BACKGROUND: Models for the structure and procedures of data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) continue to evolve in response to issues of new and of old concern. Some authors have called for an open dialogue on these questions through publication of the experiences of DSMBs in addressing them. PURPOSE: The goal of this paper is to add to the current discussion about acceptable models for establishing, serving on, and reporting to monitoring committees, particularly those that oversee multiple studies in less developed countries. The paper seeks to do so by describing the establishment and subsequent operation of one such multi-trial DSMB over a five-year period. This DSMB was formed to monitor trials conducted by members of the International Centers for Tropical Disease Research (ICTDR) network of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). METHODS: The operational model and experiences are summarized by the authors, who had immediate responsibilities for directing the DSMB's activities. RESULTS: The board played an active, traditional role in assuring that patient safety was maintained and that current standards for clinical research were met. In addition, both NIAID and the board members viewed education of investigators to be an important role for the board to play in this particular setting. This affected the threshold for identifying which trials would be monitored, and it impacted several procedures adopted by the board. LIMITATIONS: This report reflects the observations of those involved in managing the DSMB, including comments offered by the DSMB and by investigators, but not data gathered in a systematic way. CONCLUSIONS: The operational model described here has allowed the DSMB to fulfill its role in the oversight of the trials. We hope that the ideas we present may help others facing similar situations and may stimulate further critical thinking about DSMB structure and function.
BACKGROUND: Models for the structure and procedures of data and safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) continue to evolve in response to issues of new and of old concern. Some authors have called for an open dialogue on these questions through publication of the experiences of DSMBs in addressing them. PURPOSE: The goal of this paper is to add to the current discussion about acceptable models for establishing, serving on, and reporting to monitoring committees, particularly those that oversee multiple studies in less developed countries. The paper seeks to do so by describing the establishment and subsequent operation of one such multi-trial DSMB over a five-year period. This DSMB was formed to monitor trials conducted by members of the International Centers for Tropical Disease Research (ICTDR) network of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). METHODS: The operational model and experiences are summarized by the authors, who had immediate responsibilities for directing the DSMB's activities. RESULTS: The board played an active, traditional role in assuring that patient safety was maintained and that current standards for clinical research were met. In addition, both NIAID and the board members viewed education of investigators to be an important role for the board to play in this particular setting. This affected the threshold for identifying which trials would be monitored, and it impacted several procedures adopted by the board. LIMITATIONS: This report reflects the observations of those involved in managing the DSMB, including comments offered by the DSMB and by investigators, but not data gathered in a systematic way. CONCLUSIONS: The operational model described here has allowed the DSMB to fulfill its role in the oversight of the trials. We hope that the ideas we present may help others facing similar situations and may stimulate further critical thinking about DSMB structure and function.
Authors: Joan E Hilner; Letitia H Perdue; Elizabeth G Sides; June J Pierce; Ana M Wägner; Alan Aldrich; Amanda Loth; Lotte Albret; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Concepcion Nierras; Beena Akolkar Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 2.486