Risk-proportionate clinical trial monitoring: an example approach from a non-commercial trials unit

Background Some level of monitoring is usually required during a clinical trial to protect the rights and safety of trial participants and to safeguard the quality and reliability of trial results. Although there is increasing support for the use of risk-proportionate approaches to achieve these aims, the variety of methods and lack of an empirical evidence base can present challenges for clinical trial practitioners. Methods This paper describes the monitoring methods and procedures that are utilised by a noncommercial clinical trials unit which coordinates a range of clinical trials across a variety of clinical areas with different associated risks. Results Monitoring activities and approaches should be selected to be proportionate to the risks identified within a trial. A risk-proportionate approach to monitoring is described giving details of methods that may be considered by clinical trial practitioners during the development of a trial monitoring plan. An example risk assessment and corresponding monitoring plan for a low risk (type A in the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) classification system) pediatric trial is provided for illustration. Conclusion We present ideas for developing a monitoring plan for a clinical trial of an investigational medicinal product based on our experience. Alternative approaches may be relevant or preferable in other settings based on inherent risk

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injection regimens in children and young people at diagnosis of type 1 diabetes: pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy, safety, and cost utility of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with multiple daily injection (MDI) regimens during the first year following diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children and young people.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, open label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.Setting15 paediatric National Health Service (NHS) diabetes services in England and Wales. The study opened to recruitment in May 2011 and closed in January 2017.ParticipantsPatients aged between 7 months and 15 years, with a new diagnosis of type 1 diabetes were eligible to participate. Patients who had a sibling with the disease, and those who took drug treatments or had additional diagnoses that could have affected glycaemic control were ineligible.InterventionsParticipants were randomised, stratified by age and treating centre, to start treatment with CSII or MDI within 14 days of diagnosis. Starting doses of aspart (CSII and MDI) and glargine or detemir (MDI) were calculated according to weight and age, and titrated according to blood glucose measurements and according to local clinical practice.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was glycaemic control (as measured by glycated haemoglobin; HbA1c) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were percentage of patients in each treatment arm with HbA1c within the national target range, incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, change in height and body mass index (as measured by standard deviation scores), insulin requirements (units/kg/day), partial remission rate (insulin dose adjusted HbA1c Results294 participants were randomised and 293 included in intention to treat analyses (CSI, n=144; MDI, n=149). At 12 months, mean HbA1c was comparable with clinically unimportant differences between CSII and MDI participants (60.9 mmol/mol v 58.5 mmol/mol, mean difference 2.4 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval -0.4 to 5.3), P=0.09). Achievement of HbA1c lower than 58 mmol/mol was low among the two groups (66/143 (46%) CSII participants v 78/142 (55%) MDI participants; relative risk 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.06)). Incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were low in both groups. Fifty four non-serious and 14 serious adverse events were reported during CSII treatment, and 17 non-serious and eight serious adverse events during MDI treatment. Parents (but not children) reported superior PedsQL scores for those patients treated with CSII compared to those treated with MDI. CSII was more expensive than MDI by £1863 (€2179; $2474; 95% confidence interval £1620 to £2137) per patient, with no additional QALY gains (difference -0.006 (95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.018)).ConclusionDuring the first year following type 1 diabetes diagnosis, no clinical benefit of CSII over MDI was identified in children and young people in the UK setting, and treatment with either regimen was suboptimal in achieving HbA1c thresholds. CSII was not cost effective.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN29255275; European Clinical Trials Database 2010-023792-25

Clinical trial data sharing: Here's the challenge

Objective Anonymised patient-level data from clinical research are increasingly recognised as a fundamental and valuable resource. It has value beyond the original research project and can help drive scientific research and innovations and improve patient care. To support responsible data sharing, we need to develop systems that work for all stakeholders. The members of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) for the data sharing platform Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR) describe here some summary metrics from the platform and challenge the research community on why the promised demand for data has not been observed. Summary of data From 2014 to the end of January 2019, there were a total of 473 research proposals (RPs) submitted to CSDR. Of these, 364 met initial administrative and data availability checks, and the IRP approved 291. Of the 90 research teams that had completed their analyses by January 2018, 41 reported at least one resulting publication to CSDR. Less than half of the studies ever listed on CSDR have been requested. Conclusion While acknowledging there are areas for improvement in speed of access and promotion of the platform, the total number of applications for access and the resulting publications have been low and challenge the sustainability of this model. What are the barriers for data contributors and secondary analysis researchers? If this model does not work for all, what needs to be changed? One thing is clear: that data access can realise new and unforeseen contributions to knowledge and improve patient health, but this will not be achieved unless we build sustainable models together that work for all

