Bringing data monitoring committee charters into the sunlight.

Clinical trials investigating novel or high risk interventions, or studying vulnerable participants, often use a data monitoring committee to oversee the progress of the trial. The data monitoring committee serves both an ethical and a scientific function, by protecting the interests of trial participants while ensuring the integrity of the trial results. A data monitoring committee charter, which typically describes the procedures by which data monitoring committees operate, contains details about the data monitoring committee's organizational structure, membership, meeting frequency, sequential monitoring guidelines, and the overall contents of data monitoring committee reports for interim review. These charters, however, are generally not reviewed by outside entities and are rarely publicly available. The result is that a key component of trial oversight remains in the dark. We recommend that ClinicalTrials.gov modify its system to allow uploading of data monitoring committee charters, as is already possible for other important study documents and that clinical trialists take advantage of this opportunity to voluntarily upload the data monitoring committee charter for trials that have one. The resulting cache of publicly available data monitoring committee charters should provide important insights for those interested in a particular trial, as well as for meta-researchers who wish to understand and potentially improve how this important component of trial oversight is actually being applied.

Data monitoring committees in pediatric randomized controlled trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: Data 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: We 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%). CONCLUSION: According 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.

Data monitoring committee interim reports: We must get there soon!

Currently, too many Data Monitoring Committee Reports for interim review of trial progress are quite inadequate for Data Monitoring Committees to make informed decisions about risks and benefits. Immediate serious improvement is necessary for Data Monitoring Committees to meet their ethical, clinical, and scientific responsibility to trial participants, investigators, sponsors, and participating institutions. To achieve this critical goal, all parties involved in the Data Monitoring Committee process including sponsors, investigators, Data Monitoring Committee members, and the independent statistical reporting group need to have a better understanding of the structure, function, and needs of a Data Monitoring Committee and the content of a Data Monitoring Committee Report. Training modules through the Society for Clinical Trials are now available on their website to facilitate this.

Evaluating group-sequential non-inferiority clinical trials following interim stopping: The HIV Prevention Trials Network 083 trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The HIV Prevention Trials Network 083 trial was a group-sequential non-inferiority trial designed to compare HIV incidence under a novel experimental regimen for HIV prevention, long-acting injectable cabotegravir, with an active-control regimen of daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (brand name Truvada). In March of 2020, just as the trial had completed enrollment, the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to prevent trial participants from attending study visits and obtaining study medication, motivating the study team to update the interim monitoring plan. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board subsequently stopped the trial at the first interim review due to strong early evidence of efficacy. METHODS: Here we describe some unique aspects of the trial's design, monitoring, analysis, and interpretation. We illustrate the importance of computing point estimates, confidence intervals, and p values based on the sampling distribution induced by sequential monitoring. RESULTS: Accurate analysis, decision-making and interpretation of trial results rely on pre-specification of a stopping boundary, including the scale on which the stopping rule will be implemented, the specific test statistics to be calculated, and how the boundary will be adjusted if the available information fraction at interim review is different from planned. After appropriate adjustment for the sampling distribution and overrun, the HIV Prevention Trials Network 083 trial provided strong evidence that the experimental regimen was superior to the active control. CONCLUSIONS: For the HIV Prevention Trials Network 083 trial, the difference between corrected inferential statistics and naive results was quite small-as will often be the case-nevertheless, it is appropriate to report and publish the most accurate and unbiased statistical results.

The Essential Role of Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) in Ensuring the Ethics of Global Vaccine Trials to Address Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19O).

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are being developed and implemented with unprecedented speed. Accordingly, trials considered ethical at their inception may quickly become concerning. We provide recommendations for Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) on monitoring the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine trials, focusing on placebo-controlled trials in low- and middle-income countries.

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

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.

