Clinical trials have become a major research tool to evaluate new medical interventions. Most trials require some level of data monitoring for quality control and many trials require special monitoring for participant safety. For national multicenter trials, independent data monitoring committees have become the standard for monitoring for evidence of participant benefit or harm in trials with irreversible outcomes such as death or serious morbidity. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is held responsible for monitoring local trials. Often local institutions do not have an infrastructure in place to meet this responsibility, and therefore local IRBs cannot fulfill this obligation. In addition, IRBs are currently inundated with individual safety reports from local and multi-institutional trials which may appear to provide some level of safety monitoring, but in fact gives a false sense of security. We propose the establishment of institutional data monitoring committees and appropriate informatics infrastructure to monitor local trials.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Steinbrook R. Trial design and patient safety – The debate continues. N Engl J Med2003; 349: 629–630.
2.
2. Morse MA, Califf RM, Sugarman J. Monitoring and ensuring safety during clinical research. JAMA2001; 285: 1201–1205.
3.
3. Malakoff D. Clinical research. Flawed cancer study leads to shake-up at University of Oklahoma. Science2000; 289: 706–7707.
4.
4. Weiss R. US halts research on humans at Duke; university can't ensure safety, probers find. Washington Post, 12 May 1999.
5.
5. OHRP orders Johns Hopkins University to suspend human subjects research. J Investig Med2001; 49: 379-3379.
6.
6. National Institutes of Health. NIH policy for data and safety monitoring. NIH Guide, retrieved 16 March 2006 from http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/guide/ notice-files/not98-084.html, 1998.
7.
7. US Food and Drug Administration. Draft Guidance for Clinical Trial sponsors on the establishment and operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees. FDA, from http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/clindatmon.htm,2001.
8.
8. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Assuring compliance with this policy – research conducted or supported by any Federal Department or Agency. 56 Federal Register 28003 (Codified at 45 CFR §46.103(b)(2)), 1991.
9.
9. Sugarman J. The role of institutional support in protecting human research subjects. Acad Med2000; 75: 687–692.
10.
10. 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.
11.
11. Esenstein E, Lemons P, Tardiff B, Schulman K, Jolly M, Califf R. Reducing the costs of phase III cardiovascular trials. Am Heart J2005; 149: 482–488.
12.
12. Califf RM, Morse MA, Wittes J et al. Toward protecting the safety of participants in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials2003; 24: 256–271.
13.
13. Califf RM, Karnash SL, Woodlief LH. Developing systems for cost-effective auditing of clinical trials. Control Clin Trials1997; 18: 651–660.
14.
14. Ellenberg S, Fleming T, DeMets D.Data Monitoring Committees in clinical trials: A practical perspective. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2002.
15.
15. Greenberg Report. Organization, review, and administration of cooperative studies. Control Clin Trials1988; 9: 137–148.
16.
16. European Union Directive on Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials 2001/20/EC. Official Journal of the European CommunitiesL121: 34–344.
17.
17. ICH Expert Working Group. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. Stat Med1999; 18: 1905–1142.
18.
18. Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond C, Wolmark N, Wickerham D, Cronin W. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med1995; 333: 1456–1161.
19.
19. Office of Human Research Protections. Guidance on continuing review, retrieved 15 December 2005 from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/contrev2002. 11 July 2002.
20.
20. Responsible research: A systems approach to protecting research participants. Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, 2003.
21.
21. Mello MM, Studdert DM, Brennan TA. The rise of litigation in human subjects research. Ann Int Med2003; 139: 40–445.
22.
22. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). DRAFT guidance on reporting and reviewing adverse events and unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others. 11 October 2005. Retrieved 15 December 2005 from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/requests/aerg.html
23.
23. Department of Health and Human Services. Protection of human subjects. IRB Review of Research Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Vol. 1, Part 46, Section 109 (e). Retrieved 19 December 2005 from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/retrieve.html
24.
24. Department of Health and Human Services. Code of Federal Regulations, Protection of human subjects. Assuring compliance with this policy – research conducted or supported by any Federal Department or Agency. Title 45, Vol. 1, Part 46, Section 103. Retrieved 19 December 2005 from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/retrieve.html
25.
25. From http://www3.cancer.gov/cancercenters/ccsg_competing_index1.html.
