Understanding of safety monitoring in clinical trials by individuals with CF or their parents: A qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting both pediatric and adult participants for clinical trials in CF is currently of paramount importance as numerous new therapies are being developed. However, recruitment is challenging as parents of children with CF and adults with CF cite safety concerns as a principal barrier to enrollment. In conjunction with the CF Foundation (CFF) Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB), a pilot brochure was developed to inform patients and parents of the multiple levels of safety monitoring; the CFF simultaneously created an infographic representing the safety monitoring process. This study explores the attitudes and beliefs of CF patients and families regarding safety monitoring and clinical trial participation, and elicits feedback regarding the educational materials. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a pre-tested interview guide and audio-recorded during routine CF clinic visits. Participants included 5 parents of children with CF <16years old; 5 adolescents and young adults with CF 16-21years old; and 5 adults with CF ≥22years old from pediatric and adult CF centers. The study team performed systematic text condensation analysis of the recorded interviews using an iterative process. RESULTS: Four major thematic categories with subthemes emerged as supported by exemplar quotations: attitudes toward clinical trials, safety values, conceptualizing the safety monitoring process, and priorities for delivery of patient education. Participant feedback was used to revise the pilot brochure; text was shortened, unfamiliar words clarified (e.g., "pipeline"), abbreviations eliminated, and redundancy avoided. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative analysis of CF patient and family interviews provided insights into barriers to participation in clinical trials, safety concerns, perspectives on safety monitoring and educational priorities. We plan a multicenter study to determine if the revised brochure reduces knowledge, attitude and practice barriers regarding participation in CF clinical trials.

Estrategia para fomentar la detección, tratamiento y reporte de eventos adversos en ensayos clínicos / Strategy to promote adverse event detection, management and reporting in clinical trials

Introducción: los ensayos clínicos constituyen una oportunidad casi única para establecer la eficacia de un determinado producto, así como, la frecuencia e intensidad con que se presentan los eventos adversos (sic).Objetivo: para caracterizar la detección, tratamiento y reporte de eventos adversos en los ensayos clínicos y elaborar una estrategia, se realizó una investigación en sistemas y servicios de salud, de tipo observacional descriptivo, de corte transverso, y se analizó la estructura y el proceso del sistema.Métodos: el contexto espacial fue el Hospital Universitario Dr. Celestino Hernández Robau de Santa Clara, en el período de marzo de 2014 a junio de 2015, y se utilizó la planificación estratégica como guía metodológica. La muestra estuvo conformada por los investigadores clínicos y los ensayos monitorizados por el Centro Nacional Coordinador de Ensayos Clínicos.Resultados: la caracterización evidenció una estructura medianamente adecuada, al resultar parcialmente disponible la documentación y los recursos humanos, parcialmente suficientes los recursos materiales y referir altas necesidades de conocimiento más del 64 por ciento de los profesionales; el proceso se consideró parcialmente adecuado, al constatar que la calidad de las evoluciones médicas no era adecuada, las evoluciones de enfermería se consideraron adecuadas y la calidad de la notificación, medianamente adecuada. Para dar solución a esta problemática y teniendo en cuenta los resultados, se elaboró una estrategia de intervención para fomentar la detección, tratamiento y reporte de los eventos adversos (sic), la cual fue valorada por los expertos de muy adecuada(AU)

Transparencia en los ensayos clínicos y el acceso a los datos individuales anonimizados de los participantes / Clinical trials transparency and access to anonymized individual participant data

No disponible

Exploring the role and function of trial steering committees: results of an expert panel meeting.

BACKGROUND: The independent oversight of clinical trials, which is recommended by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, is typically provided by an independent advisory Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) and an independent executive committee, to whom the DMC makes recommendations. The detailed roles and function of this executive committee, known as the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), have not previously been studied or reviewed since those originally proposed by the MRC in 1998. METHODS: An expert panel (n = 7) was convened comprising statisticians, clinicians and trial methodologists with prior TSC experience. Twelve questions about the role and responsibilities of the TSC were discussed by the panel at two full-day meetings. Each meeting was transcribed in full and the discussions were summarised. RESULTS: The expert panel reached agreement on the role of the TSC, to which it was accountable, the membership, the definition of independence, and the experience and training needed. The management of ethical issues, difficult/complex situations and issues the TSC should not ask the DMC to make recommendations on were more difficult to discuss without specific examples, but support existed for further work to help share issues and to provide appropriate training for TSC members. Additional topics discussed, which had not been identified by previous work relating to the DMCs but were pertinent to the role of the TSC, included the following: review of data sharing requests, indemnity, lifespan of the TSC, general TSC administration, and the roles of both the Funder and the Sponsor. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents recommendations that will contribute to the revision and update of the MRC TSC terms of reference. Uncertainty remains in some areas due to the absence of real-life examples; future guidance on these issues would benefit from a repository of case studies. Notably, the role of a patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor was not discussed, and further work is warranted to explore the role of a PPI contributor in independent trial oversight.

