scholarly journals Monitoring Advances Including Consent; Learning from COVID-19 Trials and Other Trials Running in UKCRC Registered Clinical Trials Units During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Love ◽  
Emma Armstrong ◽  
Carrie Bayliss ◽  
Melanie Boulter ◽  
Lisa Fox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Monitoring Task ◽  
Critical Data ◽  
Site Monitoring ◽  
Clinical Trials Unit ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Trial Monitoring ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Staff Resource

Abstract BackgroundThe 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 UKCRC Clinical Trials Unit (CTUs) within the UK.MethodsThe 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. ResultsMonitoring, required to protect the safety of the patients, 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 (TMF’s) 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.ConclusionsThe 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 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.

Clinical trial monitoring effectiveness: Remote risk-based monitoring versus on-site monitoring with 100% source data verification

2020 ◽  
pp. 174077452097125
Author(s):  
Osamu Yamada ◽  
Shih-Wei Chiu ◽  
Munenori Takata ◽  
Michiaki Abe ◽  
Mutsumi Shoji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Remote Monitoring System ◽  
Data Verification ◽  
Critical Data ◽  
Site Monitoring ◽  
Source Data ◽  
Source Data Verification

Background/Aims: Traditional on-site monitoring of clinical trials via frequent site visits and 100% source data verification is cost-consuming, and it still cannot guarantee data quality effectively. Depending on the types and designs of clinical trials, an alternative would be combining several monitoring methods, such as risk-based monitoring and remote monitoring. However, there is insufficient evidence of its effectiveness. This research compared the effectiveness of risk-based monitoring with a remote monitoring system with that of traditional on-site monitoring. Methods: With a cloud-based remote monitoring system called beagle View®, we created a remote risk-based monitoring methodology that focused only on critical data and processes. We selected a randomized controlled trial conducted at Tohoku University Hospital and randomly sampled 11 subjects whose case report forms had already been reviewed by data managers. Critical data and processes were verified retrospectively by remote risk-based monitoring; later, all data and processes were confirmed by on-site monitoring. We compared the ability of remote risk-based monitoring to detect critical data and process errors with that of on-site monitoring with 100% source data verification, including an examination of clinical trial staff workload and potential cost savings. Results: Of the total data points (n = 5617), 19.7% (n = 1105, 95% confidence interval = 18.7–20.7) were identified as critical. The error rates of critical data detected by on-site monitoring, remote risk-based monitoring, and data review by data managers were 7.6% (n = 84, 95% CI = 6.2–9.3), 7.6% (n = 84, 95% confidence interval = 6.2–9.3), and 3.9% (n = 43, 95% confidence interval = 2.9–5.2), respectively. The total number of critical process errors detected by on-site monitoring was 14. Of these 14, 92.9% (n = 13, 95% confidence interval = 68.5–98.7) and 42.9% (n = 6, 95% confidence interval = 21.4–67.4) of critical process errors were detected by remote risk-based monitoring and data review by data managers, respectively. The mean time clinical trial staff spent dealing with remote risk-based monitoring was 9.9 ± 5.3 (mean ± SD) min per visit per subject. Our calculations show that remote risk-based monitoring saved between 9 and 41 on-site monitoring visits, corresponding to a cost of between US$13,500 and US$61,500 per trial site. Conclusion: Remote risk-based monitoring was able to detect critical data and process errors as well as on-site monitoring with 100% source data verification, saving travel time and monitoring costs. Remote risk-based monitoring offers an effective alternative to traditional on-site monitoring of clinical trials.

scholarly journals Risk-Based Monitoring in Clinical Trials: Past, Present, and Future

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Barnes ◽  
Nicole Stansbury ◽  
Debby Brown ◽  
Lauren Garson ◽  
Geoff Gerard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Indicators ◽  
Remote Site ◽  
Trial Quality ◽  
Site Monitoring ◽  
Source Data Verification ◽  
Landscape Survey ◽  
Trial Monitoring ◽  
The Individual

AbstractRisk-based monitoring (RBM) is a powerful tool for efficiently ensuring patient safety and data integrity in a clinical trial, enhancing overall trial quality. To better understand the state of RBM implementation across the clinical trial industry, the Association of Clinical Research Organizations (ACRO) conducted a landscape survey among its member companies across 6,513 clinical trials ongoing at the end of 2019. Of these trials, 22% included at least 1 of the 5 RBM components: key risk indicators (KRIs), centralized monitoring, off-site/remote-site monitoring, reduced source data verification (SDV), and reduced source document review (SDR). The implementation rates for the individual RBM components ranged 8%–19%, with the most frequently implemented component being centralized monitoring and the least frequently implemented being reduced SDR. When the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in early 2020, additional data were collected to assess its impact on trial monitoring, focusing specifically on trials switching from on-site monitoring to off-site/remote-site monitoring. These mid-pandemic data show that the vast majority of monitoring visits were on-site in February 2020, but an even higher percentage were off-site in April, corresponding with the first peak of the pandemic. Despite this shift, similar numbers of non-COVID-related protocol deviations were detected from February through June, suggesting little or no reduction in monitoring effectiveness. The pre- and mid-pandemic data provide two very different snapshots of RBM implementation, but both support the need to promote adoption of this approach while also highlighting an opportunity to capitalize on the recent shift toward greater RBM uptake in a post-pandemic environment.

