Dataset Information

A joint industry-sponsored data monitoring committee model for observational, retrospective drug safety studies in the real-world setting.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To share better practice in establishing data monitoring committees (DMCs) for observational, retrospective safety studies with joint-industry sponsorship.

Methods

A DMC model was created to monitor data from an observational, retrospective, post-authorization safety study investigating risk of medullary thyroid cancer in patients treated with long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (LA GLP-1RAs) (NCT01511393). Sponsors reviewed regulatory guidelines, best practice and sponsors' standard operation procedures on DMCs. Discussions were held within the four-member consortium, assessing applicability to observational, retrospective, real-world studies. A DMC charter was drafted based on a sponsor-proposed, adapted DMC model. Thereafter, a kick-off meeting between sponsors and DMC members was held to receive DMC input and finalize the charter.

Results

Due to this study's observational, retrospective nature, assuring participant safety - central for traditional explanatory clinical trial models - was not applicable to our DMC model. The overall strategy and key indication for our real-world model included preserving study integrity and credibility. Therefore, DMC member independence and their contribution of expert knowledge were essential. To ensure between-sponsor data confidentiality, all study committees/corporations and sponsors, besides the DMC, received blinded data only (adapted to refer to data blinding that revealed the specific marketed LA GLP-1RA/sponsor). Communication and blinding/unblinding of these data were facilitated by the contract research organization, which also provided crucial operational oversight.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, we have established the first DMC model for joint industry-sponsored, observational, retrospective safety studies. This model could serve as a precedent for others performing similar post-marketing, joint industry-sponsored pharmacovigilance activities.

SUBMITTER: Major-Pedersen A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8247341 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionExisting mobility endpoints based on functional performance, physical assessments and patient self-reporting are often affected by lack of sensitivity, limiting their utility in clinical practice. Wearable devices including inertial measurement units (IMUs) can overcome these limitations by quantifying digital mobility outcomes (DMOs) both during supervised structured assessments and in real-world conditions. The validity of IMU-based methods in the real-world, however, is still limited in patient populations. Rigorous validation procedures should cover the device metrological verification, the validation of the algorithms for the DMOs computation specifically for the population of interest and in daily life situations, and the users' perspective on the device.Methods and analysisThis protocol was designed to establish the technical validity and patient acceptability of the approach used to quantify digital mobility in the real world by Mobilise-D, a consortium funded by the European Union (EU) as part of the Innovative Medicine Initiative, aiming at fostering regulatory approval and clinical adoption of DMOs.After defining the procedures for the metrological verification of an IMU-based device, the experimental procedures for the validation of algorithms used to calculate the DMOs are presented. These include laboratory and real-world assessment in 120 participants from five groups: healthy older adults; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, proximal femoral fracture and congestive heart failure. DMOs extracted from the monitoring device will be compared with those from different reference systems, chosen according to the contexts of observation. Questionnaires and interviews will evaluate the users' perspective on the deployed technology and relevance of the mobility assessment.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been granted ethics approval by the centre's committees (London-Bloomsbury Research Ethics committee; Helsinki Committee, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Centre; Medical Faculties of The University of Tübingen and of the University of Kiel). Data and algorithms will be made publicly available.Trial registration numberISRCTN (12246987).

Project description:BackgroundMapping the international landscape of clinical trials may inform global health research governance, but no large-scale data are available. Industry or non-industry sponsorship may have a major influence in this mapping. We aimed to map the global landscape of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical trials and its evolution over time.MethodsWe analyzed clinical trials initiated between 2006 and 2013 and registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We mapped single-country and international trials by World Bank's income groups and by sponsorship (industry- vs. non- industry), including its evolution over time from 2006 to 2012. We identified clusters of countries that collaborated significantly more than expected in industry- and non-industry-sponsored international trials.Results119,679 clinical trials conducted in 177 countries were analysed. The median number of trials per million inhabitants in high-income countries was 100 times that in low-income countries (116.0 vs. 1.1). Industry sponsors were involved in three times more trials per million inhabitants than non-industry sponsors in high-income countries (75.0 vs. 24.5) and in ten times fewer trials in low- income countries (0.08 vs. 1.08). Among industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials, 30.3% and 3.2% were international, respectively. In the industry-sponsored network of collaboration, Eastern European and South American countries collaborated more than expected; in the non-industry-sponsored network, collaboration among Scandinavian countries was overrepresented. Industry-sponsored international trials became more inter-continental with time between 2006 and 2012 (from 54.8% to 67.3%) as compared with non-industry-sponsored trials (from 42.4% to 37.2%).ConclusionsBased on trials registered in the WHO ICTRP we documented a substantial gap between the globalization of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical research. Only 3% of academic trials but 30% of industry trials are international. The latter appeared to be conducted in preferentially selected countries.

Project description:Pembrolizumab has been approved in the United States for treating advanced melanoma for >4 years. We examined real-world pembrolizumab use and associated outcomes in US oncology clinical practices, including patients who would not be eligible for clinical trials.Flatiron Health longitudinal database was used to identify adult patients with advanced melanoma initiating ≥1 dose of pembrolizumab from September 4, 2014, through December 31, 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017. Patients in any clinical trial during the study period were excluded. Overall survival (OS) and time on treatment from pembrolizumab initiation were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine OS for several patient characteristics including Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status >1, brain metastases, and corticosteroids before pembrolizumab initiation.Pembrolizumab was administered to 315 (59%), 152 (29%), and 65 (12%) patients as first-, second-, and third-line/later therapy. Median age at pembrolizumab initiation was 68 years (range, 18-84); most patients were male (66%) and white (94%). Of those with available data, 38% had BRAF-mutant melanoma, 21% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, and 23% had ECOG >1. Overall, 18% had brain metastases, and 23% were prescribed corticosteroids <3 months before initiating pembrolizumab. Median study follow-up was 12.9 months (range, 0.03-39.6). Median OS was 21.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8-29.1); KM 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 61% and 48%, respectively; and median time on pembrolizumab treatment was 4.9 months (95% CI 3.7-5.5). Median OS for first-line pembrolizumab was not reached, and for second-line and third-line/later was 13.9 and 12.5 months, respectively (log-rank P = .0095). Significantly better OS (all P ≤.0014, log-rank test) was evident for patients with ECOG performance status (PS) of 0 to 1 (vs >1), normal (vs elevated) LDH level, and no (vs yes) corticosteroid prescription <3 months before. No difference was recorded in OS by brain metastases (log-rank P = .22) or BRAF mutation status (log-rank P = .90).These findings support effectiveness of pembrolizumab in the real-world clinical setting and provide important insights into patient characteristics and outcomes associated with pembrolizumab therapy for a heterogeneous patient population with advanced melanoma, including patients who would not be eligible for clinical trials.