Background Treatment effects monitoring is a process carried out over the course of a trial to determine whether it should continue unaltered. The purpose of monitoring is to protect persons enrolled from harm, caused either by exposure to an ineffective or harmful treatment or failure to provide a better treatment. The aim of this paper is to characterize treatment effects monitoring committees (TEMCs) as extant in published trials and to examine the effect of their presence on the premature stopping of a trial.
Methods Trials published in 1990–1995 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine or Controlled Clinical Trials were identi”ed via MEDLINE (4279 publications). Abstracts were screened to include only trials with parallel treatment designs and sample sizes of ¶200, reducing the set to 661 papers. Those papers were then read, reducing the set to 562 after exclusion of papers not reporting trial results. The results that follow come from a review of these 562 published papers and from the responses to two questionnaires. The ”rst was mailed to the corresponding author, and the second to the chair of the monitoring body or other contact as provided by the author in response to the ”rst questionnaire.
Results Less than half (48%) of the 562 trials had TEMCs. Factors having a positive univariate relationship with the presence of a TEMC include National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsorship, larger sample size, multicentered, longer data collection and follow-up, and mortality as an outcome. Most of the early stops occurred in trials with TEMCs (66 out of 78). The odds ratios for early stopping for trials with TEMCs versus those without TEMCs was 4.4 (CI: 2.3–8.5).
Conclusions The evidence suggests that early stopping is associated with the presence of a TEMC, but a substantial number of trial reports do not mention the presence of a TEMC even when one was used to stop a trial early.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Meinert CL. Clinical trials dictionary: terminology and usage recommendations. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Center for Clinical Trials, 1996.
2.
Ellenberg S, Geller N, Simon R, Yusuf S. Practical issues in data monitoring of clinical trials. Bethesda, Maryland, USA, 27–28 January 1992. Stat Med1993; 12: 414–616.
3.
Ellenberg S, Fleming T, DeMets DL. Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: a practical perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2002.
4.
Kiri A. Treatment effects monitoring in clinical trials. PhD dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 151 pp. University of Michigan Digital Dissertations, Publ. No. AAT 9964129, 2000.
5.
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, Human Medicines Evaluation Unit. International Conference on Harmonization: ICH Topic E9: Statistical Principles for Clinical Step 4, Consensus guideline. http://www.emea.eu.int/htms/human/ic/ef”cacy/ich”n.htm. Last accessed 5 February 1998.
6.
Greenberg B. Organization, review, and administration of cooperative studies: a report from the Heart Special Project Committee of the National Advisory Heart Council, May 1967. Control Clin Trials1988; 9: 137–148.
7.
Gordon R. Clinical trial activity: recommendations. NIH Guide Grants Contracts1979; 8: 29-29.
8.
National Institutes of Health. NIH policy for data and safety monitoring. http//grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html. Last accessed 10 June 1998.
Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. J Am Med Assoc2001; 285: 1987–1991.
