Data monitoring committees for clinical trials evaluating treatments of COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mutze T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7833551 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Data monitoring committees for clinical trials evaluating treatments of COVID-19.
Contemporary clinical trials 20200919
The first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in December 2019 and the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization. This sparked a plethora of investigations into diagnostics and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, as well as treatments for COVID-19. Since COVID-19 is a severe disease associated with a high mortality, clinical trials in this disease should be monitored by a data monitoring committee (DMC), also known as data safety ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background/aims Use of data monitoring committees to oversee clinical trials was first proposed nearly 50 years ago. Since then, data monitoring committee use in clinical trials has increased and evolved. Nonetheless, there are no well-defined criteria for determining the need for a data monitoring committee, and considerable variability exists in data monitoring committee composition and conduct. To understand and describe the role and function of data monitoring committees, and establish best practices for data monitoring committee trial oversight, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative-a public-private partnership to improve clinical trials-launched a multi-stakeholder project. Methods The data monitoring committee project team included 16 individuals charged with (1) clarifying the purpose of data monitoring committees, (2) identifying best practices for independent data monitoring committee conduct, (3) describing effective communication practices, and (4) developing strategies for training data monitoring committee members. Evidence gathering included a survey, a series of focus group discussions, and a 2-day expert meeting aimed at achieving consensus opinions that form the foundation of our data monitoring committee recommendations. Results We define the role of the data monitoring committee as an advisor to the research sponsor on whether to continue, modify, or terminate a trial based on periodic assessment of trial data. Data monitoring committees should remain independent from the sponsor and be composed of members with no relevant conflicts of interest. Representation on a data monitoring committee generally should include at least one clinician with expertise in the therapeutic area being studied, a biostatistician, and a designated chairperson who has experience with clinical trials and data monitoring. Data monitoring committee meetings are held periodically to evaluate the unmasked data from ongoing trials, but the content and conduct of meetings may vary depending on specific goals or topics for deliberation. To guide data monitoring committee conduct and communication plans, a charter consistent with the protocol's research design and statistical analysis plan should be developed and agreed upon by the sponsor and the data monitoring committee prior to patient enrollment. We recommend concise and flexible charters that explain roles, responsibilities, operational issues, and how data monitoring committee recommendations are generated and communicated. The demand for data monitoring committee members appears to exceed the current pool of qualified individuals. To prepare a new generation of trained data monitoring committee members, we encourage a combination of didactic educational programs, practical experience, and skill development through apprenticeships and mentoring by experienced data monitoring committee members. Conclusion Our recommendations address data monitoring committee use, conduct, communication practices, and member preparation and training. Furthermore recommendations form the foundation for ongoing efforts to improve clinical trial oversight and enhance the safety and integrity of clinical research. These recommendations serve as a call to action for implementation of best practices that benefit study participants, study sponsors, and society.
| S-EPMC5639979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The role and use of independent data monitoring committees (IDMCs) has evolved over the past decades. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency have issued guidelines on the role and functioning of such committees. In general, data monitoring committees are recommended for large, often randomised clinical trials involving life-threatening diseases, studies performed in vulnerable populations or where the experimental intervention can potentially harm the trial participant. Such committees play an important role in trials evaluating treatments with the potential to prolong life or reduce the risk of major adverse health outcomes.Typically, oncology clinical trials fall within these recommendations, as they are often large, randomised, multicentric protocols aiming at improving survival outcomes by exploring the use of study treatments that may be associated with a significant risk of serious, even life-threatening adverse events. IDMCs are required for National Cancer Institute phase III randomised trials, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase II/III trials with formal interim analyses, early-stopping rules or adaptive studies. The primary role of an IDMC of ensuring the safety of study participants and maintaining clinical trial integrity is particularly important in oncology trials, due to the nature of the disease, the potential for treatment toxicity and for instilling confidence that the clinical trial data are reliable. A clear understanding by IDMC members of the natural course of the disease, treatment landscape, importance and relevance of certain adverse events in trial participants, clinical trial methodology in general and stopping rules for oncology trials in particular, is crucial for the functioning of an IDMC.It is recommended that IDMC members should be experienced trialists, have a track record of strong clinical, statistical and/or methodological expertise and the required level of independence, as they play a highly important role in the protection of study participants, and in commercially and strategically important go/no decisions. Ideally, IDMC members should have relevant experience or have some training, mentorship or guidelines.