Clinical trials in a COVID-19 pandemic: Shared infrastructure for continuous learning in a rapidly changing landscape.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials, conducted efficiently and with the utmost integrity, are a key component in identifying effective vaccines, therapies, and other interventions urgently needed to solve the COVID-19 crisis. Yet launching and implementing trials with the rigor necessary to produce convincing results is a complicated and time-consuming process. Balancing rigor and efficiency involves relying on designs that employ flexible features to respond to a fast-changing landscape, measuring valid endpoints that result in translational actions and disseminating findings in a timely manner. We describe the challenges involved in creating infrastructure with potential utility for shared learning. METHODS: We have established a shared infrastructure that borrows strength across multiple trials. The infrastructure includes an endpoint registry to aid in selecting appropriate endpoints, a registry to facilitate establishing a Data & Safety Monitoring Board, common data collection instruments, a COVID-19 dedicated design and analysis team, and a pragmatic platform protocol, among other elements. RESULTS: The authors have relied on the shared infrastructure for six clinical trials for which they serve as the Data Coordinating Center and have a design and analysis team comprising 15 members who are dedicated to COVID-19. The authors established a pragmatic platform to simultaneously investigate multiple treatments for the outpatient with adaptive features to add or drop treatment arms. CONCLUSION: The shared infrastructure provides appealing opportunities to evaluate disease in a more robust manner with fewer resources and is especially valued during a pandemic where efficiency in time and resources is crucial. The most important element of the shared infrastructure is the pragmatic platform. While it may be the most challenging of the elements to establish, it may provide the greatest benefit to both patients and researchers.

Presenting Risks and Benefits: Helping the Data Monitoring Committee Do Its Job.

Data monitoring committees (DMCs), or data and safety monitoring boards, protect clinical trial participants by conducting benefit-risk assessments during the course of a clinical trial. These evaluations may be improved by broader access to data and more effective analyses and presentation. Data monitoring committees should have access to all data, including efficacy data, at each interim review. The DMC reports should include graphical presentations that summarize benefits and harms in efficient ways. Benefit-risk assessments should include summaries that are consistent with the intention-to-treat principle and have a pragmatic focus. This article provides examples of graphical summaries that integrate benefits and harms, and proposes that such summaries become standard in DMC reports.

A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations ('Trial Management Group') and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, ('Trial Steering Committee'), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee's remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage. METHODS: We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom-registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs. RESULTS: In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a 'steering' committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan. CONCLUSION: A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.

Adjudication of cardiovascular events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: SUMMIT trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjudicated cause-specific mortality has been used in major trials of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, there is less experience with adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events as a key efficacy outcome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials. The Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trial required a Clinical Endpoint Committee to adjudicate the outcomes of modified major adverse cardiovascular events and cause-specific mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: A six-member Clinical Endpoint Committee reviewed adverse event and serious adverse event reports included in a list of 204 Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms. Adverse events were triaged by one Clinical Endpoint Committee member, and then reviewed by three reviewers (round 1). If these three disagreed on the adjudication, the event was discussed by the full committee to reach a consensus (round 2). Among 16,485 participants, 48,105 adverse events were reported, among which 3314 were reviewed by the Clinical Endpoint Committee. After triage, 1827 were adjudicated in round 1; 338 required committee consensus in round 2, yielding 450 myocardial infarctions, strokes, unstable anginas or transient ischaemic attacks. Only 20/1627 (1%) non-serious adverse events were adjudicated as cardiovascular events. Only 45/204 Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms reviewed yielded cardiovascular events. A total of 430 deaths were adjudicated in round 1 and 631 in round 2, yielding 459 cardiovascular deaths. Adjudication of chest pain and sudden death often required additional information from site investigators. Site assessment of cardiovascular death was moderately specific (501/602 = 83%) but not sensitive (256/459 = 56%). CONCLUSION: A Clinical Endpoint Committee is useful for adjudication of major adverse cardiovascular events in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials but requires considerable resources and effort by investigators. This process can be streamlined by reviewing only serious adverse events and filtering by selected Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms.

Enhancing clarity of clinical trial safety reports for data monitoring committees.

A Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) evaluates patient safety in a clinical trial of an investigational intervention through periodic review of adverse events (AEs) and clinical safety assessments. Our aim was to construct DMC report displays to enhance the DMC safety review through use of graphics and clear identification and adjustment for missing data caused by early discontinuations and ongoing study participation. Suggested displays include a study snapshot graph, enhanced adverse event incidence tables including the incidence density and plotted incidence proportions, line graphs in place of by-patient listings, and trend plots in place of tables for continuous assessments.

[Data monitoring committees-state of the art and perspectives for the future]. / Das Data Monitoring Committee ­ State of the Art und Perspektiven für die Zukunft.