Trial Steering Committees in randomised controlled trials: A survey of registered clinical trials units to establish current practice and experiences

Background: The Medical Research Council Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice outlines a three-committee trial oversight structure – the day-to-day Trial Management Group, the Data Monitoring Committee and the Trial Steering Committee. In this model, the Trial Steering Committee is the executive committee that oversees the trial and considers the recommendations from the Data Monitoring Committee. There is yet to be in-depth consideration establishing the Trial Steering Committee’s role and functionality. Methods: A survey to establish Trial Steering Committee’s current practices, role and the use and opinion on the Medical Research Council guidelines was undertaken within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units. Results: Completed surveys were obtained from 38 of 47 fully and partially registered Units. Individual items in the survey were analysed and reported spanning current Trial Steering Committee practices including its role, requirement and experience required for membership; methods to identify members; and meeting frequency. Terms (a document describing the committee’s remit, objectives and functionality) were obtained and analysed from 21 of 33 Units with documents in place at their Unit. A total of 20 responders suggested aspects of the current Medical Research Council Guidelines that need improvement. Conclusion: We present the first survey reporting on practices within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units on the experience and remits of Trial Steering Committees. We have identified a widespread adoption of Medical Research Council Guidelines for Trial Steering Committees in the United Kingdom, but limitations in this existing provision have been identified that need to be addressed. </jats:sec

Antibiotic or silver versus standard ventriculoperitoneal shunts (BASICS): a multi-centre, single-blinded, randomised trial and economic evaluation

Background Insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydrocephalus is one of the commonest neurosurgical procedures worldwide. Infection of the implanted shunt affects up to 15% of these patients, resulting in prolonged hospital treatment, multiple surgeries, and reduced cognition and quality of life. Our aim was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic (rifampicin and clindamycin) or silver shunts compared with standard shunts at reducing infection. Methods In this parallel, multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, we included patients with hydrocephalus of any aetiology undergoing insertion of their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt irrespective of age at 21 regional adult and paediatric neurosurgery centres in the UK and Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 in random permuted blocks of three or six) to receive standard shunts (standard shunt group), antibiotic-impregnated (0·15% clindamycin and 0·054% rifampicin; antibiotic shunt group), or silver-impregnated shunts (silver shunt group) through a randomisation sequence generated by an independent statistician. All patients and investigators who recorded and analysed the data were masked for group assignment, which was only disclosed to the neurosurgical staff at the time of operation. Participants receiving a shunt without evidence of infection at the time of insertion were followed up for at least 6 months and a maximum of 2 years. The primary outcome was time to shunt failure due the infection and was analysed with Fine and Gray survival regression models for competing risk by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN 49474281. Findings Between June 26, 2013, and Oct 9, 2017, we assessed 3505 patients, of whom 1605 aged up to 91 years were randomly assigned to receive either a standard shunt (n=536), an antibiotic-impregnated shunt (n=538), or a silver shunt (n=531). 1594 had a shunt inserted without evidence of infection at the time of insertion (533 in the standard shunt group, 535 in the antibiotic shunt group, and 526 in the silver shunt group) and were followed up for a median of 22 months (IQR 10–24; 53 withdrew from follow-up). 32 (6%) of 533 evaluable patients in the standard shunt group had a shunt revision for infection, compared with 12 (2%) of 535 evaluable patients in the antibiotic shunt group (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR] 0·38, 97·5% CI 0·18–0·80, p=0·0038) and 31 (6%) of 526 patients in the silver shunt group (0·99, 0·56–1·74, p=0·96). 135 (25%) patients in the standard shunt group, 127 (23%) in the antibiotic shunt group, and 134 (36%) in the silver shunt group had adverse events, which were not life-threatening and were mostly related to valve or catheter function. Interpretation The BASICS trial provides evidence to support the adoption of antibiotic shunts in UK patients who are having their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion. This practice will benefit patients of all ages by reducing the risk and harm of shunt infection. Funding UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Priorities for methodological research on patient and public involvement in clinical trials A modified Delphi process

