Thomas R Fleming1, David L DeMets2, Matthew T Roe3, Janet Wittes4, Karim A Calis5,6, Amit N Vora3, Alan Meisel7, Raymond P Bain8, Marvin A Konstam9, Michael J Pencina3, David J Gordon10, Kenneth W Mahaffey11, Charles H Hennekens12, James D Neaton13, Gail D Pearson10, Tomas Lg Andersson14, Marc A Pfeffer15, Susan S Ellenberg16. 1. 1 Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. 2 University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. 3. 3 Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 4. 4 Statistics Collaborative, Inc., Washington, DC, USA. 5. 5 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), FDA, Silver Spring, MD, USA. 6. 6 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. 7. 7 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 8. 8 Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA, USA. 9. 9 Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 10. 10 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. 11. 11 Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 12. 12 Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 13. 13 University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 14. 14 AstraZeneca, Mölndal, Sweden. 15. 15 Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 16. 16 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Data monitoring committees are responsible for safeguarding the interests of study participants and assuring the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. The independence of data monitoring committees from sponsors and investigators is essential in achieving this mission. Creative approaches are needed to address ongoing and emerging challenges that potentially threaten data monitoring committees' independence and effectiveness. METHODS: An expert panel of representatives from academia, industry and government sponsors, and regulatory agencies discussed these challenges and proposed best practices and operating principles for effective functioning of contemporary data monitoring committees. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Prospective data monitoring committee members need better training. Options could include didactic instruction as well as apprenticeships to provide real-world experience. Data monitoring committee members should be protected against legal liability arising from their service. While avoiding breaches in confidentiality of interim data remains a high priority, data monitoring committees should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable informed judgments about risks and benefits. Because overly rigid procedures can compromise their independence, data monitoring committees should have the flexibility necessary to best fulfill their responsibilities. Data monitoring committee charters should articulate principles that guide the data monitoring committee process rather than list a rigid set of requirements. Data monitoring committees should develop their recommendations by consensus rather than through voting processes. The format for the meetings of the data monitoring committee should maintain the committee's independence and clearly establish the leadership of the data monitoring committee chair. The independent statistical group at the Statistical Data Analysis Center should have sufficient depth of knowledge about the study at hand and experience with trials in general to ensure that the data monitoring committee has access to timely, reliable, and readily interpretable insights about emerging evidence in the clinical trial. Contracts engaging data monitoring committee members for industry-sponsored trials should have language customized to the unique responsibilities of data monitoring committee members rather than use language appropriate to consultants for product development. Regulatory scientists would benefit from experiencing data monitoring committee service that does not conflict with their regulatory responsibilities.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Data monitoring committees are responsible for safeguarding the interests of study participants and assuring the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. The independence of data monitoring committees from sponsors and investigators is essential in achieving this mission. Creative approaches are needed to address ongoing and emerging challenges that potentially threaten data monitoring committees' independence and effectiveness. METHODS: An expert panel of representatives from academia, industry and government sponsors, and regulatory agencies discussed these challenges and proposed best practices and operating principles for effective functioning of contemporary data monitoring committees. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Prospective data monitoring committee members need better training. Options could include didactic instruction as well as apprenticeships to provide real-world experience. Data monitoring committee members should be protected against legal liability arising from their service. While avoiding breaches in confidentiality of interim data remains a high priority, data monitoring committees should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable informed judgments about risks and benefits. Because overly rigid procedures can compromise their independence, data monitoring committees should have the flexibility necessary to best fulfill their responsibilities. Data monitoring committee charters should articulate principles that guide the data monitoring committee process rather than list a rigid set of requirements. Data monitoring committees should develop their recommendations by consensus rather than through voting processes. The format for the meetings of the data monitoring committee should maintain the committee's independence and clearly establish the leadership of the data monitoring committee chair. The independent statistical group at the Statistical Data Analysis Center should have sufficient depth of knowledge about the study at hand and experience with trials in general to ensure that the data monitoring committee has access to timely, reliable, and readily interpretable insights about emerging evidence in the clinical trial. Contracts engaging data monitoring committee members for industry-sponsored trials should have language customized to the unique responsibilities of data monitoring committee members rather than use language appropriate to consultants for product development. Regulatory scientists would benefit from experiencing data monitoring committee service that does not conflict with their regulatory responsibilities.
Authors: David DeMets; Robert Califf; Dennis Dixon; Susan Ellenberg; Thomas Fleming; Peter Held; Desmond Julian; Richard Kaplan; Robert Levine; James Neaton; Milton Packer; Stuart Pocock; Frank Rockhold; Belinda Seto; Jay Siegel; Steve Snapinn; David Stump; Robert Temple; Richard Whitley Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: John A Cairns; Janet Wittes; D George Wyse; Janet Pogue; Michael Gent; Jack Hirsh; John Marler; Edward L C Pritchett Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Janet Wittes; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Eugene Braunwald; Margaret Chesney; Harvey Jay Cohen; David Demets; Leo Dunn; Johanna Dwyer; Robert P Heaney; Victor Vogel; Leroy Walters; Salim Yusuf Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: D L DeMets; T R Fleming; R J Whitley; J F Childress; S S Ellenberg; M Foulkes; K H Mayer; J O'Fallon; R B Pollard; J J Rahal Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 1995-12
Authors: Steven E Nissen; Kathy E Wolski; Lisa Prcela; Thomas Wadden; John B Buse; George Bakris; Alfonso Perez; Steven R Smith Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas R Fleming; Katrina Sharples; John McCall; Andrew Moore; Anthony Rodgers; Ralph Stewart Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Natalie E Dean; Pierre-Stéphane Gsell; Ron Brookmeyer; Forrest W Crawford; Christl A Donnelly; Susan S Ellenberg; Thomas R Fleming; M Elizabeth Halloran; Peter Horby; Thomas Jaki; Philip R Krause; Ira M Longini; Sabue Mulangu; Jean-Jacques Muyembe-Tamfum; Martha C Nason; Peter G Smith; Rui Wang; Ana M Henao-Restrepo; Victor De Gruttola Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 176.079