BACKGROUND: The classic randomized and controlled clinical trial is facing new challenges with complex study designs and disease interception concepts. For this reason, data monitoring committees (DMCs) can take on a central function if professionally integrated into the methodical procedure of clinical trials. On this basis, the responsible competent authority and the responsible ethics committee have to verify the substantial charter document in the implicit/explicit approval procedure reflecting the working process of the independent committee. OBJECTIVES: The frequencies and conditions under which DMCs are used in clinical trials was investigated. METHODS: The database of the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) was the basis for statistical analysis concerning the frequency of implementation of data monitoring committees with different criteria over an observation period of more than 15 years. RESULTS: In total, 4152 DMCs have been used in 14,135 clinical trials with drugs. The independent expert committee was mostly integrated by commercial sponsors in phase III of the clinical development. The ethics committees were involved with different absolute frequencies. DISCUSSION: Sponsors demonstrate an increasing willingness to integrate DMCs in the methodical conduct of clinical trials especially in the case of new study designs. DMCs could be an important scientific aid in order to assess the implications of coronavirus SARS-CoV­2 on clinical trials.

Creation of an institutional semi-independent data monitoring committee.

BACKGROUND: A major goal of the National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Award program is to facilitate clinical research and enhance the transition of basic to clinical research. As such, a number of Clinical and Translational Science Award centers have developed services to facilitate the conduct of clinical research, including support with fulfilling regulatory requirements. METHODS: The University of Kentucky sought to establish an institutional semi-independent monitoring committee to provide oversight for clinical research studies per National Institutes of Health requirements and recommendations. Our semi-independent monitoring committee was initiated in 2010. RESULTS: Since the inception of our semi-independent monitoring committee we have restructured its operations and protocols to improve efficiency. This article discusses our experiences with semi-independent monitoring committee creation and growth. CONCLUSION: This article summarizes our experience in creating and maturing an institutional data monitoring committee.

A note on the draft International Council for Harmonisation guidance on estimands and sensitivity analysis.

In the second half of 2014, the Steering Committee of the International Council for Harmonisation endorsed the formation of an expert working group to develop an addendum to the International Council for Harmonisation E9 guideline (Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials). The addendum was to focus on two clinical trial topics: estimands and sensitivity analysis. A draft of the addendum, referred to as E9/R1, was developed by the expert working group and made available for public comments across the International Council for Harmonisation regions in the second half of 2017. A structured framework for clinical trial design and analysis proposed in the draft addendum are briefly described, including four key inputs for developing objective-driven estimands and strategies for tackling one of the inputs ('intercurrent events'). The proposed framework aligns each clinical trial objective with the corresponding statistical target of estimation (estimand), trial design and data to be collected, main method of estimation/inference, and sensitivity analysis to pressure test key analytic assumption(s) in the main analysis. A case study from the diabetes therapeutic area illustrates how the framework can be implemented in practice. International Council for Harmonisation E9/R1 is expected to enable better planning, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of randomised clinical trials. This will facilitate improvements in new drug applications and strengthen understanding of decision making by regulatory authorities and advisory committees.

Determination of fasiglifam-induced liver toxicity: Insights from the data monitoring committee of the fasiglifam clinical trials program.

BACKGROUND: Different approaches to safety event collection influence the determination of liver toxicity within drug development programs. Herein, a description of how fasiglifam-induced liver injury was detected is provided. METHODS: This eight-trial drug development program was intended to evaluate fasiglifam (25 mg, 50 mg) against placebo or active comparators (glimepiride, sitagliptin) in approximately 11,000 suboptimally controlled patients with type 2 diabetes (terminated Dec 2013 due to liver toxicity). Liver safety had been pre-identified as a concern, and within the phase 3 trials, was measured through (1) adverse event reporting, (2) central predefined liver monitoring schedule with various thresholds for potential drug-induced liver injury, and (3) blinded adjudication of serious liver toxicity by a panel of experts in drug-induced liver injury. A single data monitoring committee provided safety oversight across all trials within the program. FINDINGS: Prior to program termination, 7595 of 7602 (99.9%) randomized participants across the eight trials received at least one dose of the study drug (fasiglifam, placebo, or active control). No concerning trends were noted in adverse or serious adverse event frequency, suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction, alanine or aspartate transaminase elevations, or hepatobiliary or gastrointestinal adverse events as reported by local site investigators. However, the predefined central liver safety measurements revealed a greater frequency of possible Hy's Law cases (5 vs 2) and a 3- to 7-fold greater relative risk in alanine or aspartate transaminase elevation (with respect to upper limit of normal) within fasiglifam recipients compared with placebo/active control: alanine or aspartate transaminase > 3×: relative risk 3.34 (95% confidence interval 2.29-4.90), alanine or aspartate transaminase > 5×: relative risk 6.60 (95% confidence interval 3.03-14.38), alanine or aspartate transaminase > 8×: relative risk 6.14 (95% confidence interval 2.18-17.27), and alanine or aspartate transaminase > 10×: relative risk 6.74 (95% confidence interval 2.05, 22.14). All elevations resolved on study drug discontinuation. Drug-induced liver injury was adjudicated as highly likely or probably related in 0.64% of fasiglifam-treated versus 0.06% placebo or active control-treated patients. CONCLUSION: In spite of clear liver toxicity detected with a systematic surveillance program, liver safety signals were not identified from investigator adverse event reporting alone. By integrating key safety monitoring processes within the randomized design of adequately sized clinical trials, the rare but serious liver toxicity signal became clear, leading to timely program termination.