scholarly journals Patient and public involvement prior to trial initiation: lessons learnt for rapid partnership in the COVID-19 era

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahra Jamal ◽  
◽  
Alexander Perkins ◽  
Christopher Allen ◽  
Richard Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
The Public ◽  
Clinical Trials Unit ◽  
The Uk

Plain English summary Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) describes the active involvement of patients and the public in the research process. Through PPI, patients and members of the public are increasingly involved in the design and conduct of clinical trials. PPI has been shown to improve the quality and relevance of research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical trials have been playing a vital role in helping us find ways to prevent and treat the infection and improve our understanding of the virus. It is important that patients and the public are actively involved in deciding how COVID-19 research is carried out. Unfortunately, Research Ethics Committees in the UK have seen far less PPI for COVID-19 research studies compared with research before the pandemic. A key reason for this is that research is being designed much faster than normal and researchers may feel they do not have time to properly involve patients and the public. In this paper, we share our experiences of PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. We show that it is possible to rapidly involve patients and the public in COVID-19 clinical trials. We also explain how the design of the clinical trial was changed in response to feedback from public contributors. Lastly, we discuss the wider learning from this process which might be useful for researchers planning PPI activities for COVID-19 clinical trials in the future. Abstract Background: Clinical trials are playing a critical role in the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of PPI in clinical trials, just 22% of the COVID-19 research proposals reviewed by Research Ethics Committees in the UK at the start of the pandemic reported PPI. There is a perception that PPI might result in delays in delivering research and therefore delays in obtaining important results. In this paper, we report our experience of rapid PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. Methods: RAPID-19 is a COVID-19 clinical trial which was planned to be submitted for fast-track ethics review in the United Kingdom. During the development of the trial protocol, the PPI Panel at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials Unit was involved in the design of the study. The meeting with the PPI Panel lasted just over 1 h and was conducted by teleconference. Results: Although we only had a short period of time to explore the study with the PPI Panel, we were able to gain valuable insight into how the trial would be perceived by potential trial participants. Substantive changes were made to the trial to improve the acceptability of the research without compromising the study timelines. Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience is an important resource for a Clinical Trials Unit and is critical for rapid PPI. The move to remote working due to lockdown required virtual discussions which helped to overcome some of the barriers to organising face-to-face meetings at short notice. Conclusions: PPI for clinical trials can be conducted in a time-efficient manner within the pressured environment of a pandemic. Involving PPI contributors at an early stage in protocol development maximised the opportunity to shape and influence the trial as well as limited potential delays which could occur if changes to the protocol had to be made at a later stage.

scholarly journals Use of connected digital products in clinical research following the COVID-19 pandemic: a comprehensive analysis of clinical trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047341
Author(s):  
Caroline Marra ◽  
William J Gordon ◽  
Ariel Dora Stern
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Search Algorithm ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Digital Products ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Before And After

ObjectivesIn an effort to mitigate COVID-19 related challenges for clinical research, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued new guidance for the conduct of ‘virtual’ clinical trials in late March 2020. This study documents trends in the use of connected digital products (CDPs), tools that enable remote patient monitoring and telehealth consultation, in clinical trials both before and after the onset of the pandemic.DesignWe applied a comprehensive text search algorithm to clinical trial registry data to identify trials that use CDPs for remote monitoring or telehealth. We compared CDP use in the months before and after the issuance of FDA guidance facilitating virtual clinical trials.SettingAll trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with start dates from May 2019 through February 2021.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was the overall percentage of CDP use in clinical trials started in the 10 months prior to the pandemic onset (May 2019–February 2020) compared with the 10 months following (May 2020–February 2021). Secondary outcome measures included CDP usage by trial type (interventional, observational), funder type (industry, non-industry) and diagnoses (COVID-19 or non-COVID-19 participants).ResultsCDP usage in clinical trials increased by only 1.65 percentage points, from 14.19% (n=23 473) of all trials initiated in the 10 months prior to the pandemic onset to 15.84% (n=26 009) of those started in the 10 months following (p<0.01). The increase occurred primarily in observational studies and non-industry funded trials and was driven entirely by CDP usage in trials for COVID-19.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that in the short-term, new options created by regulatory guidance to stimulate telehealth and remote monitoring were not widely incorporated into clinical research. In the months immediately following the pandemic onset, CDP adoption increased primarily in observational and non-industry funded studies where virtual protocols are likely medically necessary due to the participants’ COVID-19 diagnosis.

