Clinical trials: minimising source data queries to streamline endpoint adjudication in a large multi-national trial

Background: The UK Clinical Trial Regulations and Good Clinical Practice guidelines specify that the study sponsor must ensure clinical trial data are accurately reported, recorded and verified to ensure patient safety and scientific integrity. The methods that are utilised to assess data quality and the results of any reviews undertaken are rarely reported in the literature. We have recently undertaken a quality review of trial data submitted to a Clinical Endpoint Committee for adjudication. The purpose of the review was to identify areas that could be improved for future clinical trials. The results are reported in this paper. Methods: Throughout the course of the study, all data queries were logged. Following study close out, queries were coded and categorised. A descriptive and comparative analysis was conducted to determine the frequency of occurrence for each category by country of origin. Results: From 1595 endpoint packages reviewed, 782 queries were generated. No source data queries were generated for countries with ≤ 25 recruited subjects, but both low recruiting and high recruiting countries had a high number of queries relating to subject identifiers. Conclusions: The implementation of some simple measures could help improve data quality and lead to significant savings.</p

Implementing a centralised pharmacovigilance service in a non-commercial setting in the United Kingdom

The implementation of a pharmacovigilance service compliant with the legal and regulatory responsibilities of clinical trial sponsors presents particular challenges for sponsors in a non-commercial setting. In this paper we examine these challenges in detail. We identify and discuss the key steps in the development of a pharmacovigilance service within a public health service and university setting in the United Kingdom. We describe how we have established a central Pharmacovigilance Office with dedicated staff and resources within our organisation. This office is supported by an electronic pharmacovigilance reporting infrastructure developed to facilitate the receipt and processing of safety information, the onward reporting in compliance with legislation and the provision of sponsor institution oversight of clinical trial participant safety. An education and training programme has also been set up to ensure that all relevant staff in the organisation are fully aware of the pharmacovigilance service and are appropriately trained in its use. We discuss possible alternatives to this approach and why we consider our solution to be the most appropriate to ensure that a non-commercial sponsor organisation and investigators are operating in a fully compliant way

Are routinely collected NHS administrative records suitable for endpoint identification in clinical trials? Evidence from the West of Scotland coronary prevention study

Background: Routinely collected electronic patient records are already widely used in epidemiological research. In this work we investigated the potential for using them to identify endpoints in clinical trials.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Methods: The events recorded in the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS), a large clinical trial of pravastatin in middle-aged hypercholesterolaemic men in the 1990s, were compared with those in the record-linked deaths and hospitalisations records routinely collected in Scotland.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Results: We matched 99% of fatal study events by date. We showed excellent matching (97%) of the causes of fatal endpoint events and good matching (.80% for first events) of the causes of nonfatal endpoint events with a slightly lower rate of mismatching of record linkage than study events (19% of first study myocardial infarctions (MI) and 4% of first record linkage MIs not matched as MI). We also investigated the matching of non-endpoint events and showed a good level of matching, with .78% of first stroke/TIA events being matched as stroke/TIA. The primary reasons for mismatches were record linkage data recording readmissions for procedures or previous events, differences between the diagnoses in the routinely collected data and the conclusions of the clinical trial expert adjudication committee, events occurring outside Scotland and therefore being missed by record linkage data, miscoding of cardiac events in hospitalisations data as ‘unspecified chest pain’, some general miscoding in the record linkage data and some record linkage errors.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Conclusions: We conclude that routinely collected data could be used for recording cardiovascular endpoints in clinical trials and would give very similar results to rigorously collected clinical trial data, in countries with unified health systems such as Scotland. The endpoint types would need to be carefully thought through and an expert endpoint adjudication committee should be involved.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt

Clinical Trials: Minimising source data queries to streamline endpoint adjudication in a large multi-national trial

Abstract Background: The UK Clinical Trial Regulations and Good Clinical Practice guidelines specify that the study sponsor must ensure clinical trial data are accurately reported, recorded and verified to ensure patient safety and scientific integrity. The methods that are utilised to assess data quality and the results of any reviews undertaken are rarely reported in the literature. We have recently undertaken a quality review of trial data submitted to a Clinical Endpoint Committee for adjudication. The purpose of the review was to identify areas that could be improved for future clinical trials. The results are reported in this paper. Methods: Throughout the course of the study, all data queries were logged. Following study close out, queries were coded and categorised. A descriptive and comparative analysis was conducted to determine the frequency of occurrence for each category by country of origin

Communicating the Results of Clinical Research to Participants: Attitudes, Practices, and Future Directions

The authors discuss the available data on the effects of communicating aggregate and individual research results on participants, investigators, and the research enterprise

A post-trial survey to assess the impact of dissemination of results and unmasking on participants in a 13-year randomised controlled trial on age-related cataract

