scholarly journals Monitoring in practice – How are UK academic clinical trials monitored? A survey

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon B. Love ◽  
Victoria Yorke-Edwards ◽  
Sarah Lensen ◽  
Matthew R. Sydes
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Conducting Phase ◽  
Central Monitoring ◽  
Site Monitoring

Abstract Background Despite the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) encouraging the use of risk-based monitoring for trials in 2013, there remains a lack of evidence-based guidelines on how to monitor. We surveyed the academic United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered clinical trials units (CTUs) to find out their policy on monitoring of phase III randomised clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product (CTIMPs). Methods An online survey of monitoring policy with sections on the CTU, central monitoring and on-site monitoring was sent to all 50 UKCRC registered CTUs in November 2018. Descriptive data analysis and tabulations are reported using the total number answering each question. Results A total of 43/50 (86%) of CTUs responded with 38 conducting phase III randomised CTIMP trials. Of these 38 CTUs, 34 finished the survey. Most CTUs (36/37, 97%) use a central monitoring process to guide, target or supplement site visits. More than half (19/36, 53%) of CTUs do not use an automated monitoring report when centrally monitoring trials and all units use trial team knowledge to make a final decision on whether an on-site visit is required. A total of 31/34 (91%) CTUs used triggers to decide whether or not to conduct an on-site monitoring visit. On-site, a mixture of source data verification and checking of processes was carried out. The CTUs overwhelmingly (27/34, 79%) selected optimising central monitoring as their most pressing concern. Conclusion The survey showed a wide variation in phase III randomised CTIMP trial monitoring practices by academic clinical trials units within a single research-active country. We urgently need to develop evidence-based regulator-agreed guidance for CTUs on best practice for both central and on-site monitoring and to develop tools for all CTUs to use.

scholarly journals Monitoring in practice – How are UK academic clinical trials monitored? A survey

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Love ◽  
Victoria Yorke-Edwards ◽  
Sarah Lensen ◽  
Matthew R Sydes
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Conducting Phase ◽  
Central Monitoring ◽  
Site Monitoring

Abstract Despite the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) encouraging the use of risk-based monitoring for trials in 2013, there remains a lack of evidence-based guidelines on how to monitor. We surveyed the academic United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered clinical trials units (CTUs) to find out their policy on monitoring of phase III randomised clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product (CTIMPs). Methods An online survey of monitoring policy with sections on the CTU, central monitoring and on-site monitoring was sent to all 50 UKCRC registered CTUs in November 2018. Descriptive data analysis and tabulations are reported using the total number answering each question. Results 43/50 (86%) of CTUs responded with 38 conducting phase III randomised CTIMP trials. Of these 38 CTUs, 34 finished the survey. Most CTUs (36/37, 97%) use a central monitoring process to guide, target or supplement site visits. More than half (19/36, 53%) of CTUs do not use an automated monitoring report when centrally monitoring trials and all units use trial team knowledge to make a final decision on whether an on-site visit is required. 31/34 (91%) CTUs used triggers to decide whether or not to conduct an on-site monitoring visit. On-site, a mixture of source data verification and checking of processes was carried out. The CTUs overwhelmingly (27/34, 79%) selected optimising central monitoring as their most pressing concern. Conclusion The survey showed a wide variation in Phase III randomised CTIMP trial monitoring practices by academic clinical trials units within a single research-active country. We urgently need to develop evidence-based regulator agreed guidance for CTUs on best practice for both central and on-site monitoring and to develop tools for all CTUs to use.

scholarly journals Monitoring in practice – How are UK academic clinical trials monitored? A survey

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Love ◽  
Victoria Yorke-Edwards ◽  
Sarah Lensen ◽  
Matthew R Sydes
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Conducting Phase ◽  
Central Monitoring ◽  
Site Monitoring

