scholarly journals The data and safety monitoring board in sponsored pediatric clinical trials: practical applications

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
Pramod M. Lad ◽  
Rebecca Dahl

The Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) monitors the progress of clinical trials for safety and implements stopping rules as needed. Although NIH and FDA guidelines recommend the use of a DSMB for phase I, II, and III pediatric clinical trials, the manner in which the DSMB is constituted has received little attention. In this study we reviewed the Institutional Review Board (IRB) applications submitted between 2008 and 2012 at our institution (Children’s Hospital Los Angeles) for phase I, II and III studies which were multi-site, sponsored and performed under a sponsor’s Investigation New Drug Application (IND) for the type of data and safety monitoring that was being used. Our results indicate that approximately two-third of the studies used an independent DSMB, 10% utilized a sponsor’s DSMB and the remaining studies (25%) did not utilize a DSMB and relied instead on safety monitoring by the Principal Investigator (PI) and the medical monitor/director. This pattern was observed across all study phases and for blinded as well as unblinded studies. Our result suggests that a Data and Safety Monitoring Plan (DSMP), although required by the IRB, is rarely submitted by the sponsor at the time of application. Instead the DSMP is submitted to the IRB by the PI on IRB supplied templates. IRB review of these completed templates were critical to ensuring DSMB related compliance. Additionally, a significant percent of sponsored clinical trials used the PI or an individual designated as medical director/monitor, rather than constituting a DSMB.

1995 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 408-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. DeMets ◽  
Thomas R. Fleming ◽  
Richard J. Whitley ◽  
James F. Childress ◽  
Susan S. Ellenberg ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura E Bothwell ◽  
Jerry Avorn ◽  
Nazleen F Khan ◽  
Aaron S Kesselheim

ObjectivesThis review investigates characteristics of implemented adaptive design clinical trials and provides examples of regulatory experience with such trials.DesignReview of adaptive design clinical trials in EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Registry of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. Phase I and seamless Phase I/II trials were excluded. Variables extracted from trials included basic study characteristics, adaptive design features, size and use of independent data monitoring committees (DMCs) and blinded interim analyses. We also examined use of the adaptive trials in new drug submissions to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and recorded regulators’ experiences with adaptive designs.Results142 studies met inclusion criteria. There has been a recent growth in publicly reported use of adaptive designs among researchers around the world. The most frequently appearing types of adaptations were seamless Phase II/III (57%), group sequential (21%), biomarker adaptive (20%), and adaptive dose-finding designs (16%). About one-third (32%) of trials reported an independent DMC, while 6% reported blinded interim analysis. We found that 9% of adaptive trials were used for FDA product approval consideration, and 12% were used for EMA product approval consideration. International regulators had mixed experiences with adaptive trials. Many product applications with adaptive trials had extensive correspondence between drug sponsors and regulators regarding the adaptive designs, in some cases with regulators requiring revisions or alterations to research designs.ConclusionsWider use of adaptive designs will necessitate new drug application sponsors to engage with regulatory scientists during planning and conduct of the trials. Investigators need to more consistently report protections intended to preserve confidentiality and minimise potential operational bias during interim analysis.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 462-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce W Turnbull

This article describes vignettes concerning interactions with Data Safety Monitoring Boards during the design and monitoring of some clinical trials with an adaptive design. Most reflect personal experiences by the author.


