As clinical trials have emerged as the major research method for evaluating new interventions, the process for monitoring intervention safety and benefit has also evolved. The Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) has become the standard approach to implement this responsibility for many Phase III trials. Recent draft guidelines on the operation of DMCs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised issues that need further clarification or discussion, especially for industry sponsored trials. These include, the time when DMCs are needed, the role of the independent statistician to support the DMC, and sponsor participation at DMC meetings. This paper provides an overview of these issues, based on the discussions at the January, 2003 workshop sponsored by Duke Clinical Research Institute.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Shalala D. Protecting research subjects – what must be done. New Engl J Med2000; 343: 808–810.
2.
2. National Institutes of Health. NIH policy for data and safety monitoring. NIH Guide, June 10, 1998. Retrieved 11 February, 2004, From: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html
3.
3. US Food and Drug AdministrationDraft Guidance for Clinical Trial sponsors on the establishment and operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees. Rockville, MD: FDA. 2001. Retrieved 11 February, 2004, From: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html
4.
4. Ellenberg S, Fleming T, DeMets D. Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: a practical perspective. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2002.
5.
5. Greenberg Report: Organization, review, and administration of cooperative studies. Control Clin Trials1988; 9: 137–148.
6.
6. Coronary Drug Project Research Group. The coronary drug project: design, methods, and baseline results. Circulation1973; 47(Suppl 1): 11–179.
7.
7. Canner PL. Monitoring of the data for evidence of adverse or beneficial treatment effects. Control Clin Trials1983; 4: 467–483.
8.
8. Ellenberg SS, Geller NL, Simon R, Yusuf S (eds). Proceedings of ‘Practical Issues in Data Monitoring of Clinical Trials’ Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A. 27–28 January 1992. Stat Med1993; 12: 415–616.
9.
9. DeMets DL, Fleming TR, Whitley RJ, et al. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1995; 16: 408–421.
10.
10. Geller NL, Stylianou M. Practical issues in data monitoring of clinical trials: summary of responses to a questionnaire at NIH. Stat Med1993; 12: 543 –551; discussion 553.
11.
11. US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, Volume 1, Part 50-Protection of Human Subjects; Subpart B-Informed Consent of Human Subjects. April 1, 2003.
12.
12. US Food and Drug Administration. Guideline for the format and content of the clinical and statistical sections of an application. Rockville, MD. July 1988. Retrieved 11 February, 2004, from: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/statnda.pdf
13.
13. International Conference on Harmonisation. Guideline for good clinical practice. Guideline E6. 1996. Retrieved 11 February, 2004, from: http://www.mcclurenet.com/FedRegisterPDFs/E6.pdf
14.
14. International Conference on Harmonisation. Draft guideline on statistical principles for clinical trials. Guideline E9. 1998. Retrieved 11 February, 2004, from: http://www.mcclurenet.com/FedRegisterPDFs/E9.pdf
15.
15. US Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General. Protecting Human Research Subjects. Status of Recommendations. Office of Inspector General Report. April 2000 OEI-01-97-00197. Retrieved 11 February, 2004, from: http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-97-00197.pdf
16.
16. US Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Content and Format of Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs) for Phase 1 Studies of Drugs, Including Well-Characterized, Therapeutic, Biotechnology-Derived Products. November 1995.
17.
17. Sugarman J. The role of institutional support in protecting human research subjects. Acad Med2000; 75: 687–692.
18.
18. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med2001, 134: 152–157.
19.
19. US Department of Health and Human Services. Office for Human Research Protections Guidance on continuing review. July 11, 2002. Retrieved 11 February, 2004, from; http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/humansubjects/guidance/contrev2002.htm%23
20.
20. Morse MA, Califf RM, Sugarman J. Monitoring and ensuring safety during clinical research. JAMA2001; 85: 1201–1205.
21.
21. Ellenberg SS, George SL. Should statisticians reporting to data monitoring committees be independent of the trial sponsor and leadership?Stat Med2004; in press.
22.
22. Wittes J. Playing safe and preserving integrity: making the FDA model work. Stat Med2004; in press.
23.
23. Pocock SJ. A major trial needs three statisticians: why, how and who?Stat Med2004; in press.
24.
24. DeMets DL, Fleming TR. The independent statistician for data monitoring committees. Stat Med2004; in press.
25.
25. Bryant J. What is the appropriate role of the trial statistician in preparing and presenting interim findings to an independent data monitoring committee in the US cancer cooperative group setting?Stat Med2004; in press.
26.
26. Siegel JP, O'Neill RT, Temple R, Campbell G, Foulkes MA. Independence of the statistician who analyzes unblinded data. Stat Med2004; in press.
27.
27. Snapinn S, Cook T, Shapiro D, Snavely D. The role of the unblinded sponsor statistician. Stat Med2004, in press.
28.
28. Lachin JM. Management of conflicts in data monitoring of industry versus publicly financed clinical trials. Stat Med2004; in press.
29.
29. Fisher M, Roecker EB, DeMets D. The role of an independent statistical analysis center in the industry-modified National Institutes of Health model. Drug Inf J2001; 35: 115–129.
30.
30. Packer M, Carver JR, Rodeheffer RJ, et al. for the PROMISE Study Research Group. Effect of oral milrinone on mortality in severe chronic heart failure. New Engl J Med1991; 325: 1468–1475.
31.
31. MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: metoprolol CR/XL randomised intervention trials in congestive heart failure (MERIT-HF). Lancet1999; 353: 2001–2007.
32.
32. Packer M, Coats AJS, Fowler MB, et al. for the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study Group. Effect of Carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure. New Engl J Med2001; 334: 1651–1658.
33.
33. Dickstein K, Kjekshus J, and the OPTIMAAL Steering Committee. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Lancet2002; 360: 752–760.
34.
34. Pitt B, Poole-Wilson PA, Segal R, et al. on behalf of the ELITE II investigators: effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial – the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II. Lancet2000; 355: 1582–1587.