Abstract Background Despite the FDA and EMA encouraging the use of risk-based monitoring for trials in 2013, there remains a lack of evidence-based guidelines on how to monitor. We surveyed the academic United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered clinical trials units (CTUs) to find out their policy on monitoring of phase III randomised CTIMP trials. Methods An online survey of monitoring policy with sections on the CTU, central monitoring and on-site monitoring was sent to all 50 UKCRC registered CTUs in November 2018. Descriptive data analysis and tabulations are reported using the total number answering each question. Results 43/50 (86%) of CTUs responded with 38 conducting phase III randomised CTIMP trials. Of these 38 CTUs, 34 finished the survey. Most CTUs (36/37, 97%) use a central monitoring process to guide, target or supplement site visits. More than half (19/36, 53%) of CTUs do not use an automated monitoring report when centrally monitoring trials and all units use trial team knowledge to make a final decision on whether an on-site visit is required. 31/34 (91%) CTUs used triggers to decide whether or not to conduct an on-site monitoring visit. On-site, a mixture of Source Data Verification and checking of processes was carried out. The CTUs overwhelmingly (27/34, 79%) selected optimising central monitoring as their most pressing concern. Conclusion The survey showed a wide variation in Phase III randomised CTIMP trial monitoring practices by academic clinical trials units within a single research-active country. We urgently need to develop evidence-based regulator agreed guidance for CTUs on best practice for both central and on-site monitoring and to develop tools for all CTUs to use.

Consensus statement: evaluation of new and existing therapeutics for pediatric multiple sclerosis

2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Chitnis ◽  
S Tenembaum ◽  
B Banwell ◽  
L Krupp ◽  
D Pohl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Multicenter Studies ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Emerging Therapies ◽  
Number Of Patients

New therapies are being evaluated by clinical trials and, if efficacious, introduced for the treatment of adult MS. The role of these new and existing agents in the management of pediatric MS has yet to be defined. Pediatric investigation plans are now required by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for approval of new biological agents, providing an important opportunity to gather much-needed data for clinicians caring for children and adolescents with MS. However, challenges include the small number of patients, and the need for efficient yet comprehensive study designs incorporating factors necessary to inform the clinical care of children with MS. The elected Steering committee of the International Pediatric MS Study Group (IPMSSG) conducted a structured review of existing data on the disease-modifying therapies in pediatric MS and developed a consensus statement, which was further modified by the IPMSSG general membership, using an online survey tool. Fifty-one IPMSSG members from 21 countries responded to the survey, and 50 approved the final statement. Consensus recommendations regarding use of existing first- and second-line therapies, as well as a proposed definition for inadequate treatment response, are presented. Recommendations for the use and evaluation of emerging therapies (currently in phase III clinical trials or recently approved for adult MS) are discussed. The IPMSSG endorses the inclusion of pediatric MS patients in trials evaluating appropriate new and emerging therapies. Mechanisms for conducting high-impact, multicenter studies, including long-term follow-up in pediatric MS, are required to ensure that all MS patients, irrespective of age, benefit from advances in MS therapeutics.

scholarly journals Monitoring advances including consent: learning from COVID-19 trials and other trials running in UKCRC registered clinical trials units during the pandemic

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon B. Love ◽  
Emma Armstrong ◽  
Carrie Bayliss ◽  
Melanie Boulter ◽  
Lisa Fox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Monitoring Task ◽  
Critical Data ◽  
Site Monitoring ◽  
Clinical Trials Unit ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Trial Monitoring ◽  
The Uk

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has affected how clinical trials are managed, both within existing portfolios and for the rapidly developed COVID-19 trials. Sponsors or delegated organisations responsible for monitoring trials have needed to consider and implement alternative ways of working due to the national infection risk necessitating restricted movement of staff and public, reduced clinical staff resource as research staff moved to clinical areas, and amended working arrangements for sponsor and sponsor delegates as staff moved to working from home.Organisations have often worked in isolation to fast track mitigations required for the conduct of clinical trials during the pandemic; this paper describes many of the learnings from a group of monitoring leads based in United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Unit (CTUs) within the UK.The UKCRC Monitoring Task and Finish Group, comprising monitoring leads from 9 CTUs, met repeatedly to identify how COVID-19 had affected clinical trial monitoring. Informed consent is included as a specific issue within this paper, as review of completed consent documentation is often required within trial monitoring plans (TMPs). Monitoring is defined as involving on-site monitoring, central monitoring or/and remote monitoring.Monitoring, required to protect the safety of the patients and the integrity of the trial and ensure the protocol is followed, is often best done by a combination of central, remote and on-site monitoring. However, if on-site monitoring is not possible, workable solutions can be found using only central or central and remote monitoring. eConsent, consent by a third person, or via remote means is plausible. Minimising datasets to the critical data reduces workload for sites and CTU staff. Home working caused by COVID-19 has made electronic trial master files (TMFs) more inviting. Allowing sites to book and attend protocol training at a time convenient to them has been successful and worth pursuing for trials with many sites in the future.The arrival of COVID-19 in the UK has forced consideration of and changes to how clinical trials are conducted in relation to monitoring. Some developed practices will be useful in other pandemics and others should be incorporated into regular use.

