Systematic review about data quality and protocol compliance in clinical trials

Bei Investigator Initiated Trials (IITs) werden alternative risikoadaptierte Monitoring-Strategien in Abhängigkeit vom individuellen Studiendesign und dem Risikoprofil diskutiert, um bei oft restriktiven Ressourcen eine den gesetzlichen Vorgaben genügende Qualität der Studiendurchführung und der Daten zu gewährleisten. Aufgrund einer Literaturanalyse sollten in der vorliegenden Arbeit Untersuchungen ausgewertet werden, in denen quantitative Aussagen zu Datenqualität und Prüfplan-Compliance in klinischen Prüfungen gemacht wurden. Bei der Interpretation der Ergebnisse sollten die implementierten Qualitätssicherungsmaßnahmen berücksichtigt werden. Aufgrund einer systematischen Recherche in MEDLINE konnten 21 Publikationen identifiziert werden, bei denen die Daten- und Prozessqualität in klinischen Prüfungen untersucht, die Qualität durch Überprüfungen mit Source Data Verification vor Ort oder Überprüfung übermittelter Quelldaten in der Studienzentrale ermittelt wurde und quantitative Informationen zu den Bereichen Datenqualität, Protokoll-Compliance oder Defizite bei Einwilligungserklärungen vorlagen. Die Mehrzahl der Untersuchungen ist drei Organisationen zuzuordnen: European Organization für Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) (n=7), National Cancer Institute (NCI) (n=7) und Untersuchungen der Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) (n=4). Darüber hinaus wurden drei Untersuchungen weiterer Studiengruppen identifiziert. Die Untersuchungen wurden im Zeitraum von 1981 bis 2003 publiziert. Überwiegend wurden in der Literatur onkologische Studien betrachtet (n=19), wobei die Radiotherapie im Vordergrund stand (n=8). Für die EORTC-Studien wurde in der Regel eine gute Datenqualität berichtet (80-90% korrekte Daten). Punktuelle Probleme wurden im Hinblick auf die Protokoll-Compliance und das Berichten von Nebenwirkungen/schwerwiegenden unerwünschten Ereignissen festgestellt. Eine gute Qualität wurde ebenfalls bzgl. des korrekten Einschlusses von Patienten beobachtet. Durch das NCI wurde ein standardisiertes Audit-System eingeführt und innerhalb von kooperativen Studiengruppen implementiert. Im Rahmen dieser Audits wurden verschiedene Kriterien überprüft und eine überwiegend gute Datenqualität und Protokoll-Compliance festgestellt. Mängel wurden in ca. 5% der Fälle im Hinblick auf die Einwilligungserklärung, die korrekte Anwendung der Einschlusskriterien, Protokollverletzungen, bei der Ermittlung des Zielkriteriums, der Erfassung der Toxizität, der adäquaten Datenlieferung und bei der Datenverifikation beobachtet. In einzelnen Untersuchungen ergaben sich Probleme mit der Behandlungscompliance (10-20%), bei Protokollabweichungen im Hinblick auf die Arzneimitteldosis (10%) und bei der Drug Accountability (15%). Von der TROG wurde ein Qualitätssicherungsprozess implementiert, der auf zentralem Monitoring von kopierten Quelldaten basiert. Durch den Qualitätssicherungsansatz der TROG konnten schwerwiegende Probleme mit der Protokoll-Compliance unter 10% gesenkt werden, ebenso konnte eine gute Datenqualität mit einer Fehlerrate unter 5% erreicht werden. Die korrekte Handhabung von Ein- und Ausschlusskriterien stellte in Einzelfällen ein Problem dar. Zusammenfassend kann festgestellt werden, dass die in dem Review erfassten Studiengruppen von einer guten Datenqualität und einer guten bis moderaten Protokoll-Compliance berichten. Diese basiert nach Aussage der Autoren im wesentlichen auf etablierten Qualitätssicherungs-Prozeduren, wobei das durchgeführte Audit ebenfalls einen potentiellen Einflussfaktor darstellt. Geringe Probleme wurden in der Regel im Hinblick auf die Einwilligungserklärung, die korrekte Handhabung der Ein- und Ausschlusskriterien und die Datenqualität beobachtet. In einzelnen Studien gab es jedoch Probleme mit der Protokoll-Compliance. Insgesamt hängen Anzahl und Art der Mängel von dem Studientyp, dem Qualitätsmanagement und der Organisation der Studiengruppe ab. Wissenschaftsbetrug wurde nur in sehr wenigen Fällen durch die Audits festgestellt. Die vorgelegten Informationen beziehen sich nahezu ausschließlich auf etablierte Studiengruppen; bezüglich Datenqualität und Protokoll-Compliance außerhalb der Studiengruppen liegen kaum Informationen in der Literatur vor. Bei der Bewertung der Ergebnisse sollte berücksichtigt werden, dass es sich zum Teil um Eigenauswertungen der Studiengruppen und nicht um unabhängige externe Prüfungen (z.B. externe Audits) handelt. Inwieweit die Ergebnisse einer konsequenten Überprüfung nach derzeitigen Good Clinical Practice (GCP) – Regeln standhalten würden, kann aus der Analyse nicht beantwortet werden. Aus der vorliegenden Literaturanalyse ergeben sich Konsequenzen für die Planung einer prospektiven kontrollierten Studie zum Vergleich unterschiedlicher Monitoring-Strategien. Wesentlicher Einflussfaktor für die Datenqualität und Protokollcompliance in einer klinischen Studie ist das Qualitätsmanagement. Dieses Qualitätsmanagement umfasst neben Monitoring zahlreiche andere Maßnahmen. Um zu einer Bewertung von Monitoringstrategien kommen zu können, müssen daher alle Qualitätssicherungsmaßnahmen im Rahmen einer Studie berücksichtigt werden. Für den Vergleich unterschiedlicher Monitoringstrategien sind geeignete Zielparameter zu definieren (z.B. schwerwiegende Defizite bzgl. Ein- und Ausschlusskriterien, Sicherheit). Die vorliegende Analyse ergibt, dass bei gutem Qualitätsmanagement ohne umfassendes vor Ort Monitoring schwerwiegende Fehler nur mit relativ niedriger Häufigkeit festgestellt wurden. Unterschiede zwischen Monitoringstrategien könnten, gegeben ein funktionierendes Qualitätsmanagementssystem, sich als quantitativ gering erweisen. Testet man auf Äquivalenz von Monitoringstrategien, sind nur niedrige Differenzen zu akzeptieren, was wiederum eine Auswirkung auf die Fallzahlplanung hat. Weiterhin