| S-EPMC8547363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To speed the development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, the United States Federal Government has funded multiple phase 3 trials of candidate vaccines. A single 11-member data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) monitors all government-funded trials to ensure coordinated oversight, promote harmonized designs, and allow shared insights related to safety across trials. DSMB reviews encompass 3 domains: (1) the conduct of trials, including overall and subgroup accrual and data quality and completeness; (2) safety, including individual events of concern and comparisons by randomized group; and (3) interim analyses of efficacy when event-driven milestones are met. Challenges have included the scale and pace of the trials, the frequency of safety events related to the combined enrollment of over 100 000 participants, many of whom are older adults or have comorbid conditions that place them at independent risk of serious health events, and the politicized environment in which the trials have taken place.
| S-EPMC8240876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData monitoring committees advise on clinical trial conduct through appraisal of emerging data to ensure participant safety and scientific integrity. While consideration of their use is recommended for trials performed with vulnerable populations, previous research has shown that data monitoring committees are reported infrequently in publications of pediatric randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the frequency of reported data monitoring committee adoption in ClinicalTrials.gov registry records and to examine the influence of key trial characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional data analysis of all randomized controlled trials performed exclusively in a pediatric population and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2008 and 2021. We used the Access to Aggregate Content of ClinicalTrials.gov database to retrieve publicly available information on trial characteristics and data on safety results. Abstracted data included reported trial design and conduct parameters, population and intervention characteristics, reasons for prematurely halting, serious adverse events, and mortality outcomes. We performed descriptive analyses on the collected data and explored the influence of clinical, methodological, and operational trial characteristics on the reported adoption of data monitoring committees.ResultsWe identified 13,928 pediatric randomized controlled trial records, of which 39.7% reported adopting a data monitoring committee, 49.0% reported not adopting a data monitoring committee, and 11.3% did not answer on this item. While the number of registered pediatric trials has been increasing since 2008, we found no clear time trend in the reported adoption of data monitoring committees. Data monitoring committees were more common in multicenter trials (50.6% vs 36.9% for single-center), multinational trials (60.2% vs 38.7% for single-country), National Institutes of Health-funded (60.3% vs 40.1% for industry-funded or 37.5% for other funders), and placebo-controlled (47.6% vs 37.5% for other types of control groups). Data monitoring committees were also more common among trials enrolling younger participants, trials employing blinding techniques, and larger trials. Data monitoring committees were more common in trials with at least one serious adverse event (52.6% vs 38.4% for those without) as well as for trials with reported deaths (70.3% vs 38.9% for trials without reported deaths). In all, 4.9% were listed as halted prematurely, most often due to low accrual rates. Trials with a data monitoring committee were more often halted for reasons related to scientific data than trials without a data monitoring committee (15.7% vs 7.3%).ConclusionAccording to registry records, the use of data monitoring committees in pediatric randomized controlled trials was more frequent than previously reported in reviews of published trial reports. The use of data monitoring committees varied across key clinical and trial characteristics based on which their use is recommended. Data monitoring committees may still be underutilized in pediatric trials, and reporting of this item could be improved.
| S-EPMC10638853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for novel coronavirus-induced disease (COVID-19) is complex. Trials must start rapidly to identify treatments that can be used as part of the outbreak response, in the midst of considerable uncertainty and limited information. COVID-19 presentation is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks to over a month and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about the clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical, particularly given a multitude of putative therapies to evaluate. Furthermore, patient states in between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly given the variable time course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time points, such as a comparison of severity scores between treatment and control at day 14, may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time to improvement (or recovery) avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" versus "not recovered."MethodsWe evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials.ResultsPower for fixed time-point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared with a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time.DiscussionTime-to-event analysis methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.
| S-EPMC7611901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesFor 300 paediatric trials, we evaluated the reporting of: a data monitoring committee (DMC); interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints.MethodsFor this cross-sectional evaluation, we randomly selected 300 paediatric trials published in 2012 from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We collected data on the reporting of a DMC; interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints. We reported the findings descriptively and stratified by trial characteristics.ResultsEighty-five (28%) of the trials investigated drugs, and 18% (n=55/300) reported a DMC. The reporting of a DMC was more common among multicentre than single centre trials (n=41/132, 31% vs n=14/139, 10%, p<0.001) and industry-sponsored trials compared with those sponsored by other sources (n=16/50, 32% vs n=39/250, 16%, p=0.009). Trials that reported a DMC enrolled more participants than those that did not (median [range]): 224 (10-60480) vs 91 (10-9528) (p<0.001). Only 25% of these trials reported interim analyses, and 42% reported stopping rules. Less than half (n=143/300, 48%) of trials reported on adverse events, and 72% (n=215/300) reported on harm-related endpoints. Trials that reported a DMC compared with those that did not were more likely to report adverse events (n=43/55, 78% vs 100/245, 41%, p<0.001) and harm-related endpoints (n=52/55, 95% vs. 163/245, 67%, p<0.001). Only 32% of drug trials reported a DMC; 18% and 19% did not report on adverse events or harm-related endpoints, respectively.ConclusionsThe reporting of a DMC was infrequent, even among drug trials. Few trials reported stopping rules or interim analyses. Reporting of adverse events and harm-related endpoints was suboptimal.