scholarly journals Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J Cragg ◽  
Caroline Hurley ◽  
Victoria Yorke-Edwards ◽  
Sally P Stenning
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Monitoring Methods ◽  
Central Monitoring ◽  
Statistical Monitoring ◽  
Site Monitoring ◽  
Central Statistical ◽  
Monitoring Activity

AbstractBackground/AimsIt is increasingly recognised that reliance on frequent site visits for monitoring clinical trials is inefficient. Regulators and trialists have in recent years encouraged more risk-based monitoring. Risk assessment should take place before a trial begins in order to define the overarching monitoring strategy. It can also be done on an ongoing basis, in order to target sites for monitoring activity. Various methods have been proposed for such prioritisation, often using terms like ‘central statistical monitoring’, ‘triggered monitoring’ or, as in ICH Good Clinical Practice guidance, ‘targeted on-site monitoring’. We conducted a scoping review to identify such methods, to establish if any published methods were supported by adequate evidence to allow wider implementation, and to point the way to future developments in this field of research.MethodsWe used 7 publication databases, 2 sets of methodological conference abstracts and an internet search engine to look for methods for using centrally held trial data to assess site conduct during a trial. We included only reports in English, and excluded reports published before 1996 and reports not directly relevant to our research question. We used reference and citation searches to find additional relevant reports. We extracted data using a pre- defined template. We contacted authors to request additional information about included reports and to check whether reports might be eligible.ResultsWe included 30 reports in our final dataset, of which 21 were peer-reviewed publications. 20 reports described central statistical monitoring methods (of which 7 focussed on detection of fraud or misconduct) and 9 described triggered monitoring methods. 21 reports included some assessment of their methods’ effectiveness. Most commonly this involved exploring the methods’ characteristics using real trial data with no known integrity issues. Of the 21 with some effectiveness assessment, most presented limited or no information about whether or not concerns identified through central monitoring constituted meaningful problems. Some reports commented on cost savings from reduced on-site monitoring, but none gave detailed costings for the development and maintenance of central monitoring methods themselves.ConclusionsOur review identified various proposed methods, some of which could be combined within the same trial. The apparent emphasis on fraud detection may not be proportionate in all trial settings. Although some methods have self-justifying benefits for data cleaning activity, many have limitations that may currently prevent their routine use for targeting trial monitoring activity. The implementation costs, or uncertainty about these, may also be a barrier. We make recommendations for how the evidence-base supporting these methods could be improved.

scholarly journals An evaluation of risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials in UK Clinical Trials Units

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Beever ◽  
Lizzie Swaby
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Collaboration ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Pragmatic Trials ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background Good Clinical Practice guidelines issued in 2016 encourage risk-based approaches to monitoring clinical trials. This study compared current risk assessment and monitoring approaches in UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) with the published guidance and makes recommendations for risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials. Methods An online survey of UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered CTUs was administered via email invitation. Forty-nine units were invited, and 23 responded. Respondents were also invited to share copies of risk assessment templates. Results Most CTUs reported using remote combined with on-site monitoring. All reported undertaking a risk assessment for Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) and 21 units did so for non-CTIMPs. Most CTIMP risk assessments used MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) classifications, although some also employed staff judgement. Almost all units based their monitoring on perceived risk level; this number was higher for CTIMPs (n = 22) than for non-CTIMPs (n = 19). In most cases, monitoring plans were produced. More CTUs revisited risk assessments during trials in CTIMPs (n = 21) than in non-CTIMPs (n = 18). Small numbers of units reviewed the monitoring approach always (n = 4) or sometimes (n = 9) and few used the reflection to guide future monitoring. Conclusions A high proportion of UK CTUs are using risk-based monitoring in the UK, as recommended by guidelines, for both CTIMPs and non-CTIMPs. This has the potential to make trials more efficient and reduce costs. However, there appears to be a lack of reflection on the value of these revised approaches. There may be a benefit in CTUs collaborating nationally to improve processes for reflection and making changes during the life course of a trial.

