Monitoring the quality of conduct of clinical trials: a survey of current practices

Author:

Morrison Briggs W1,Cochran Chrissy J2,White Jennifer Giangrande3,Harley Joan4,Kleppinger Cynthia F5,Liu An6,Mitchel Jules T7,Nickerson David F1,Zacharias Cynthia R8,Kramer Judith M9,Neaton James D10

Affiliation:

1. Pfizer, Inc., New London, CT, USA

2. Division of Bioresearch Monitoring, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

3. Roche, Nutley, NJ, USA

4. Training Extension/Pastor Consulting, Inc., Wayne, PA, USA

5. Division of Scientific Investigation, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA

6. Alquest, LLC, Minneapolis, MN, USA

7. Target Health Inc., New York, NY, USA

8. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Princeton, NJ, USA

9. Duke Translational Medicine Institute, Durham, NC, USA

10. Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Abstract

Background There is a little empirical evidence to determine which, if any, monitoring practices best achieve the goals of trial monitoring set forth in ICH E6 under the variable circumstances of different clinical trial settings. Purpose The purpose of this project was to describe current methods of monitoring clinical trials and to explore the rationale for the use of those methods. Methods An electronic survey of known monitoring practices was developed and sent to over 200 organizations involved in conducting clinical research. The survey collected information on institutional demographics, methods of overall study oversight, use of risk-based monitoring and factors that influence assessments of risk, and details on quality assurance and monitoring practices. Results Seventy-nine organizations completed the survey; our analysis included the 65 organizations that indicated they perform clinical trials. Data from the survey indicate that a wide variety of monitoring practices are currently being employed. Eighty-three percent of respondents use centrally available data to evaluate site performance, but only 12% of respondents always or frequently used centralized monitoring to replace on-site visits. Eighty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they always performed on-site visits. This varied by type of organization, with 31% of academic coordinating centers/cooperative groups/government organizations always performing on-site monitoring visits versus 84% of other organizations. The rationale for using a specific monitoring approach does not appear to be based on empirical evidence. Fifty-four percent of respondents stated that ‘usual practice’ determined the frequency with which they conducted on-site monitoring visits. Limitations The overall response rate to our survey was only 30%; thus, we may not have captured the full variance of current monitoring practices, and our responding sample may not be representative. Conclusion These findings underscore the necessity of research to provide an evidence base for monitoring practice.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology,General Medicine

Cited by 60 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3