| S-EPMC6542427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Several vaccine candidates to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have entered or will soon enter large-scale, phase 3, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. To facilitate harmonized evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of these vaccines, a general set of clinical endpoints is proposed, along with considerations to guide the selection of the primary endpoints on the basis of clinical and statistical reasoning. The plausibility that vaccine protection against symptomatic COVID-19 could be accompanied by a shift toward more SARS-CoV-2 infections that are asymptomatic is highlighted, as well as the potential implications of such a shift.
| S-EPMC7596738 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10071396 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVaccine clinical trials should strive to recruit a racially, socioeconomically, and ethnically diverse range of participants to ensure appropriate representation that matches population characteristics. Yet, full inclusion in research is often limited.MethodsA single-center retrospective study was conducted of adults enrolled at Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, MA) between July 2020 and December 2021. Demographic characteristics, including age, race, ethnicity, ZIP code, and sex assigned at birth, were analyzed from both HIV and COVID-19 vaccine trials during the study period, acknowledging the limitations to representation under these parameters. We compared the educational attainment of vaccine trial participants to residents of the Massachusetts metropolitan area, geocoded participants' addresses to their census block group, and linked them to reported median household income levels from publicly available data for 2020. Frequency and quartile analyses were carried out, and spatial analyses were performed using ArcGIS Online web-based mapping software (Esri).ResultsA total of 1030 participants from four COVID-19 vaccine trials (n = 916 participants) and six HIV vaccine trials (n = 114 participants) were included in the analysis. The median age was 49 years (IQR 33-63) and 28 years (IQR 24-34) for the COVID-19 and HIV vaccine trials, respectively. Participants identifying as White were the majority group represented for both the COVID-19 (n = 598, 65.3%) and HIV vaccine trials (n = 83, 72.8%). Fewer than 25% of participants identified as Hispanic or Latin. Based on ZIP code of residence, the median household income for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial participants (n = 846) was 102,088 USD (IQR = 81,442-126,094). For HIV vaccine clinical trial participants (n = 109), the median household income was 101,266 USD (IQR 75,052-108,832).ConclusionWe described the characteristics of participants enrolled for HIV and COVID-19 vaccine trials at a single center and found similitude in geographical distribution, median incomes, and proportion of underrepresented individuals between the two types of vaccine candidate trials. Further outreach efforts are needed to ensure the inclusion of individuals from lower educational and socioeconomic brackets. In addition, continued and sustained efforts are necessary to ensure inclusion of individuals from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.
| S-EPMC11311253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted many initiatives to identify safe and efficacious treatments, yet little is known regarding where early efforts have focused. We aimed to characterise registered clinical trials assessing drugs or plasma treatments for COVID-19.Design, setting and participantsCross-sectional analysis of clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 that were registered in the USA or in countries contributing to the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Relevant trial entries of drugs or plasma were downloaded on 26 March 2020, deduplicated, verified with reviews of major medical journals and WHO websites and independently analysed by two reviewers.Main outcomesTrial intervention, sponsorship, critical design elements and specified outcomes RESULTS: Overall, 201 clinical trials were registered for testing the therapeutic benefits of 92 drugs or plasma, including 64 in monotherapy and 28 different combinations. Only eight (8.7%) products or combinations involved new molecular entities. The other test therapies had a wide range of prior medical uses, including as antivirals, antimalarials, immunosuppressants and oncology treatments. In 152 trials (75.7%), patients were randomised to treatment or comparator, including 55 trials with some form of blinding and 97 open-label studies. The 49 (24.4%) of trials without a randomised design included 29 single armed studies and 20 trials with some comparison group. Most trial designs featured multiple endpoints. Clinical endpoints were identified in 134 (66.7%) of trials and included COVID-19 symptoms, death, recovery, required intensive care and hospital discharge. Clinical scales were being used in 33 (16.4%) trials, most often measures of oxygenation and critical illness. Surrogate endpoints or biomarkers were studied in 88 (42.3%) of trials, primarily assays of viral load. Although the trials were initiated in more than 17 countries or regions, 100 (49.8%) were registered in China and 78 (37.8%) in the USA. Registered trials increased rapidly, with the number of registered trials doubling from 1 March to 26 March 2020.ConclusionsWhile accelerating morbidity and mortality from the COVID-19 pandemic has been paralleled by early and rapid clinical investigation, many trials lack features to optimise their scientific value. Global coordination and increased funding of high-quality research may help to maximise scientific progress in rapidly discovering safe and effective treatments.
| S-EPMC7286283 | biostudies-literature