Are regional funding decisions resticting pharmaceutical research and development in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)?

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 506-506
Author(s):  
Henry Jacob Conter
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Pharmaceutical Research ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Regulatory Decision

506 Background: Targeted therapy has revolutionized the treatment of mRCC. However, cost has lead to variable regional approval and funding. Can such variation in funding of established drugs impede approval of newer agents? Methods: Regulatory agency decisions regarding axitinib, the most recently approved mRCC therapy in the U.S., were reviewed. Reports from the US Food and Drug administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR), UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australia were included. Data abstracted included the date of report publication, basis for determination of clinical efficacy, determination of cost-effectiveness, theme of stakeholder submissions prior to and after the regulatory decision, final decision, and rational for approval/rejection. Results: At the time of analysis, all agency decisions had been finalized. All of the agencies based their assessment of clinical efficacy of primarily on the same phase III clinical trial: the AXIS trial, demonstrating a progression-free survival benefit of axitinib compared to sorafenib (6.7 versus 4.7 months, p<0.001). Cost-effectiveness data was considered by NICE and pCODR, but not the FDA, the EMA, or the TGA. Axitinib was recommended received approval by the FDA, the EMA, and the TGA for use in patients with mRCC who have failed prior treatment with sunitinib or cytokines. pCODR recommended axitinib for funding in the 2nd line setting only in patients unable to tolerate everolimus. And NICE recommended against the funding of axitinib. Both dissenting organizations cited concerns with the pivotal trial’s control arm, sorafenib, not representing their regional standards of care as primary reasons for restricted access and rejection. Cost considerations were also cited as factors in the rejections. Conclusions: Differing regulatory approvals and funding worldwide are creating regional standards of care that impeding the research, development, and approval of newer agents. Divergent standards of care before and after clinical trials may restrict their external validity and applicability.

scholarly journals Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: A scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-259
Author(s):  
William J Cragg ◽  
Caroline Hurley ◽  
Victoria Yorke-Edwards ◽  
Sally P Stenning
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Monitoring Methods ◽  
Central Monitoring ◽  
Statistical Monitoring ◽  
Site Monitoring ◽  
Central Statistical ◽  
Monitoring Activity

Background/Aims It is increasingly recognised that reliance on frequent site visits for monitoring clinical trials is inefficient. Regulators and trialists have recently encouraged more risk-based monitoring. Risk assessment should take place before a trial begins to define the overarching monitoring strategy. It can also be done on an ongoing basis, to target sites for monitoring activity. Various methods have been proposed for such prioritisation, often using terms like ‘central statistical monitoring’, ‘triggered monitoring’ or, as in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidance, ‘targeted on-site monitoring’. We conducted a scoping review to identify such methods, to establish if any were supported by adequate evidence to allow wider implementation, and to guide future developments in this field of research. Methods We used seven publication databases, two sets of methodological conference abstracts and an Internet search engine to identify methods for using centrally held trial data to assess site conduct during a trial. We included only reports in English, and excluded reports published before 1996 or not directly relevant to our research question. We used reference and citation searches to find additional relevant reports. We extracted data using a predefined template. We contacted authors to request additional information about included reports. Results We included 30 reports in our final dataset, of which 21 were peer-reviewed publications. In all, 20 reports described central statistical monitoring methods (of which 7 focussed on detection of fraud or misconduct) and 9 described triggered monitoring methods; 21 reports included some assessment of their methods’ effectiveness, typically exploring the methods’ characteristics using real trial data without known integrity issues. Of the 21 with some effectiveness assessment, most contained limited information about whether or not concerns identified through central monitoring constituted meaningful problems. Several reports demonstrated good classification ability based on more than one classification statistic, but never without caveats of unclear reporting or other classification statistics being low or unavailable. Some reports commented on cost savings from reduced on-site monitoring, but none gave detailed costings for the development and maintenance of central monitoring methods themselves. Conclusion Our review identified various proposed methods, some of which could be combined within the same trial. The apparent emphasis on fraud detection may not be proportionate in all trial settings. Despite some promising evidence and some self-justifying benefits for data cleaning activity, many proposed methods have limitations that may currently prevent their routine use for targeting trial monitoring activity. The implementation costs, or uncertainty about these, may also be a barrier. We make recommendations for how the evidence-base supporting these methods could be improved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document