Risk-adapted monitoring is not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring: Results of the ADAMON cluster-randomised study.

Background According to Good Clinical Practice, clinical trials must protect rights and safety of patients and make sure that the trial results are valid and interpretable. Monitoring on-site has an important role in achieving these objectives; it controls trial conduct at trial sites and informs the sponsor on systematic problems. In the past, extensive on-site monitoring with a particular focus on formal source data verification often lost sight of systematic problems in study procedures that endanger Good Clinical Practice objectives. ADAMON is a prospective, stratified, cluster-randomised, controlled study comparing extensive on-site monitoring with risk-adapted monitoring according to a previously published approach. Methods In all, 213 sites from 11 academic trials were cluster-randomised between extensive on-site monitoring (104) and risk-adapted monitoring (109). Independent post-trial audits using structured manuals were performed to determine the frequency of major Good Clinical Practice findings at the patient level. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of audited patients with at least one major audit finding. Analysis relies on logistic regression incorporating trial and monitoring arm as fixed effects and site as random effect. The hypothesis was that risk-adapted monitoring is non-inferior to extensive on-site monitoring with a non-inferiority margin of 0.60 (logit scale). Results Average number of monitoring visits and time spent on-site was 2.1 and 2.7 times higher in extensive on-site monitoring than in risk-adapted monitoring, respectively. A total of 156 (extensive on-site monitoring: 76; risk-adapted monitoring: 80) sites were audited. In 996 of 1618 audited patients, a total of 2456 major audit findings were documented. Depending on the trial, findings were identified in 18%-99% of the audited patients, with no marked monitoring effect in any of the trials. The estimated monitoring effect is -0.04 on the logit scale with two-sided 95% confidence interval (-0.40; 0.33), demonstrating that risk-adapted monitoring is non-inferior to extensive on-site monitoring. At most, extensive on-site monitoring could reduce the frequency of major Good Clinical Practice findings by 8.2% compared with risk-adapted monitoring. Conclusion Compared with risk-adapted monitoring, the potential benefit of extensive on-site monitoring is small relative to overall finding rates, although risk-adapted monitoring requires less than 50% of extensive on-site monitoring resources. Clusters of findings within trials suggest that complicated, overly specific or not properly justified protocol requirements contributed to the overall frequency of findings. Risk-adapted monitoring in only a sample of patients appears sufficient to identify systematic problems in the conduct of clinical trials. Risk-adapted monitoring has a part to play in quality control. However, no monitoring strategy can remedy defects in quality of design. Monitoring should be embedded in a comprehensive quality management approach covering the entire trial lifecycle.

Risk analysis and risk adapted on-site monitoring in noncommercial clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The concept of risk assessment for clinical trials has been discussed before, but no comprehensive structured procedure leading to risk-adapted quality management has been published so far. Such a procedure is of particular interest for noncommercial trials in order to optimally use the sparse resources. PURPOSE: To provide a structured procedure for risk analysis in clinical trials. To propose strategies for on-site monitoring adapted to the risks identified. RESULTS: The risk analysis refers to the risk of noncompliance with the main objectives of Good Clinical Practice. It takes into account risks of the study intervention compared to the risks a patient would run if treated outside a protocol as well as further potential risks regarding patient safety, patient rights, or the credibility of results. The risk analysis is based on detailed questionnaires, which are used to draw up (a) an on-site monitoring strategy recommendation, (b) a list of trial-specific tasks to be covered by on-site monitoring, and (c) a specification of further quality management measures e.g., central monitoring measures. The resulting risk-adapted monitoring strategies focus on the trial's critical aspects, and differ in terms of the recommended extent of on-site activities. LIMITATIONS: The effectiveness of the proposed risk analysis and risk-adapted monitoring has not yet been confirmed. However, the ADAMON project (prospective cluster-randomised study of trial-specific adapted strategies for on-site monitoring in combination with additional quality management measures) has been started in Germany to investigate whether a trial-specific, risk-adapted, reduced on-site monitoring strategy is as effective as an intensive monitoring strategy with regard to the occurrence of serious or critical audit findings. Twelve clinical trials planning to recruit more than 3200 patients participate in this investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposal will provide sponsor-investigators and other noncommercial sponsors with an instrument that may facilitate risk analysis and the implementation of targeted quality management measures.

Dimenhydrinate in children with infectious gastroenteritis: a prospective, RCT.

OBJECTIVE: Vomiting is a common symptom in children with infectious gastroenteritis. It contributes to fluid loss and is a limiting factor for oral rehydration therapy. Dimenhydrinate has traditionally been used for children with gastroenteritis in countries such as Canada and Germany. We investigated the efficacy and safety of dimenhydrinate in children with acute gastroenteritis. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. We randomly assigned 243 children with presumed gastroenteritis and vomiting to rectal dimenhydrinate or placebo. Children with no or mild dehydration were included. All children received oral rehydration therapy. Primary outcome was defined as weight gain within 18 to 24 hours after randomization. Secondary outcomes were number of vomiting episodes, fluid intake, parents' assessment of well-being, number of diarrheal episodes, and admission rate to hospital. We recorded potential adverse effects. RESULTS: Change of weight did not differ between children who received dimenhydrinate or placebo. The mean number of vomiting episodes between randomization and follow-up visit was 0.64 in the dimenhydrinate group and 1.36 in the placebo group. In total, 69.6% of the children in the dimenhydrinate group versus 47.4% in the placebo group were free of vomiting between randomization and the follow-up visit. Hospital admission rate, fluid intake, general well-being of the children, and potential adverse effects, including the number of diarrhea episodes, were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dimenhydrinate reduces the frequency of vomiting in children with mild dehydration; however, the overall benefit is low, because it does not improve oral rehydration and clinical outcome.