muss berücksichtigt werden, dass zur Feststellung der Auswirkung unterschiedlicher Monitoringstrategien auf die Sicherheit der Patienten und die Validität der Daten im Rahmen einer kontrollierten Untersuchung ein unabhängiges Audit notwendig ist. Dabei ist zu berücksichtigen, dass ein Audit bereits einen möglichen Einflussfaktor für die Datenqualität und Protokoll-Compliance darstellen kann, und damit eine Bewertung des Nutzens einer Monitoringstrategie erschwert werden könnte. Schlüsselwörter: systematisches Review, Datenqualität, Protokoll-Compliance, klinische StudieFor Investigator Initiated Trials (IITs) alternative risk-adapted monitoring strategies are discussed in order to fulfill rules and regulations, taking into consideration the restricted resources. In this systematic review investigations, presenting quantitative data about data quality and protocol compliance in clinical trials, are analyzed. The results are discussed taking into account the quality assurance procedures implemented. Based on a systematic MEDLINE retrieval, 21 studies could be identified in which data and process quality in clinical trials were investigated and assessed by site visits with source data verification or review of copied source data in the study center and quantitative information about data quality and protocol compliance was available. The majority of investigations were performed by three organizations: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) (n=7), National Cancer Institute (NCI) (n=7) and investigations of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) (n=4). In addition three investigations of other study groups were identified. The investigations were published between 1981 and 2003. In the majority of cases oncological trials were investigated (n=19) with a focus on radiotherapy trials (n=8). In the EORTC-trials an overall good data quality was assessed (80–90% correct data). Singular problems were found with respect to protocol compliance and reporting of adverse reactions and serious unexpected events. Good quality was also observed with respect to the correct inclusion of patients into trials. By the NCI a standardized audit system was introduced and implemented within cooperative study groups. In the context of these audits different criteria were assessed and a good data quality and protocol compliance were measured. Deficits occurred in about 5% of the cases with respect to informed consent, correct application of inclusion criteria, protocol compliance, assessment of outcome criteria, assessment of toxicity, adequate data reporting and data verification. In some investigations problems with treatment compliance (10-20%), drug dose deviations (10%) and drug accountability (15%) were identified. By the TROG a quality assurance procedure was implemented, based on central monitoring of copied source data. By this approach major problems with protocol compliance could be reduced to less than 10% together with a good data quality with an error rate under 5%. The correct handling of in- and exclusion criteria was a problem in individual cases. In summary we found out that good data quality and good to moderate protocol compliance were reported by the study groups that are included in the systematic review. Due to the authors this is mainly due to an established quality assurance system, taking into consideration that audits itself may be an influential factor. Generally, minor problems were observed with respect to informed consent, correct handling of in- and exclusion criteria and data quality, however, in some studies there were problems with protocol compliance. Overall, number and type of deficits depend on study type, quality management and organization of the study group. Fraud was detected only in very few cases. The available evidence refers mainly to established study groups; for data quality and protocol compliance outside these groups only few information is available. However, it should be taken into consideration, that the analysis was performed, at least partly, by the study groups themselves and is not based on independent audits (e.g. external audits). The analysis cannot answer the question whether the results would have been replicable if a strict review according to criteria of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) would have been performed. From the systematic review consequences have to be taken for planning a prospective controlled trial comparing different monitoring strategies. The main influence factor for data quality and protocol compliance in a clinical trial is the quality management system. Quality management covers several other measures apart from monitoring. In order to assess monitoring strategies, all quality assurance procedures within a clinical trial have to be taken into consideration. For the comparison of different monitoring strategies adequate outcome parameter have to be defined (e.g. severe deficits with respect to inclusion and exclusion criteria, safety). The analysis indicates that with good quality management and no extensive on-site monitoring severe errors were detected only at relative low frequency. It could well be that with an efficient quality management system differences between monitoring strategies would be small. In order to demonstrate statistical equivalence of monitoring strategies, only small differences can be accepted which again leads to consequences for the sample-size calculation. In addition, it must be taken into consideration that within a controlled trial an independent audit is necessary to assess the effect of different monitoring strategies on the safety of patients and the quality of data. Audits however may be a possible influence factor for data quality and protocol compliance and may complicate the evaluation of the benefit of a monitoring strategy. Keywords: systematic review, data quality, protocol compliance, clinical tria

