Elaine Irving1, Rutger van den Bor2, Paco Welsing3, Veronica Walsh4, Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho5, Catherine Harvey6, Nadia Garman7, Diederick E Grobbee2. 1. Real World Study Delivery, WW RWE & Epidemiology, GSK R&D, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK SG1 2NJ. Electronic address: elaine.a.irving@gsk.com. 2. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, GA 3508, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Julius Clinical, Academic Research Organization, Broederplein 41-43, Zeist 3703 CD, The Netherlands. 3. Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, GA 3508, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Medical Affairs Operations, Janssen-Cilag S.A., 1 rue Camille Desmoulins, 92787 Issy-les-Moulineaux, Cedex 9, France. 5. Value Evidence & Outcomes, GSK R&D, 1250 S. Collegeville Road, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA. 6. Global Clinical Safety & Pharmacovigilance, GSK R&D, Iron Bridge Road, Stockley Park West, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB11 1BT, UK. 7. Real World Study Delivery, WW RWE & Epidemiology, GSK R&D, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK SG1 2NJ.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pragmatic trials offer the opportunity to obtain real-life data on the relative effectiveness and safety of a treatment before or after market authorization. This is the penultimate paper in a series of eight, describing the impact of design choices on the practical implementation of pragmatic trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This paper focuses on the practical challenges of collecting and reporting safety data and of monitoring trial conduct while maintaining routine clinical care practice. CONCLUSION: Current ICH guidance recommends that all serious adverse events and all drug-related events must be reported in an interventional trial. In line with current guidance, we propose a risk-based approach to the collection of non-drug-related non-serious adverse events and even serious events not related to treatment based on the risk profile of the medicine/class in the patient population of interest. Different options available to support the collection and reporting of safety data while minimizing study-related follow-up visits are discussed. A risk-based approach to monitoring trial conduct is also discussed, highlighting the difference in the balance of risks likely to occur in a pragmatic trial compared to traditional clinical trials and the careful consideration that must be given to the mitigation and management of these risks to maintain routine care.
OBJECTIVE: Pragmatic trials offer the opportunity to obtain real-life data on the relative effectiveness and safety of a treatment before or after market authorization. This is the penultimate paper in a series of eight, describing the impact of design choices on the practical implementation of pragmatic trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This paper focuses on the practical challenges of collecting and reporting safety data and of monitoring trial conduct while maintaining routine clinical care practice. CONCLUSION: Current ICH guidance recommends that all serious adverse events and all drug-related events must be reported in an interventional trial. In line with current guidance, we propose a risk-based approach to the collection of non-drug-related non-serious adverse events and even serious events not related to treatment based on the risk profile of the medicine/class in the patient population of interest. Different options available to support the collection and reporting of safety data while minimizing study-related follow-up visits are discussed. A risk-based approach to monitoring trial conduct is also discussed, highlighting the difference in the balance of risks likely to occur in a pragmatic trial compared to traditional clinical trials and the careful consideration that must be given to the mitigation and management of these risks to maintain routine care.
Authors: Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Jamie Brehaut; Charles Weijer; Spencer Phillips Hey; Cory E Goldstein; Merrick Zwarenstein; Ian D Graham; Joanne E McKenzie; Lauralyn McIntyre; Vipul Jairath; Marion K Campbell; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Dean A Fergusson; Monica Taljaard Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 2.652
Authors: Jochen Gensichen; Susanne Schultz; Christine Adrion; Konrad Schmidt; Maggie Schauer; Daniela Lindemann; Natalia Unruh; Robert P Kosilek; Antonius Schneider; Martin Scherer; Antje Bergmann; Christoph Heintze; Stefanie Joos; Josef Briegel; Andre Scherag; Hans-Helmut König; Christian Brettschneider; Thomas G Schulze; Ulrich Mansmann; Klaus Linde; Dagmar Lühmann; Karen Voigt; Sabine Gehrke-Beck; Roland Koch; Bernhard Zwissler; Gerhard Schneider; Herwig Gerlach; Stefan Kluge; Thea Koch; Andreas Walther; Oxana Atmann; Jan Oltrogge; Maik Sauer; Julia Schnurr; Thomas Elbert Journal: Trials Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Elena Byhoff; Shreya Kangovi; Seth A Berkowitz; Matthew DeCamp; Elizabeth Dzeng; Mark Earnest; Cristina M Gonzalez; Sarah Hartigan; Reena Karani; Milad Memari; Brita Roy; Mark D Schwartz; Anna Volerman; Karen DeSalvo Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 5.128