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Italian-American Clinical Trial of Nutritional Supplements and Age-Related Cataract was designed to assess the impact of a multivitamin-mineral supplement on age-related cataract. Trial results showed evidence of a beneficial effect of the supplement on all types of cataract combined, opposite effects on two of the three types of cataract (beneficial for nuclear opacities and harmful for posterior sub-capsular opacities) and no statistically significant effect on cortical opacities. No treatment recommendations were made. A post-trial survey was conducted on 817 surviving elderly participants to assess their satisfaction, their understanding of treatment assignment to supplement or placebo and the success of masking.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Trial results were communicated by letter and the level of satisfaction and of understanding of the results was assessed by a questionnaire. Participants were offered the option of being unmasked: a second questionnaire was administered to this subset to assess their understanding of the randomisation process and the success of masking.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>610 participants (74.7%) responded to the survey:</p> <p>94.6% thought the description of the results was "very clear" or "quite clear", 5.4% "not clear" or "do not know"; 89.8% considered the results "very interesting" or "quite interesting", 10.2% "not interesting" or "do not know"; 60.3% expressed "satisfaction", 17.2% "both satisfaction and concern", 2.6% "concern", 19.9% "indifference" or "do not know".</p> <p>480 participants (78.7%) accepted the offer to be unmasked to their treatment assignment: 395 (82.3%) recalled/understood the possibility of assignment to vitamins or placebo, 85 (17.7%) did not. 68 participants (17.2%) thought they had taken vitamins (79.4% were correct; p = 0.0006), 47 (11.9%) thought they had taken placebo (59.6% were correct; p = 0.46) and 280 (70.9%) declared they did not know.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results were made difficult to explain to study participants by the qualitatively different effect of treatment on the two most visually significant types of cataract. Although the study did not lead to a recommendation to use the dietary supplement, the vast majority of participants reported satisfaction after they received the results but almost 20% of the participants expressed some concern. Masking to treatment assignment was successful in the majority of participants.</p

Durvalumab (MEDI 4736) in combination with extended neoadjuvant regimens in rectal cancer : a study protocol of a randomised phase II trial (PRIME-RT)

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Mr George Davidson and Ms Monica Jeffers for their input with writing the PRIME-RT protocol and patient information sheet. This study is co-sponsored by the University of Glasgow and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Funding PRIME-RT is funded by Astrazeneca and receives core funding from CRUK Clinical Trials Unit Glasgow for the purposes of trial set-up and data collection. The trial is co-sponsored by the University Of Glasgow and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Investing in the future: lessons learnt from communicating the results of HSV/ HIV intervention trials in South Africa

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Communicating the results of randomised controlled trials may present challenges for researchers who have to work with communities and policy-makers to anticipate positive outcomes, while being aware that results may show no effect or harm.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We present a case study from the perspective of researchers in South Africa about the lessons learnt from communicating the results of four trials evaluating treatment for herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) as a new strategy for HIV prevention.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We show that contextual factors such as misunderstandings and mistrust played an important role in defining the communications response. Use of different approaches in combination was found to be most effective in building understanding, credibility and trust in the research process. During the communication process, researchers acted beyond their traditional role of neutral observers and became agents of social change. This change in role is in keeping with a global trend towards increased communication of research results and presents both opportunities and challenges for the conduct of future research.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite disappointing trial results which showed no benefit of HSV-2 treatment for HIV prevention, important lessons were learnt about the value of the communication process in building trust between researchers, community members and policy-makers, and creating an enabling environment for future research partnerships.</p

When research seems like clinical care: a qualitative study of the communication of individual cancer genetic research results

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices <it>seem </it>like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and <it>should</it>, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.</p

An Analysis of Vascular Access Thrombosis Events From the Proactive IV irOn Therapy in hemodiALysis Patients Trial

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of anemia in dialysis patients has been associated with increased risk of vascular access thrombosis (VAT). Proactive IV irOn Therapy in hemodiALysis Patients (PIVOTAL) was a clinical trial of proactive compared with reactive i.v. iron therapy in patients requiring hemodialysis. We analyzed the trial data to determine whether randomized treatment arm, alongside other clinical and laboratory variables, independently associated with VAT. METHODS: In PIVOTAL, 2141 adult patients were randomized. The type of vascular access (arteriovenous fistula [AVF], arteriovenous graft [AVG], or central venous catheter [CVC]) was recorded at baseline and every month after randomization. The associations between clinical and laboratory data and first VAT were evaluated in a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 480 (22.4%) participants experienced VAT in a median of 2.1 years of follow-up. In multivariable analyses, treatment arm (proactive vs. reactive) was not an independent predictor of VAT (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, P = 0.18). Diabetic kidney disease (HR 1.45, P < 0.001), AVG use (HR 2.29, P < 0.001), digoxin use (HR 2.48, P < 0.001), diuretic use (HR 1.25, P = 0.02), female sex (HR 1.33, P = 0.002), and previous/current smoker (HR 1.47, P = 0.004) were independently associated with a higher risk of VAT. Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use (HR 0.66, P = 0.01) was independently associated with a lower risk of VAT. CONCLUSION: In PIVOTAL, VAT occurred in nearly 1 quarter of participants in a median of just >2 years. In this post hoc analysis, randomization to proactive i.v. iron treatment arms did not increase the risk of VAT