The changing landscape of data monitoring committees-Perspectives from regulators, members, and sponsors.

Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) are an integral part of clinical drug development. Their use has evolved along with changing study designs and regulatory expectations, which has associated statistical and ethical implications. Although there is guidance from the different regulatory agencies, there are opportunities to bring more consistency to address practical issues of establishing and operating a DMC. Challenging issues include defining the scope of DMC decisions, the regulatory requirements and expectations, the perceived independence of DMCs, the specific focus primarily on safety, etc. Wider use of adaptive clinical trial designs in recent years introduce additional challenges in terms of trial governance and the complexity of DMC activities. A panel comprised of clinical and statistical experts from across academia, industry, and regulatory agencies shared their experience and thoughts on the importance of these aspects and offered perspectives on the future of the DMCs. This paper documents the thinking from the panel session at the CEN-ISBS conference held in Vienna, Austria, 2017.

The independent statistician model: How well is it working?

With the initiation in the late 1960s of the data and safety monitoring board or equivalently the data monitoring committee in randomized clinical trials came the need for interim statistical reports for these committees to review for study conduct and early evidence of harm or overwhelming evidence of benefit, perhaps leading to early trial termination. Initially, the statistical team was part of the data coordinating center for the trial. Later, starting in the early 1990s in many industry-sponsored trials, this statistical unit was separated organizationally from the team that collected and managed the data. This unit, often referred to as the statistical data analysis center, prepares reports for the data monitoring committee, which cover study conduct, data quality and completeness, primary and secondary outcomes, and safety measures by study arm in an unblinded fashion. The role of the statistical data analysis center is critical to any well-functioning data monitoring committee. With the proliferation of data monitoring committees has grown the need for many more well-trained and experienced statistical data analysis centers. In my experience, some such units perform their tasks extremely well but many do not. There is a tremendous need and opportunity to provide training for statistical data analysis centers, and what sponsors and data monitoring committees should expect from statistical data analysis centers.

Data Monitoring Committees: Current issues.

Maintaining confidentiality of emerging data and ensuring the independence of Data Monitoring Committees are best practices of considerable importance to the ability of these committees to achieve their mission of safeguarding the interests of study participants and enhancing the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. Even with the wide recognition of these principles, there are circumstances where confidentiality issues remain challenging, controversial or inconsistently addressed. First, consider settings where a clinical trial's interim data could provide the evidence regulatory authorities require for decisions about marketing approval, yet where such a trial would be continued post-approval to provide more definitive evidence about principal safety and/or efficacy outcomes. In such settings, data informative about the longer term objectives of the trial should remain confidential until pre-specified criteria for trial completion have been met. Second, for those other than Data Monitoring Committee members, access to safety and efficacy outcomes during trial conduct, even when presented as data pooled across treatment arms, should be on a limited "need to know" basis relating to the ability to carry out ethical or scientific responsibilities in the conduct of the trial. Third, Data Monitoring Committee members should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable timely and informed judgments about risks and benefits. Fourth, it should be recognized that a mediator potentially could be useful in rare settings where the Data Monitoring Committee would have serious ethical or scientific concerns about the sponsor's dissemination or lack of dissemination of information. Data Monitoring Committee Contract Agreements, Indemnification Agreements and Charters should be developed in a manner to protect Data Monitoring Committee members and their independence, in order to enhance the Data Monitoring Committee's ability to effectively address their mission.