scholarly journals GCT-61. CORRELATION OF PATTERNS OF DISEASE RECURRENCE WITH RADIOTHERAPY TECHNIQUES AND DOSE IN INTRACRANIAL GERM CELL TUMOURS (icGCT): LESSONS FROM THE UK COHORT OF SIOP GCT96 STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. iii340-iii340
Author(s):  
Thankamma Ajithkumar ◽  
Henry Mandeville ◽  
Fernando Carceller ◽  
Milind Ronghe ◽  
Tina Foord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Disease Recurrence ◽  
Germ Cell Tumours ◽  
Prospective Data ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Radiotherapy Techniques ◽  
The Uk ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Patterns Of Recurrence

Abstract BACKGROUND There are global variations in radiotherapy approaches for icGCT. An understanding of patterns of disease recurrence correlated with radiation techniques and doses is important in standardising and improving the quality of radiotherapy using high-precision techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS Data from 20 patients with tumour recurrence after treatment within the SIOP GCT96 study in the UK were analysed. Seven (35%) patients had germinoma and 13 (65%) had non-germinoma. Twelve patients had local recurrence, 5 had metastatic and 3 had local and metastatic disease. Radiotherapy details were retrieved in only 8 patients (40%). Six patients had received focal radiotherapy and two craniospinal radiotherapy. Of the patients who received focal radiotherapy, 4 had recurrence within the radiation portal, one had periventricular recurrence and one had marker-positive recurrence with no radiological lesions. Both patients who received CSI recurred within the CSF space. The main reasons for poor retrieval of treatment details were difficulty in retrieving archived information and that the study was conducted during a period before PACS or electronic radiotherapy records. CONCLUSION This study highlights the importance prospective data collection and analysis to understand the patterns of recurrence in icGCT. Even within a prospective study, radiotherapy techniques varied between centres. There is therefore an urgent need for centralised radiological review and prospective radiotherapy quality assurance measures in future clinical trials.

scholarly journals National control laboratory independent lot testing of COVID-19 vaccines: the UK experience

npj Vaccines ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola J. Rose ◽  
Paul Stickings ◽  
Silke Schepelmann ◽  
Marc J. A. Bailey ◽  
Chris Burns
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Vaccine Development ◽  
Regulatory Approval ◽  
Safety Measures ◽  
Discovery Research ◽  
Innovative Products ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Vaccine Availability ◽  
And Control

AbstractThe past 18 months have seen an unprecedented approach to vaccine development in the global effort against the COVID-19 pandemic. The process from discovery research, through clinical trials and regulatory approval often takes more than 10 years. However, the critical need to expedite vaccine availability in the pandemic has meant that new approaches to development, manufacturing, and regulation have been required: this has necessitated many stages of product development, clinical trials, and manufacturing to be undertaken in parallel at a global level. Through the development of these innovative products, the world has the best chance of finding individual, or combinations of, vaccines that will provide adequate protection for the world’s population. Despite the huge scientific and regulatory achievements and significant investment to accelerate vaccine availability, it is essential that safety measures are not compromised. Here we focus on the post regulatory approval testing by independent laboratories that provides an additional assurance of the safety and quality of a product, with an emphasis on the UK experience through the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC), an expert centre of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Radiotherapy research activity and radiographer involvement in the UK

2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Davies ◽  
Christine Rawlings
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Service Development ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Research Activity ◽  
Local Initiatives ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Further Development

AbstractIn the UK, radiotherapy research is being conducted at national and international levels which include multi-centre clinical trials. Local initiatives and trials are also ongoing where work is being performed to develop techniques or protocols for new technologies and service development. Active participation within these studies is now leading to a culture change with radiographers (radiation therapists) becoming an integral part of the research process. There are currently 70 radiographers in the UK participating in research. This accounts for 2.5% of the UK profession. With the extension of role diversification, research radiographers are undertaking many new roles; however, there is still scope for further development. The therapists’ role in working within this research environment is to ensure improved standards of care focussed on evidence-based practice.

Veterinary clinical trials in the UK

2013 ◽  
Vol 173 (9) ◽  
pp. 226.1-226
Author(s):  
Vivienne Saville
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
The Uk
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document