Risk-adapted monitoring is not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring: Results of the ADAMON cluster-randomised study

Background According to Good Clinical Practice, clinical trials must protect rights and safety of patients and make sure that the trial results are valid and interpretable. Monitoring on-site has an important role in achieving these objectives; it controls trial conduct at trial sites and informs the sponsor on systematic problems. In the past, extensive on-site monitoring with a particular focus on formal source data verification often lost sight of systematic problems in study procedures that endanger Good Clinical Practice objectives. ADAMON is a prospective, stratified, cluster-randomised, controlled study comparing extensive on-site monitoring with risk-adapted monitoring according to a previously published approach. Methods In all, 213 sites from 11 academic trials were cluster-randomised between extensive on-site monitoring (104) and risk-adapted monitoring (109). Independent post-trial audits using structured manuals were performed to determine the frequency of major Good Clinical Practice findings at the patient level. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of audited patients with at least one major audit finding. Analysis relies on logistic regression incorporating trial and monitoring arm as fixed effects and site as random effect. The hypothesis was that risk-adapted monitoring is non-inferior to extensive on-site monitoring with a non-inferiority margin of 0.60 (logit scale). Results Average number of monitoring visits and time spent on-site was 2.1 and 2.7 times higher in extensive on-site monitoring than in risk-adapted monitoring, respectively. A total of 156 (extensive on-site monitoring: 76; risk-adapted monitoring: 80) sites were audited. In 996 of 1618 audited patients, a total of 2456 major audit findings were documented. Depending on the trial, findings were identified in 18%-99% of the audited patients, with no marked monitoring effect in any of the trials. The estimated monitoring effect is -0.04 on the logit scale with two-sided 95% confidence interval (-0.40; 0.33), demonstrating that risk-adapted monitoring is non-inferior to extensive on-site monitoring. At most, extensive on-site monitoring could reduce the frequency of major Good Clinical Practice findings by 8.2% compared with risk-adapted monitoring. Conclusion Compared with risk-adapted monitoring, the potential benefit of extensive on-site monitoring is small relative to overall finding rates, although risk-adapted monitoring requires less than 50% of extensive on-site monitoring resources. Clusters of findings within trials suggest that complicated, overly specific or not properly justified protocol requirements contributed to the overall frequency of findings. Risk-adapted monitoring in only a sample of patients appears sufficient to identify systematic problems in the conduct of clinical trials. Risk-adapted monitoring has a part to play in quality control. However, no monitoring strategy can remedy defects in quality of design. Monitoring should be embedded in a comprehensive quality management approach covering the entire trial lifecycle