Assessing the detection, reporting and investigation of adverse events in clinical trial protocols implemented in Cameroon: a documentary review of clinical trial protocols.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend ethical and scientific quality standards for managing and reporting adverse events occurring during clinical trials to competent research ethics committees and regulatory authorities. The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinical trial protocols in Cameroon are developed in line with national requirements and international guidelines as far as detecting, reporting and investigating of adverse events is concerned. METHODS: It was a documentary review of all approved clinical trial protocols that were submitted at the Cameroon National Ethics Committee for evaluation from 1997 through 2012. Data were extracted using a preconceived and validated grid. Protocol review process targeted the title, abstract, objectives, methodology, resources, and the chapter on safety. RESULTS: In total, 106 (4.9 %) clinical trial protocols were identified from 2173 protocols seen in the archive and 104 (4.8 %) included for review. Seventy six (73.1 %) trials did not include the surveillance of adverse events as part of their objective. A total of 91 (87.5 %) protocols did not budget for adverse event surveillance, 76 (73.1 %) did not have a data safety management board (DSMB), 11(10.6 %) included insurance for participants, 47 (45.2 %) did not include a case definition for serious adverse events, 33 (31.7 %) described procedures to detect adverse events, 33 (31.7 %) described procedure for reporting and 22 (21.2 %) described procedure for investigating adverse events. DISCUSSIONS: Most clinical trial protocols in Cameroon are developed to focus on benefits and pay little attention to harms. The development of national guidelines can improve the surveillance of adverse events in clinical trial research conducted in Cameroon. Adverse events surveillance tools and a budget are critical for an adequate planning for adverse event surveillance when developing trial protocols. CONCLUSION: Clinical trial protocols submitted in the Cameroon National Ethics Committee do not adequately plan to assess adverse events in clinical trial protocols. In order to improve on the safety of participants and marketed drug, there is a need to develop national guidelines for clinical trials by the government, and to improve evaluation procedures and monitoring of ongoing trials by the ethics committee.

Data sharing among data monitoring committees and responsibilities to patients and science.

Over the past three decades it has become increasingly recognized that systematic assessment of as high a proportion as possible of relevant research evidence is needed to protect the best interests of patients and the public. For example, this principle is manifested in clinical guidelines and, increasingly, in the design and monitoring of new research. For scientific and ethical reasons, those responsible for monitoring the progress of ongoing clinical trials may need to seek unpublished and interim data to protect the interests of actual or potential participants in research. The challenge facing data monitoring committees has received relatively little attention, however. In this paper we review some of the commentaries on the issue and the few accounts of actual data monitoring committee experiences. We then present details of our own recent experience as members of the data monitoring committee for the BOOST-II UK trial (ISRCTN:0084226), one of five concurrent trials assessing the level of arterial oxygen which should be targeted in the care of very premature neonates. We conclude that efficient protection both of the interests of actual or potential participants in research and of science requires that data monitoring committees have access to all relevant research, including unpublished and interim data.

How to ascertain drug related deaths during clinical trials ?

Recent guidelines by the Drug Controller General of India require extra care by Investigators & Sponsors of Clinical Trials in India. The author, an eminent member & Chairman of various Independent Ethics Committees in Mumbai, proposes various concrete solutions for adherence to these guidelines. Insurance cover to the subjects, use of Internet databanks for drug interactions, active involvement by the pharmacologists in Ethics Committee, review of data from animal studies, being amongst them. In case of death due to trial, autopsies, or at least verbal autopsies, are essential in the interest of Science and Law. More importantly Anticipation and prevention of ADEs can be done by exclusion of subjects from trials by using newer technologies like cDNA in microarrays to determine several polygenic quantitative trait loci (QTLs) and tests for Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs). Drug manufacturers must provide prototypes of Affymetrix chips to clinicians and bear the cost in their own enlightened self-interest.

Conflict of interest: will it ever end?

Despite the inclusion of investigator-industry pecuniary and non-pecuniary associations in published clinical trials, the benefit of such disclosures may be limited. Two recent pivotal phase III drug studies that raised conflict of interest issues are discussed. It is recommended that in the future, a firewall should be erected between industry and investigators.

An opinion and practice survey on the structure and management of data and safety monitoring boards.

There is little to no empirical data available on how data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) are structured and how they operate. The purpose of this study was to provide data on this. To accomplish this goal, we administered a random survey on current structure and management practices and opinions as reported by principal investigators (PIs) and biostatisticians. We also surveyed Institutional Review Board (IRB) community members, as proxies for the public, as to their opinions on how DSMBs should be structured and managed. A final purpose was to compare opinions about what should be taking place to what is actually happening.

Data safety monitoring boards: legal and ethical considerations for research accountability.

Those charged with assuring research accountability have little guidance as to how to best structure and manage data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs). One major concern is increased litigation surrounding human subject research which has led research institutions and those asked to serve on DSMBs to seek legal counsel regarding their risk of liability for DSMB activities. A major challenge is assessing the risk of potential liability. Yet, potential liability for DSMBs and their members has not been adequately addressed in the literature. The purpose of this article is to provide a legal and accountability analysis to begin to fill this gap. This article undertakes an analysis and exploration of the potential liability that exists for DSMBs and their members under negligence theory and discusses the means by which DSMBs and their members may avoid litigation or defend themselves in the face of a lawsuit. Research accountability implications of imposing liability, or not, on DSMBs are also considered. It is suggested that legislation be contemplated requiring sponsors to indemnify DSMBs and their members in the face of litigation.

Evaluation of clinical trials by Ethics Committees in Germany: experience of applicants with the review of requests for opinion of the Ethics Committees - results of a survey among members of the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA).

The review of requests for a positive opinion of the ethics committees (application procedure) as a requirement to start a clinical trial in Germany has been completely redesigned with the transposition of EU Directive 2001/20/EC in the 12(th) Amendment of the German Medicines Act in August 2004. The experience of applicants (sponsors, legal representatives of sponsors in the EU and persons or organizations authorized by the sponsors to make the application, respectively) in terms of interactions with the ethics committees in Germany has been positive overall, especially with respect to ethics committee adherence to the statutory timelines applicable for review of requests. However, inconsistencies between ethics committees exist in terms of the form and content of the requirements for application documents and their evaluation. With the objective of further improving both the quality of applications and the evaluation of those applications by ethics committees, a survey among members of the German Association of Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (VFA) was conducted from January to April 2008. Based on reasoned opinions issued by the respective ethics committee in charge of the coordinating principal investigator (coordinating ethics committee), the type and frequency of formal and content-related objections to applications according to section sign 7 of the German Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Regulation were systematically documented, and qualitative and quantitative analyses performed. 21 out of 44 members of the VFA participated in the survey. 288 applications for Phase I-IV studies submitted between January and December 2007 to 40 ethics committees were evaluated. This survey shows that about one in six applications is incomplete and has formal and/or content objections, respectively, especially those that pertain to documents demonstrating the qualification of the investigator and/or suitability of the facilities. These objections are attributable to some extent to the differing and/or unclear requirements of the individual ethics committees on the content and comprehension of the submission documents. However, applicants also need to pay more attention to the completeness and validity of the submission documents. The majority of content-related objections apply to the patient information and consent documents and study protocols submitted. Applicants on average acted upon only 3 out of 4 objections, for various reasons: the relevant information was already given in the submitted documents, but had not been taken into consideration by the ethics committees; objections were not applicable; objections lacked a legal basis. In such cases the applicants made reference to the specific information already submitted or gave reasons for not acting on the objection. This course of action was accepted by the ethics committees, with few exceptions. The survey sheds light on the existing inconsistencies in the evaluations of applications by the various ethics committees and suggests ways in which the existing constructive dialogue between applicants and ethics committees may provide a basis to further harmonize both the requirements regarding form and content of application documents, and the criteria for evaluation of applications by ethics committees within the legal framework.

[The German Clinical Trials Register: reasons, general and technical aspects, international integration]. / Das Deutsche Register Klinischer Studien: Begründung, technische und inhaltliche Aspekte, internationale Einbindung.

In order to provide a central portal for information on clinical research in Germany and thus to facilitate the search of planned, ongoing and completed clinical trials, the German Clinical Trials Register (GermanCTR) was implemented in cooperation with the WHO's registries network. It is an open access online register of clinical trials conducted in Germany, which allows all users to search for, register and share information on clinical trials. The project is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and is implemented at the Institute for Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics of the University Medical Center Freiburg as a joint project of the Clinical Trials Center Freiburg and the German Cochrane Center. Since October 2008 the GermanCTR is an approved WHO Primary Registry and allows clinical trial registration in Germany according to the requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Reasons for a national trials register, general and technical aspects of implementing the GermanCTR as well as the national and international integration are described here.