The Essential Documents Part II: During Trial Conduct

2017 ◽  
pp. 369-394
Keyword(s):  
2003 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 415-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Niederman ◽  
Derek Richards ◽  
Debora Matthews ◽  
Daniel Shugars ◽  
Helen Worthington ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R Fleming ◽  
Susan S Ellenberg ◽  
David L DeMets

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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1719-1726
Author(s):  
Rebecca S. S. Tidwell ◽  
Peter F. Thall ◽  
Ying Yuan

PURPOSE Novel Bayesian adaptive designs provide an effective way to improve clinical trial efficiency. These designs are superior to conventional methods, but implementing them can be challenging. The aim of this article was to describe what we learned while applying a novel Bayesian phase I-II design in a recent trial. METHODS The primary goal of the trial was to optimize radiation therapy (RT) dose among three levels (low, standard, and high), given either with placebo (P) or an investigational agent (A), for treating locally advanced, radiation-naive pancreatic cancer, deemed appropriate for RT rather than surgery. Up to 48 patients were randomly assigned fairly between RT plus P and RT plus A, with RT dose-finding done within each arm using the late-onset efficacy-toxicity design on the basis of two coprimary end points, tumor response and dose-limiting toxicity, both evaluated at up to 90 days. The random assignment was blinded, but within each arm, unblinded RT doses were chosen adaptively using software developed within the institution. RESULTS Implementing the design involved double-blind balance-restricted random assignment, real-time assessment of patient outcomes to evaluate the efficacy-toxicity trade-off for each RT dose in each arm to optimize each patient's RT dose adaptively, and transition from a single-center trial to a multicenter trial. We present lessons learned and illustrative documentation. CONCLUSION Implementing novel Bayesian adaptive trial designs requires close collaborations between physicians, pharmacists, statisticians, data managers, and sponsors. The process is difficult but manageable and essential for efficient trial conduct. Close collaboration during trial conduct is a key component of any trial that includes real-time adaptive decision rules.


Author(s):  
Yung-Yeh Su ◽  
Chia-Chen Li ◽  
Yih-Jyh Lin ◽  
Chiun Hsu

AbstractAdvancement in systemic therapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based combination regimens, has transformed the treatment landscape for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The advancement in systemic therapy also provides new opportunities of reducing recurrence after curative therapy through adjuvant therapy or improving resectability through neoadjuvant therapy. Improved recurrence-free survival by adjuvant or neoadjuvant ICI-based therapy has been reported in other cancer types. In this article, developments of systemic therapy in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings for HCC were reviewed. The design of adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy using ICI-based regimens and potential challenges of trial conduct and result analysis was discussed. Results from these trials may extend the therapeutic benefit of ICI-based systemic therapy beyond the advanced-stage disease and lead to a new era of multidisciplinary management for HCC.


Author(s):  
Henry S. Richardson

Medical researchers’ ancillary-care obligations have, until recently, been ignored by the authoritative guidelines on the ethics of medical research. Ancillary care is medical care, often unrelated to what is under study, that is not required by sound science, safe trial conduct, morally optional promises, or redressing research injuries. The question is when medical researchers have moral responsibilities to provide such care if their study participants need it. This question shows up insistently in studies done in resource-poor areas and—as the question of whether to return incidental findings—in genomic and imaging studies. After laying out six desiderata for a fully adequate account of medical researchers’ ancillary-care obligations, this chapter critically evaluates six potential grounds for such obligations—the duty of rescue, human rights, rectificatory justice, professional-role obligations, the researcher–participant relationship, and partial entrustment. It closes by suggesting the possibility of combining two or more of these grounds.


Clinical trials in the cancer setting 284 Phases of clinical trials 286 Nurses' responsibilities 288 Vulnerable patients 290 Historically, medical experiments were conducted with only the ethics and morality of individual researchers and some local agreements guiding the conduct of the study. However following the horrific medical experiments conducted during World War II, there has been international and national guidelines and legislation developed to regulate trial conduct. These include....


2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 498-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Athena Philis-Tsimikas ◽  
Irene Stratton ◽  
Lone Nørgård Troelsen ◽  
Britta Anker Bak ◽  
Lawrence A. Leiter

Background: A head-to-head trial (NCT03078478) between insulin degludec and insulin glargine U300 with the primary objective of comparing the risk of hypoglycemia is being conducted. During trial conduct, safety concerns related to the glycemic data collection system led to a postinitiation protocol amendment, described here. Methods: This randomized (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial was initiated in March 2017 with a planned treatment period of 52 weeks (16 weeks titration + 36 weeks maintenance). Overall, ~1600 insulin-experienced patients at risk of developing hypoglycemia based on predefined risk factors were included. The protocol amendment implemented in February 2018 resulted in assuring patient safety and an extension of the total treatment period up to 88 weeks (16 weeks titration + variable maintenance 1 + 36 weeks maintenance 2). The original glycemic data collection system (MyGlucoHealth blood glucose meter + electronic diary) was discontinued because of safety concerns and replaced with an Abbott blood glucose meter and paper diary to collect self-measured blood glucose and hypoglycemic episodes. The primary endpoint of number of severe or blood-glucose confirmed symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes will be evaluated with the same analysis duration and statistical methods as the original protocol. Only relevant changes were implemented to maintain patient safety while permitting evaluation of the scientific objectives of the trial. Conclusions: These observations highlight the importance of safety surveillance during trial conduct despite the use of currently marketed glucose monitoring devices. The prompt protocol amendment and ensuing actions ensured that the scientific integrity of the trial was not compromised.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document