BACKGROUND: For clinical trials of interventions that could affect mortality or major morbidity, Data Monitoring Committees have an important role in safeguarding patient interests and enhancing trial integrity and credibility. In trials overseen by an independent DMC it is widely recognized that interim data should remain confidential to the DMC and to the statistical group preparing reports. However, we have found that the principle of confidentiality is not always followed in practice, particularly where the interim data include complete results on a short-term outcome measure. PURPOSE: To discuss the reasoning and evidence supporting the principle of confidentiality of interim data with emphasis on the setting where the interim data include complete results on a short-term outcome. METHODS: We review the reasons why wider access to interim data can increase the risk of false positive or false negative conclusions and discuss the types of harm which can occur. We provide illustrations and insights from recent experiences and discuss the level of consensus in the research community. RESULTS: The arguments in favor of early release of interim data include the need to provide reliable data in a timely manner to patients and physicians, the potential to increase the enthusiasm of trial investigators, and to restore equipoise. However interim data, even where these include complete results on a short-term outcome measure, provide an unreliable and biased assessment of the overall benefit-to-risk profile of the trial treatments. Pre-judgment based on over-interpretation of such interim data can affect recruitment, treatment delivery, and follow-up, risking the ability of the trial to achieve its goals. CONCLUSIONS: In order to preserve the integrity of a trial and safeguard the interests of patients, interim data, including complete data on short-term outcomes, should remain confidential to the DMC and the statistical group responsible for preparing interim reports until the trial has achieved its primary objectives.
BACKGROUND: For clinical trials of interventions that could affect mortality or major morbidity, Data Monitoring Committees have an important role in safeguarding patient interests and enhancing trial integrity and credibility. In trials overseen by an independent DMC it is widely recognized that interim data should remain confidential to the DMC and to the statistical group preparing reports. However, we have found that the principle of confidentiality is not always followed in practice, particularly where the interim data include complete results on a short-term outcome measure. PURPOSE: To discuss the reasoning and evidence supporting the principle of confidentiality of interim data with emphasis on the setting where the interim data include complete results on a short-term outcome. METHODS: We review the reasons why wider access to interim data can increase the risk of false positive or false negative conclusions and discuss the types of harm which can occur. We provide illustrations and insights from recent experiences and discuss the level of consensus in the research community. RESULTS: The arguments in favor of early release of interim data include the need to provide reliable data in a timely manner to patients and physicians, the potential to increase the enthusiasm of trial investigators, and to restore equipoise. However interim data, even where these include complete results on a short-term outcome measure, provide an unreliable and biased assessment of the overall benefit-to-risk profile of the trial treatments. Pre-judgment based on over-interpretation of such interim data can affect recruitment, treatment delivery, and follow-up, risking the ability of the trial to achieve its goals. CONCLUSIONS: In order to preserve the integrity of a trial and safeguard the interests of patients, interim data, including complete data on short-term outcomes, should remain confidential to the DMC and the statistical group responsible for preparing interim reports until the trial has achieved its primary objectives.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: C L Brosgart; T A Louis; D W Hillman; C P Craig; B Alston; E Fisher; D I Abrams; R L Luskin-Hawk; J H Sampson; D J Ward; M A Thompson; R A Torres Journal: AIDS Date: 1998-02-12 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Edward L Korn; Sally Hunsberger; Boris Freidlin; Malcolm A Smith; Jeffrey S Abrams Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-07-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Stevo Julius; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Michael Weber; Hans R Brunner; Steffan Ekman; Lennart Hansson; Tsushung Hua; John Laragh; Gordon T McInnes; Lada Mitchell; Francis Plat; Anthony Schork; Beverly Smith; Alberto Zanchetti Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-06-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: D I Abrams; A I Goldman; C Launer; J A Korvick; J D Neaton; L R Crane; M Grodesky; S Wakefield; K Muth; S Kornegay Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Munyaradzi Dimairo; Philip Pallmann; James Wason; Susan Todd; Thomas Jaki; Steven A Julious; Adrian P Mander; Christopher J Weir; Franz Koenig; Marc K Walton; Jon P Nicholl; Elizabeth Coates; Katie Biggs; Toshimitsu Hamasaki; Michael A Proschan; John A Scott; Yuki Ando; Daniel Hind; Douglas G Altman Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-06-17
Authors: Thomas R Fleming; David L DeMets; Matthew T Roe; Janet Wittes; Karim A Calis; Amit N Vora; Alan Meisel; Raymond P Bain; Marvin A Konstam; Michael J Pencina; David J Gordon; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Charles H Hennekens; James D Neaton; Gail D Pearson; Tomas Lg Andersson; Marc A Pfeffer; Susan S Ellenberg Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Mary W Redman; Bryan H Goldman; Michael LeBlanc; Anne Schott; Laurence H Baker Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 12.531