The CARDIA-trial protocol: a multinational, prospective, randomized, clinical trial comparing transthoracic esophagectomy with transhiatal extended gastrectomy in adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) type II

Background: Adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) Siewert type II can be resected by transthoracic esophagectomy or transhiatal extended gastrectomy. Both allow for a complete tumor resection, yet there is an ongoing controversy about which surgical approach is superior with regards to quality of life, oncological outcomes and survival. While some studies suggest a better oncological outcome after transthoracic esophagectomy, others favor transhiatal extended gastrectomy for a better postoperative quality of life. To date, only retrospective studies are available, showing ambiguous results. Methods: This study is a multinational, multicenter, randomized, clinical superiority trial. Patients (n = 262) with a GEJ type II tumor resectable by both transthoracic esophagectomy and transhiatal extended gastrectomy will be enrolled in the trial. Type II tumors are defined as tumors with their midpoint between <= 1 cm proximal and <= 2 cm distal of the top of gastric folds on preoperative endoscopy. Patients will be included in one of the participating European sites and are randomized to either transthoracic esophagectomy or transhiatal extended gastrectomy. The trial is powered to show superiority for esophagectomy with regards to the primary efficacy endpoint overall survival. Key secondary endpoints are complete resection (R0), number and localization of tumor infiltrated lymph nodes at dissection, post-operative complications, disease-free survival, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Postoperative survival and quality of life will be followed-up for 24 months after discharge. Further survival follow-up will be conducted as quarterly phone calls up to 60 months. Discussion: To date, as level 1 evidence is lacking, there is no consensus on which surgery is superior and both surgeries are used to treat GEJ type II carcinoma worldwide. The CARDIA trial is the first randomized trial to compare transthoracic esophagectomy versus transhiatal extended gastrectomy in patients with GEJ type II tumors. Several quality control measures were implemented in the protocol to ensure data reliability and increase the trial's significance. It is hypothesized that esophagectomy allows for a higher rate of radical resections and a more complete mediastinal lymph node dissection, resulting in a longer overall survival, while still providing an acceptable quality of life and cost-effectiveness

Pharmacokinetics and safety of aztreonam/avibactam for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in hospitalized adults: results from the REJUVENATE study

Objectives: To investigate pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety (primary objectives) and efficacy (secondary objective) of the investigational monobactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combination aztreonam/avibactam in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI). Methods: This Phase 2a open-label, multicentre study (NCT02655419; EudraCT 2015-002726-39) enrolled adults with cIAI into sequential cohorts for 5-14 days treatment. Cohort 1 patients received an aztreonam/avibactam loading dose of 500/137 mg (30 min infusion), followed by maintenance doses of 1500/410 mg (3 h infusions) q6h; Cohort 2 received 500/167 mg (30 min infusion), followed by 1500/500 mg (3 h infusions) q6h. Cohort 3 was an extension of exposure at the higher dose regimen. Doses were adjusted for creatinine clearance of 31-50 mL/min (Cohorts 2 + 3). All patients received IV metronidazole 500 mg q8h. PK, safety and efficacy were assessed. Results: Thirty-four patients (Cohort 1, n = 16; Cohorts 2 + 3, n = 18) comprised the modified ITT (MITT) population. Mean exposures of aztreonam and avibactam in Cohorts 2 + 3 were consistent with those predicted to achieve joint PK/pharmacodynamic target attainment in >90% patients. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between cohorts. The most common AEs were hepatic enzyme increases [n = 9 (26.5%)] and diarrhoea [n = 5 (14.7%)]. Clinical cure rates at the test-of-cure visit overall were 20/34 (58.8%) (MITT) and 14/23 (60.9%) (microbiological-MITT population). Conclusions: Observed AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of aztreonam monotherapy, with no new safety concerns identified. These data support selection of the aztreonam/avibactam 500/167 mg (30 min infusion) loading dose and 1500/500 mg (3 h infusions) maintenance dose q6h regimen, in patients with creatinine clearance >50 mL/min, for the Phase 3 development programme