations within the therapeutic range for patients on lithium maintenance therapy.MethodsWe conducted an unblinded, single-center, EHR-nested, parallel-group, superiority randomized controlled trial comparing EHR-nested reminders with usual care in adult patients receiving lithium maintenance therapy for mood disorders. The primary outcome was the achievement of therapeutically appropriate serum lithium levels between 0.4 and 1.0 mEq/L at 18 months after enrollment. The key secondary outcomes are included as follows: the number of serum lithium level monitoring except for the first and final monitoring; exacerbation of the mood disorder during the study period, defined by hospitalization, increase in lithium dose, addition of antipsychotic drugs or mood stabilizers, or addition or increase of antidepressants; adherence defined by the proportion of days covered by lithium carbonate prescription during the study period.ResultsA total of 111 patients were enrolled in this study. A total of 56 patients were assigned to the reminder group, and 55 patients were assigned to the usual care group. At the follow-up, 38 (69.1%) patients in the reminder group and 33 (60.0%) patients in the usual care group achieved the primary outcome (odds ratio 2.14, 95% CI 0.82-5.58, P=.12). The median number of serum lithium monitoring was 2 in the reminder group and 0 in the usual care group (rate ratio 3.62; 95% CI 2.47-5.29, P<.001). The exacerbation of mood disorders occurred in 17 (31.5%) patients in the reminder group and in 16 (34.8%) patients in the usual care group (odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.42-2.28, P=.95).ConclusionsWe found insufficient evidence for an EHR-nested reminder to increase the achievement of therapeutic serum lithium concentrations. However, the number of monitoring increased with relatively simple and inexpensive intervention. The EHR-based reminders may be useful to improve quality of care for patients on lithium maintenance therapy, and they have potentials to be applied to other problems.Trial registrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000033633; https://tinyurl.com/5n7wtyav.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to compare interpretability of 2 intrapartum abdominal fetal heart rate-monitoring strategies. We hypothesized that an external fetal electrocardiography monitoring system, a newer technology using wireless abdominal pads, would generate more interpretable fetal heart rate data compared with standard external Doppler fetal heart rate monitoring (standard external monitoring).Study designWe conducted a randomized controlled trial at 4 Utah hospitals. Patients were enrolled at labor admission and randomized in blocks based on body mass index to fetal electrocardiography or standard external monitoring. Two reviewers, blinded to study allocation, reviewed each fetal heart rate tracing. The primary outcome was the percentage of interpretable minutes of fetal heart rate tracing. An interpretable minute was defined as >25% fetal heart rate data present and no more than 25% continuous missing fetal heart rate data or artifact present. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of interpretable minutes of fetal heart rate tracing obtained while on study device only, the number of device adjustments required intrapartum, clinical outcomes, and patient/provider device satisfaction. We determined that 100 patients per arm (200 total) would be needed to detect a 5% difference in interpretability with 95% power.ResultsA total of 218 women were randomized, 108 to fetal electrocardiography and 110 to standard external monitoring. Device setup failure occurred more often in the fetal electrocardiography group (7.5% [8 of 107] vs 0% [0 of 109] for standard external monitoring). There were no differences in the percentage of interpretable tracing between the 2 groups. However, fetal electrocardiography produced more interpretable fetal heart rate tracing in subjects with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. When considering the percentage of interpretable minutes of fetal heart rate tracing while on study device only, fetal electrocardiography outperformed standard external monitoring for all subjects, regardless of maternal body mass index. Maternal demographics and clinical outcomes were similar between arms. In the fetal electrocardiography group, more device changes occurred compared with standard external monitoring (51% vs 39%), but there were fewer nursing device adjustments (2.9 vs 6.2 mean adjustments intrapartum, P < .01). There were no differences in physician device satisfaction scores between groups, but fetal electrocardiography generated higher patient satisfaction scores.ConclusionFetal electrocardiography performed similarly to standard external monitoring when considering percentage of interpretable tracing generated in labor. Furthermore, patients reported overall greater satisfaction with fetal electrocardiography in labor. Fetal electrocardiography may be particularly useful in patients with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2.

Project description:ImportanceDelirium occurs in up to 52% of patients after cardiac surgery and may result from changes in cerebral perfusion. Using intraoperative cerebral autoregulation monitoring to individualize and optimize cerebral perfusion may be a useful strategy to reduce the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery.ObjectiveTo determine whether targeting mean arterial pressure during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) using cerebral autoregulation monitoring reduces the incidence of delirium compared with usual care.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial nested within a larger trial enrolled patients older than 55 years who underwent nonemergency cardiac surgery at a single US academic medical center between October 11, 2012, and May 10, 2016, and had a high risk for neurologic complications. Patients, physicians, and outcome assessors were masked to the assigned intervention. A total of 2764 patients were screened, and 199 were eligible for analysis in this study.InterventionIn the intervention group, the patient's lower limit of cerebral autoregulation was identified during surgery before CPB. On CPB, the patient's mean arterial pressure was targeted to be greater than that patient's lower limit of autoregulation. In the control group, mean arterial pressure targets were determined according to institutional practice.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was any incidence of delirium on postoperative days 1 through 4, as adjudicated by a consensus expert panel.ResultsAmong the 199 participants in this study, mean (SD) age was 70.3 (7.5) years and 150 (75.4%) were male. One hundred sixty-two (81.4%) were white, 26 (13.1%) were black, and 11 (5.5%) were of other race. Of 103 patients randomized to usual care, 94 were analyzed, and of 102 patients randomized to the intervention 105 were analyzed. Excluding 5 patients with coma, delirium occurred in 48 of the 91 patients (53%) in the usual care group compared with 39 of the 103 patients (38%) in the intervention group (P = .04). The odds of delirium were reduced by 45% in patients randomized to the autoregulation group (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.97; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study suggest that optimizing mean arterial pressure to be greater than the individual patient's lower limit of cerebral autoregulation during CPB may reduce the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery, but further study is needed.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00981474.

Dataset Information

A randomized evaluation of on-site monitoring nested in a multinational randomized trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A randomized evaluation of on-site monitoring nested in a multinational randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets