Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Exploring factors associated with views on sharing of certain interim trial result measures by the data safety monitoring board (DSMB) with non-DSMB members

Authors: Victoria Borg Debono, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, James Paul, Norman Buckley, Lehana Thabane

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Sharing interim result measures by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) with non-DSMB members is an important issue that can affect trial integrity. Currently, it is unclear if there are demographic factors associated with sharing such information. This study’s objective is to primarily explore the demographic factors associated with the DSMB sharing certain interim result measures and secondarily, explore demographic factors associated with the perceived usefulness in sharing certain interim result measures, with non-DSMB members.

Methods

We conducted an online survey of members of the Society of Clinical Trials (SCT) and International Society of Clinical Biostatistics (ISCB) in 2015 asking their professional views on the DSMB sharing interim trial results, specifically the interim control event rate (IControlER), interim combined even rate (ICombinedER), adaptive conditional power (ACP) and unconditional conditional power (UCP) with non-DSMB members. Binary logistic and multiple linear regressions were used to explore if demographic factors were associated with sharing a certain interim result measure and the perceived usefulness of sharing that interim result measure, respectively. Multiple imputation (MI) was used to evaluate the impact of missing data as a sensitivity analysis.

Results

Approximately 3136 (936 from SCT + ~ 2200 from ISCB) members were invited (response rate of 12%; [371/3136]. Two main findings: (1) involvement in more than 15 private industry-sponsored trials was associated with not endorsing the sharing of the IControlER (odds ratio [OR] = 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31, 6.52]; p = 0.012), and (2) involvement in more than 15 private industry-sponsored trials was associated positively with an increase in the perceived usefulness in sharing the ACP by 2.35 points (beta coefficient estimate = 2.35 [95% CI: 0.45, 4.05], p = 0.017. The findings were similar after sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

An individual involved with more than 15 trials that had some form of private industry sponsorship is a demographic factor associated with NOT sharing the IControlER by the DSMB and an increased perceived usefulness in sharing the ACP at interim. Further studies are needed to evaluate for these demographic factors given the limitations of this study related to missing data. Due to some key limitations, regarding high non-response and missing data, we caution interpreting the results as definitive, but rather look at them as a first exploratory step to find potential associations for further evaluation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ellenberg SS, Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: a practical perspective. West Sussex: Wiley; 2003. Ellenberg SS, Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: a practical perspective. West Sussex: Wiley; 2003.
2.
go back to reference Herson J. Data and safety monitoring committees in clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC/Taylor & Francis; 2009.CrossRef Herson J. Data and safety monitoring committees in clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC/Taylor & Francis; 2009.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Borer JS, Gordon DJ, Geller NL. When should data and safety monitoring committees share interim results in cardiovascular trials? JAMA. 2008;299:1710–2.CrossRef Borer JS, Gordon DJ, Geller NL. When should data and safety monitoring committees share interim results in cardiovascular trials? JAMA. 2008;299:1710–2.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bloudoff-Indelicato M. Threat of interim data leaks prompts call for international rules. Nat Med. 2015;21:200.CrossRef Bloudoff-Indelicato M. Threat of interim data leaks prompts call for international rules. Nat Med. 2015;21:200.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Dixon DO, Freedman RS, Herson J, Hughes M, Kim K, Silverman MH, Tangen CM. Guidelines for data and safety monitoring for clinical trials not requiring traditional data monitoring committees. Clin Trials. 2006;3(3):314–9.CrossRef Dixon DO, Freedman RS, Herson J, Hughes M, Kim K, Silverman MH, Tangen CM. Guidelines for data and safety monitoring for clinical trials not requiring traditional data monitoring committees. Clin Trials. 2006;3(3):314–9.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fleming TR, DL DM. Monitoring of clinical trials: issues and recommendations. Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:183–97.CrossRef Fleming TR, DL DM. Monitoring of clinical trials: issues and recommendations. Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:183–97.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Borg Debono V, Mbuagbaw L, Thabane L. Sharing interim trial results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board with those responsible for the trial’s conduct and progress: a narrative review. Trials. 2017;18(1):120.CrossRef Borg Debono V, Mbuagbaw L, Thabane L. Sharing interim trial results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board with those responsible for the trial’s conduct and progress: a narrative review. Trials. 2017;18(1):120.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Borg Debono V, Mbuagbaw L, Paul J, Buckley N, Thabane L. Survey of professional views on sharing interim results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB): what to share, with whom and why. Trials. 2018;19(1):281.CrossRef Borg Debono V, Mbuagbaw L, Paul J, Buckley N, Thabane L. Survey of professional views on sharing interim results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB): what to share, with whom and why. Trials. 2018;19(1):281.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley; 2000. Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley; 2000.
11.
go back to reference Abramson JH. WINPEPI updated: computer programs for epidemiologists, and their teaching potential. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2011;8(1):1.CrossRef Abramson JH. WINPEPI updated: computer programs for epidemiologists, and their teaching potential. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2011;8(1):1.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373–9.CrossRef Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373–9.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Blair E, Blair J. Applied survey sampling. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2015. Blair E, Blair J. Applied survey sampling. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2015.
14.
go back to reference Liu Y, De A. Multiple imputation by fully conditional specification for dealing with missing data in a large epidemiologic study. Int J Stat Med Res. 2015;4(3):287–95.CrossRef Liu Y, De A. Multiple imputation by fully conditional specification for dealing with missing data in a large epidemiologic study. Int J Stat Med Res. 2015;4(3):287–95.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Borg Debono V, Mbuagbaw L, Paul J, Buckley N, Thabane L. Sharing some interim data in trial monitoring can mislead or unmask trial investigators: A scenario-based survey of trial experts. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;7:81–5.CrossRef Borg Debono V, Mbuagbaw L, Paul J, Buckley N, Thabane L. Sharing some interim data in trial monitoring can mislead or unmask trial investigators: A scenario-based survey of trial experts. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;7:81–5.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference George SL. A survey of monitoring practices in cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12(5–6):435–50.CrossRef George SL. A survey of monitoring practices in cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12(5–6):435–50.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbell MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, Elbourne DR, McLeer SK, Parmar MK, Pocock SJ, et al. Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–238 iii-iv.CrossRef Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbell MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, Elbourne DR, McLeer SK, Parmar MK, Pocock SJ, et al. Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–238 iii-iv.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Tereskerz PM, Guterbock TM, Kermer DA, Moreno JD. An opinion and practice survey on the structure and management of data and safety monitoring boards. Account Res. 2011;18:1–30.CrossRef Tereskerz PM, Guterbock TM, Kermer DA, Moreno JD. An opinion and practice survey on the structure and management of data and safety monitoring boards. Account Res. 2011;18:1–30.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Geller NL, Stylianou M. Practical issues in data monitoring of clinical trials: summary of responses to a questionnaire at NIH. Stat Med. 1993;12(5–6):543–51 discussion 553.CrossRef Geller NL, Stylianou M. Practical issues in data monitoring of clinical trials: summary of responses to a questionnaire at NIH. Stat Med. 1993;12(5–6):543–51 discussion 553.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Kmetic A, Joseph L, Berger C, Tenenhouse A. Multiple imputation to account for missing data in a survey: estimating the prevalence of osteoporosis. Epidemiology. 2002;13(4):437–44.CrossRef Kmetic A, Joseph L, Berger C, Tenenhouse A. Multiple imputation to account for missing data in a survey: estimating the prevalence of osteoporosis. Epidemiology. 2002;13(4):437–44.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(1):3–15.CrossRef Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(1):3–15.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys, vol. 81. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys, vol. 81. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004.
Metadata
Title
Exploring factors associated with views on sharing of certain interim trial result measures by the data safety monitoring board (DSMB) with non-DSMB members
Authors
Victoria Borg Debono
Lawrence Mbuagbaw
James Paul
Norman Buckley
Lehana Thabane
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2938-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue