The Players Part I: Ethics Committee and Data Monitoring Committee

2017 ◽  
pp. 145-170
Keyword(s):  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Committee

scholarly journals Data Monitoring Committees: Current issues

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R Fleming ◽  
Susan S Ellenberg ◽  
David L DeMets
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Marketing Approval ◽  
Definitive Evidence ◽  
Trial Conduct ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Monitoring Committee ◽  
Study Participants

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.

scholarly journals Understanding the functions and operations of data monitoring committees: Survey and focus group findings

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim A Calis ◽  
Patrick Archdeacon ◽  
Raymond P Bain ◽  
Annemarie Forrest ◽  
Jane Perlmutter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Statistical Data Analysis ◽  
Monitoring Committee ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Analysis Center

Background: The use of data monitoring committees in the conduct of clinical trials has increased and evolved, but there is a lack of published information on when data monitoring committees are needed and utilized, the acceptable range of data monitoring committee practices, and appropriate qualifications of data monitoring committee members. Methods: To gain a better understanding of data monitoring committee operations and areas for improvement, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative conducted a survey and set of focus groups. A total of 143 respondents completed the online survey: 76 data monitoring committee members, 52 sponsors involved with organization of data monitoring committees, and 15 statistical data analysis center representatives. There were 42 focus group participants, including data monitoring committee members; patients and/or patient advocate data monitoring committee members; institutional review board and US Food and Drug Administration representatives; industry, government, and non-profit sponsors; and statistical data analysis center representatives. Results: Participants indicated that the primary responsibility of a data monitoring committee is to be an independent advisory body representing the interests of trial participants by assessing the risk and benefit ratio in ongoing trials. They noted that data monitoring committees must have access to unmasked data in order to perform this role. No clear consensus emerged regarding specific criteria for requiring a data monitoring committee for a given trial, and some participants felt data monitoring committees may be overused. Respondents offered suggestions for the data monitoring committee charter and communications with sponsors, institutional review boards, and regulators. Overall, data monitoring committee members reported that they are able to function independently and their recommendations are almost always accepted by the sponsor. Participants indicated that there are no standards or guidelines pertaining to qualifications of data monitoring committee members. Furthermore, only 8% (6/72) of data monitoring committee member survey respondents received any formal training, and 94% (68/72) were not aware of any training programs. Conclusion: Findings from the survey and focus groups provide a better understanding of contemporary data monitoring committee operations and insights regarding challenges and best practices. Overall, it was clear that increased training will be needed to prepare the next generation of qualified data monitoring committee members to meet the growing demand. These findings can be used by Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and others to develop recommendations and tools to improve data monitoring committee operations and the overall quality of trial oversight.

scholarly journals A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-112
Author(s):  
J Athene Lane ◽  
Carrol Gamble ◽  
William J Cragg ◽  
Doreen Tembo ◽  
Matthew R Sydes
Keyword(s):  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Independent Data ◽  
Trial Management ◽  
Independent Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
The Third ◽  
Monitoring Committee ◽  
Oversight Committee ◽  
Trial Oversight

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.

The Data Monitoring Committee: How It Operates and Why

1981 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Friedman ◽  
David DeMets
Keyword(s):  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Committee

scholarly journals Impact of Cryopreservation of Donor Grafts on Outcomes of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (HCT)

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 33-34
Author(s):  
Jack W. Hsu ◽  
Nosha Farhadfar ◽  
Hemant S. Murthy ◽  
Brent Logan ◽  
Stephanie Bo-Subait ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Risk Index ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Platelet Recovery ◽  
Monitoring Committee ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Donor Type

Introduction: Cryopreservation of peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) or bone marrow (BM) grafts is rarely performed, thus information about the effect of cryopreservation on graft characteristics and HCT outcomes is limited. Given the global pandemic leading to changing practices for donor graft collection and increasing utilization of cryopreservation, we evaluated the outcomes of HCT recipients who received either fresh or cryopreserved allogeneic BM or PBSC grafts. The primary endpoint was engraftment. Secondary endpoints were incidence of acute graft-vs.-host disease (aGVHD), relapse, transplant related mortality (TRM), disease free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Methods: We included 7397 patients transplanted between 2013 and 2018. 1883 cryopreserved graft recipients were divided into three cohorts based on graft source and donor type: matched related (MRD) PBSC (n=1,051), matched unrelated (MUD) PBSC (n=678), and matched related or unrelated bone marrow donors (n=154). All patients received conventional calcineurin-based GVHD prophylaxis strategies. Patients who received cryopreserved grafts were matched with 5514 patients who received fresh adjusting for graft type (BM vs. PB), donor source (MRD vs. 8/8 MUD), Disease Risk Index (DRI, low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. high risk), recipient age (within 5-years) and propensity score (within 1 standard deviation from pooled sample). The propensity score was based on age, Karnofsky score, diagnosis, disease risk index, HCT-comorbidity index, and conditioning intensity. The level of statistical significance for the main analyses was p<0.01 due to multiple comparisons. The reason for cryopreservation was available on a subset of URD product recipients. Results: Baseline characteristics for all cohorts are shown in Table 1. CD34+ doses reflect enumeration at infusion. In univariate analyses, rates of graft failure and neutrophil recovery at day 28 were similar for cryopreserved and fresh grafts for BM or related PBSC recipients but differed in cryopreserved vs. fresh MUD PBSC (5% vs 2%, p<0.001 and 87 vs 94%, p<0.001, respectively). Rates of platelet recovery within 28 days were similar in marrow cohorts, but lower with cryopreserved related (92% vs 96%, p<0.001) and MUD PBSC (87 vs 94%, p<0.001) grafts. In matched pair multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in any outcomes with cryopreserved vs fresh BM grafts, irrespective of donor type. With related donor PBSC, cryopreservation was associated with decreased platelet recovery (HR=0.73, CI=0.68-0.78, p<0.001) and an increased risk of both grade II-IV (HR=1.27, CI=1.09-1.48, p=0.002) and grade III-IV (HR=1.48, CI=1.19-1.84, p<0.001) aGVHD, but had no impact on other outcomes. In contrast, with MUD PBSC grafts, cryopreservation was associated with delayed engraftment of neutrophils (HR=0.77, CI=0.71-0.84, p<0.001) and platelets (HR=0.61, CI=0.56-0.66, p<0.001), an increased risk of TRM (HR=1.4, CI=1.18-1.66, p<0.001) and relapse (HR=1.32, CI=1.11-1.58, p=0.002), and decreased DFS (HR=1.36, CI=1.20-1.55, p<0.001) and OS (HR=1.38, CI=1.22-1.58, p<0.001) but did not affect the incidence of aGVHD. In a subset analysis of 299 URD recipients, the most common reason for cryopreservation was delays due to patient-related events, eg., additional chemotherapy, infection. These recipients had decreased OS compared to products cryopreserved for non-patient reasons (HR=0.65, CI=0.44-0.96, p=0.029). Conclusions: The retrospective nature of this analysis, and the fact that cryopreservation is likely to have been performed in recipients with a different (higher) risk profile compared to those receiving fresh products limits our ability to draw firm confusions. Despite these limitations, we conclude that cryopreservation in some patient populations may have a negative impact on engraftment and transplant outcomes. The decision to cryopreserve donor grafts, particularly PBSC grafts, should be carefully considered and highlights the need for further investigation of the effect of cryopreservation of allogeneic grafts where patient factors can be controlled for. Disclosures Farhadfar: CSL Behring: Research Funding; Incyte pharmaceutical: Other: Member of GVHD advisory forum. Frey:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Syntax: Consultancy, Honoraria. Devine:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy. Shaw:Orca Bio: Consultancy. Wingard:Shire: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Ansun: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Merck: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Cidara: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; ReViral: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Primary and Secondary Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy Induced and Febrile Neutropenia (CIN/FN) in Bendamustine Plus Rituximab (BR) Regimens in Patients with Lymphoma and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): Real-World, Single-Center Experience

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5353-5353
Author(s):  
Logan Moore ◽  
Trace Bartels ◽  
Daniel O. Persky ◽  
Abhijeet Kumar ◽  
Ivo Abraham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Real World ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Data Monitoring ◽  
Independent Data ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Monitoring Committee

Introduction: Granulocyte stimulating growth factors (G-CSF) such as filgrastim or pegfilgrastim are indicated as prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) and febrile neutropenia (FN). BR regimen is considered an intermediate FN risk (10-20%) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Therefore, patients receiving BR need to be assessed using patient specific risk factors to evaluate the need for primary prophylaxis. This study evaluates real-world patterns and outcomes associated with primary and secondary G-CSF prophylaxis in patients with B-cell lymphoma and CLL treated with BR. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all lymphoma or CLL patients treated with BR from 11/2013 through 6/2019 at the University of Arizona Cancer Center was conducted. Baseline demographic and chemotherapy cycle data was analyzed through Chi-Squared test and Unpaired t-test with a-priori p-value of 0.05 being considered statistically significant. Results: Eighty-five patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 48 received G-CSF during all chemotherapy cycles for primary prophylaxis while 37 received G-CSF only for secondary prophylaxis. Same-day pegfilgrastim compared to next-day pegfilgrastim or filgrastim was the most common G-CSF dosing utilized with primary and secondary prophylaxis patients receiving it (87.5%, 94.6%) respectively. As shown in Table, primary and secondary prophylaxis groups were similar on baseline characteristics (p>0.05); the primary outcome of FN (p>0.05); all secondary outcomes (p>0.05) except for a higher frequency of dose delays in secondary (37.8%) vs primary prophylaxis patients (14.6%; p=0.01); and mean absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) in all cycles (p>0.05) except for cycles 3 and 5. Higher ANC levels were found in primary prophylaxis patients (4.06+0.43) vs secondary prophylaxis (3.03+0.30; p=0.03) for cycle 3 and (3.57+0.25) vs (2.88+0.26; p=0.03) for cycle 5. Conclusion: In this single-center retrospective study, BR-treated lymphoma and CLL patients receiving primary vs secondary with G-CSF showed similar outcomes except, notably, for chemotherapy dose delays that may put secondary patients at risk for poor treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of primary vs secondary prophylaxis on chemotherapy treatment outcomes. Table Disclosures Persky: Sandoz: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee; Bayer: Consultancy; Morphosys: Other: Member, Independent Data Monitoring Committee. McBride:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; teva: Consultancy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document