Background Despite increasing international interest, there is a lack of evidence about the most efficient, effective and acceptable ways to implement patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials. Objective To identify the priorities of UK PPI stakeholders for methodological research to help resolve uncertainties about PPI in clinical trials. Design A modified Delphi process including a two round online survey and a stakeholder consensus meeting. Participants In total, 237 people registered of whom 219 (92%) completed the first round. One hundred and eighty-seven of 219 (85%) completed the second; 25 stakeholders attended the consensus meeting. Results Round 1 of the survey comprised 36 topics; 42 topics were considered in round 2 and at the consensus meeting. Approximately 96% of meeting participants rated the top three topics as equally important. These were as follows: developing strong and productive working relationships between researchers and PPI contributors; exploring PPI practices in selecting trial outcomes of importance to patients; and a systematic review of PPI activity to improve the accessibility and usefulness of trial information (eg participant information sheets) for participants. Conclusions The prioritized methodological research topics indicate important areas of uncertainty about PPI in trials. Addressing these uncertainties will be critical to enhancing PPI. Our findings should be used in the planning and funding of PPI in clinical trials to help focus research efforts and minimize waste

Visualising harms in publications of randomised controlled trials: consensus and recommendations

OBJECTIVE: To improve communication of harm in publications of randomised controlled trials via the development of recommendations for visually presenting harm outcomes. DESIGN: Consensus study. SETTING: 15 clinical trials units registered with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, an academic population health department, Roche Products, and The BMJ. PARTICIPANTS: Experts in clinical trials: 20 academic statisticians, one industry statistician, one academic health economist, one data graphics designer, and two clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME: measures A methodological review of statistical methods identified visualisations along with those recommended by consensus group members. Consensus on visual recommendations was achieved (at least 60% of the available votes) over a series of three meetings with participants. The participants reviewed and critically appraised candidate visualisations against an agreed framework and voted on whether to endorse each visualisation. Scores marginally below this threshold (50-60%) were revisited for further discussions and votes retaken until consensus was reached. RESULTS: 28 visualisations were considered, of which 10 are recommended for researchers to consider in publications of main research findings. The choice of visualisations to present will depend on outcome type (eg, binary, count, time-to-event, or continuous), and the scenario (eg, summarising multiple emerging events or one event of interest). A decision tree is presented to assist trialists in deciding which visualisations to use. Examples are provided of each endorsed visualisation, along with an example interpretation, potential limitations, and signposting to code for implementation across a range of standard statistical software. Clinician feedback was incorporated into the explanatory information provided in the recommendations to aid understanding and interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Visualisations provide a powerful tool to communicate harms in clinical trials, offering an alternative perspective to the traditional frequency tables. Increasing the use of visualisations for harm outcomes in clinical trial manuscripts and reports will provide clearer presentation of information and enable more informative interpretations. The limitations of each visualisation are discussed and examples of where their use would be inappropriate are given. Although the decision tree aids the choice of visualisation, the statistician and clinical trial team must ultimately decide the most appropriate visualisations for their data and objectives. Trialists should continue to examine crude numbers alongside visualisations to fully understand harm profiles

What Parents of Children Who Have Received Emergency Care Think about Deferring Consent in Randomised Trials of Emergency Treatments: Postal Survey

OBJECTIVE: To investigate parents' views about deferred consent to inform management of trial disclosure after a child's death. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to members of the Meningitis Research Foundation UK charity, whose child had suffered from bacterial meningitis or meningococcal septicaemia within the previous 5 years. Main outcome measures were acceptability of deferred consent; timing of requesting consent; and the management of disclosure of the trial after a child's death. RESULTS: 220 families were sent questionnaires of whom 63 (29%) were bereaved. 68 families responded (31%), of whom 19 (28%) were bereaved. The majority (67%) was willing for their child to be involved in the trial without the trial being explained to them beforehand; 70% wanted to be informed about the trial as soon as their child's condition had stabilised. In the event of a child's death before the trial could be discussed the majority of bereaved parents (66% 12/18) anticipated wanting to be told about the trial at some time. This compared with 37% (18/49) of non-bereaved families (p = 0.06). Parents' free text responses indicated that the word 'trial' held strongly negative connotations. A few parents regarded gaps in the evidence base about emergency treatments as indicating staff lacked expertise to care for a critically ill child. Bereaved parents' free text responses indicated the importance of individualised management of disclosure about a trial following a child's death. DISCUSSION: Deferred consent is acceptable to the majority of respondents. Parents whose children had recovered differed in their views compared to bereaved parents. Most bereaved parents would want to be informed about the trial in the aftermath of a child's death, although a minority strongly opposed such disclosure. Distinction should be drawn between the views of bereaved and non-bereaved parents when considering the acceptability of different consent processes