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2170-2170
Author(s):  
Celalettin Ustun ◽  
Jennifer Le-Rademacher ◽  
Hai-Lin Wang ◽  
Megan Othus ◽  
Zhuoxin Sun ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients (pts) with AML remains uncertain. We compared outcomes for older AML pts in CR1 receiving HCT reported to the CIBMTR to older AML pts achieving CR1 on National Clinical Trials Network induction and non-HCT consolidation therapy (CT) trials. Methods: This study focused on pts 60-75 years of age treated between 2004 to 2013. CT pts (n=211) underwent induction and consolidation on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, ECOG-ACRIN or SWOG clinical trials for initial therapy for newly diagnosed AML; the CIBMTR provided data for HCT pts (n=431). CT patients received at least one cycle of CT on study and were excluded if HCT occurred at any time. Time to event started at CR1 and pts entered at CT or HCT, respectively, using left-truncation to account for differential entry times. Results: For the CT cohort, first consolidation included standard therapy (e.g., cytarabine or a hypomethylating agent) and additional study drug (e.g., bortezomib, dasatinib, sorafenib, and Zosuquidar, gemtuzumab) or tipifarnib alone. Among HCT pts, the donor was a HLA-matched sibling or unrelated donor (URD) in 66% and the others were partially HLA-matched/mismatched URD (10%) or cord blood (24%). HCT pts were younger and more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML and unfavorable cytogenetics) (Table). The median time from CR1 to HCT and CT was 3.2 and 0.5 months, respectively. Allogeneic HCT showed worse overall survival (OS) (HR=1.52, p=0.02) prior to 9 months and better OS thereafter (HR= 0.53, p <0.0001) relative to CT (figure 1A). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) was worse after HCT in the first 9 months (HR=2.8, CI: 1.5 -5.2, p=.0009), while relapse was less frequent beyond 9 months after treatment (HR = 0.42, CI: 0.29 to 0.61, p<.0001). Despite higher early TRM, HCT recipients went on to manifest superior OS [5 year OS: HCT 29% (24-34%), CT 13.8% (9 -22%)] (Figure 1A). The benefit of HCT for survival after 9 months was more prominent in those with unfavorable cytogenetics (Figure 1B). Multivariate analysis for OS showed no statistically significant effect of age or performance status, while unfavorable cytogenetics were detrimental (HR=1.74, p<.0001). Conclusions. Allogeneic HCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, but resulted in superior long-term survival in older AML pts receiving HCT relative to CT by reducing relapse. Efforts to attenuate early TRM after allogeneic HCT may further improve HCT outcomes for older pts. Disclosures Ustun: novartis: Speakers Bureau. Attar:Agios: Employment, Equity Ownership. Larson:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BristolMyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Roboz:Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Uy:GlycoMimetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy. Stone:Fujifilm: Consultancy; Ono: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Argenx: Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Steering Committee; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sumitomo: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Cornerstone: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Research Funding; Xencor, Inc.: Research Funding. Weisdorf:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Equillium: Consultancy; FATE: Consultancy; SL Behring: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (26) ◽  
pp. 4433-4440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Razelle Kurzrock ◽  
Susan Pilat ◽  
Marcel Bartolazzi ◽  
Dwana Sanders ◽  
Jill Van Wart Hood ◽  
...  

Drug development in cancer research is lengthy and expensive. One of the rate-limiting steps is the initiation of first-in-human (phase I) trials. Three to 6 months can elapse between investigational new drug (IND) approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and the entry of a first patient. Issues related to patient participation have been well analyzed, but the administrative processes relevant to implementing clinical trials have received less attention. While industry and academia often partner for the performance of phase I studies, their administrative processes are generally performed independently, and their timelines driven by different priorities: safety reviews, clinical operations, regulatory submissions, and contracting of clinical delivery vendors for industry; contracts, budgets, and institutional review board approval for academia. Both processes converge on US Food and Drug Administration approval of an IND. In the context of a strategic alliance between M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, a concerted effort has been made to eliminate delays in implementing clinical trials. These efforts focused on close communications, identifying and matching key timelines, alignment of priorities, and tackling administrative processes in parallel, rather than sequentially. In a recent, first-in-human trial, the study was activated and the first patient identified in 46 days from completion of the final study protocol and about 48 hours after final US Food and Drug Administration IND approval, reducing the overall timeline by about 3 months, while meeting all clinical good practice guidelines. Eliminating administrative delays can accelerate the evaluation of new drugs without compromising patient safety or the quality of clinical research.


1984 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 312
Author(s):  
Antonia M. Valakas ◽  
Peggy A. Doi ◽  
John Cavallito ◽  
Gilles Cloutier ◽  
Larry Bell

2003 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Zohar ◽  
Aurelien Latouche ◽  
Mathieu Taconnet ◽  
Sylvie Chevret

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Kumthekar

Clinical trials that involve medical products are critical to advancing treatments in any medical field and are designed with careful thought and attention to detail. These details include careful assessment of safety parameters from patient safety visits, lab work and deliberately placed screening parameters. Meticulous planning for primary, secondary and correlative outcomes is completed by the study team and the biostatisticians involved in each study design. These precise measures are then methodically written as a clinical trial protocol and submitted to regulatory bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) often as an Investigational Drug Application (IND) and also submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) so that a study can have the appropriate regulatory approval to be tested for the desired outcome. The Principal Investigator (PI) and study team are required to follow these protocols and regulatory requirements with exactitude to maintain clinical trial integrity. While there are many models projecting variances in the timeframe of this pandemic, it is very possible that these modifications will be in place for months/years to come in varying intensities, so it is imperative that we understand them if we participate in clinical trials moving forward.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document