The use of interim data and Data Monitoring Committee recommendations in randomized controlled trial reports: frequency, implications and potential sources of bias

Background: Interim analysis of accumulating trial data is important to protect participant safety during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) often undertake such analyses, but their widening role may lead to extended use of interim analysis or recommendations that could potentially bias trial results.Methods: Systematic search of eight major publications: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, CID, JAMA, JCO, Lancet and NEJM, including all randomised controlled trials ( RCTs) between June 2000 and May 2005 to identify RCTs that reported use of interim analysis, with or without DMC involvement. Recommendations made by the DMC or based on interim analysis were identified and potential sources of bias assessed. Independent double data extraction was performed on all included trials.Results: We identified 1772 RCTs, of which 470 (27%; 470/1772) reported the use of a DMC and a further 116 (7%; 116/1772) trials reported some form of interim analysis without explicit mention of a DMC. There were 28 trials ( 24 with a formal DMC), randomizing a total of 79396 participants, identified as recommending changes to the trial that may have lead to biased results. In most of these, some form of sample size re-estimation was recommended with four trials also reporting changes to trial endpoints. The review relied on information reported in the primary publications and methods papers relating to the trials, higher rates of use may have occurred but not been reported.Conclusion: The reported use of interim analysis and DMCs in clinical trials has been increasing in recent years. It is reassuring that in most cases recommendations were made in the interest of participant safety. However, in practice, recommendations that may lead to potentially biased trial results are being made

Perioperative oxygen fraction – effect on surgical site infection and pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery: a randomized clinical trial. Rationale and design of the PROXI-Trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A high perioperative inspiratory oxygen fraction may reduce the risk of surgical site infections, as bacterial eradication by neutrophils depends on wound oxygen tension. Two trials have shown that a high perioperative inspiratory oxygen fraction (Fi<smcaps>O</smcaps>₂= 0.80) significantly reduced risk of surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery, but a third trial was stopped early because the frequency of surgical site infections was more than doubled in the group receiving Fi<smcaps>O</smcaps>₂= 0.80. It has not been settled if a high inspiratory oxygen fraction increases the risk of pulmonary complications, such as atelectasis, pneumonia and respiratory failure. The aim of our trial is to assess the potential benefits and harms of a high perioperative oxygen fraction in patients undergoing abdominal surgery.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>The PROXI-Trial is a randomized, patient- and assessor blinded trial of perioperative supplemental oxygen in 1400 patients undergoing acute or elective laparotomy in 14 Danish hospitals. Patients are randomized to receive either 80% oxygen (Fi<smcaps>O</smcaps>₂= 0.80) or 30% oxygen (Fi<smcaps>O</smcaps>₂= 0.30) during surgery and for the first 2 postoperative hours. The primary outcome is surgical site infection within 14 days. The secondary outcomes are: atelectasis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, re-operation, mortality, duration of postoperative hospitalization, and admission to intensive care unit. The sample size allows detection of a 33% relative risk reduction in the primary outcome with 80% power.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial assesses benefits and harms of a high inspiratory oxygen fraction, and the trial may be generalizable to a general surgical population undergoing laparotomy.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00364741.</p

A proposed charter for clinical trial data monitoring committees: helping them to do their job well.

Formal monitoring of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is becoming more common. Wide variation exists in the structure and organisation of data monitoring committees (DMCs), with little guidance on how they should operate. We used various strategies to consider the behavioural, procedural, and organisational aspects of data monitoring in RCTs: systematic reviews of DMCs and small group processes in decision making; surveys of reports of RCTs, recently completed and ongoing RCTs, and the policies of major organisations connected with RCTs; detailed case studies of four DMCs that faced difficult decisions; and interviews with experienced DMC members. The findings aided the development of a template for a charter for DMCs. We summarise the findings and outline the key considerations at every stage of the data monitoring process. Widespread use of a charter for the structure and organisation of DMCs would promote a systematic and transparent approach, and enable them to operate more effectively and efficiently