CONTEXT: Good Clinical Practice regulates monitoring activities in clinical research. Due to question and design diversity, and limited resources, on-site monitoring is often less intensive in the academic context, and variable. Standardization is needed, and relies on definition and validation of tools accounting for risk. OBJECTIVE: To define, and validate tools, to implement a risk-based monitoring strategy for academic clinical research. METHODS: Working groups of experienced professionals searched the literature, and built a consensus risk-assessment scale (RAS), and a risk-adapted monitoring plan (RAMP). We allocated 200 protocols to 49 assessors. We assessed the RAS relevance vs. a visual analogue scale (VAS), and its reproducibility through Kraemer's kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) from a random proportional odds model. We identified sources of disagreement through a logistic regression. We described assessors' difficulties during assessment. We applied the RAMP to 10 protocols per risk level, and rated its feasibility (0 = easy to 4 = impossible). RESULTS: RAS and RAMP were defined in 4 levels. RAS relevance was good: RAS-risk levels were evenly distributed on VAS-risk (0.6, 2.6, 5.6, and 7.9). Reproducibility was moderate to good: kappa=0.48, ICC=0.70. Major disagreements (36%) arose from decision-makers, rather than hands-on managers. Most difficulties occurred in ill-written protocols (17%). RAMP was easily feasible for most protocols (mean score: 0.2 to 0.9). We proposed a standard synopsis for evaluation purpose. CONCLUSION: We defined, and validated risk-based tools. This risk-adapted strategy will be compared to an intensive one in a randomized trial, Optimon, to define a standard of practice for academic clinical research.
CONTEXT: Good Clinical Practice regulates monitoring activities in clinical research. Due to question and design diversity, and limited resources, on-site monitoring is often less intensive in the academic context, and variable. Standardization is needed, and relies on definition and validation of tools accounting for risk. OBJECTIVE: To define, and validate tools, to implement a risk-based monitoring strategy for academic clinical research. METHODS: Working groups of experienced professionals searched the literature, and built a consensus risk-assessment scale (RAS), and a risk-adapted monitoring plan (RAMP). We allocated 200 protocols to 49 assessors. We assessed the RAS relevance vs. a visual analogue scale (VAS), and its reproducibility through Kraemer's kappa, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) from a random proportional odds model. We identified sources of disagreement through a logistic regression. We described assessors' difficulties during assessment. We applied the RAMP to 10 protocols per risk level, and rated its feasibility (0 = easy to 4 = impossible). RESULTS: RAS and RAMP were defined in 4 levels. RAS relevance was good: RAS-risk levels were evenly distributed on VAS-risk (0.6, 2.6, 5.6, and 7.9). Reproducibility was moderate to good: kappa=0.48, ICC=0.70. Major disagreements (36%) arose from decision-makers, rather than hands-on managers. Most difficulties occurred in ill-written protocols (17%). RAMP was easily feasible for most protocols (mean score: 0.2 to 0.9). We proposed a standard synopsis for evaluation purpose. CONCLUSION: We defined, and validated risk-based tools. This risk-adapted strategy will be compared to an intensive one in a randomized trial, Optimon, to define a standard of practice for academic clinical research.
Authors: Katherine Huppler Hullsiek; Jonathan M Kagan; Nicole Engen; Jesper Grarup; Fleur Hudson; Eileen T Denning; Catherine Carey; David Courtney-Rodgers; Elizabeth B Finley; Per O Jansson; Mary T Pearson; Dwight E Peavy; Waldo H Belloso Journal: Ther Innov Regul Sci Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 1.778