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

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Survey of professional views on sharing interim results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB): what to share, with whom and why

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 results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) with non-DSMB members is an issue that can affect trial integrity. It is unclear what should be shared. This study assesses the views of professionals to understand what interim information should be shared at interim, with whom and why.

Methods

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 sharing interim results. Email was used to advertise the survey and a link in the email was provided to the online survey.

Results

Approximately 3136 (936 SCT members + 2200 ISCB members) members were invited. The response rate was 12% (371/3136). The majority reported the Interim Control Event Rate (IControlER) (149/237; 62.9% [95% CI, 56.7–69.0%]), Adaptive Conditional Power (ACP) (144/224; 64.3% [95% CI, 58.0%–70.6%]) and the Unconditional Conditional Power (UCP) (126/208; 60.6% [95% CI, 53.9–67.2%]) should not be shared with non-DSMB members. The majority reported that the Interim Combined Event Rate (ICombinedER) (168/262; 64.1% [95% CI, 58.0–69.9%]) should be shared with non-DSMB members particularly the steering committee (SC) because it does not unmask interim results and helps with monitoring trial progress, safety, and design assumptions.

Conclusion

The IControlER and ACP are unmasking of interim results and should not be shared. The UCP is a technical measure that is potentially misleading and also should not be shared. The ICombinedER is usually known by the SC and sponsor making it easy to determine group rates if the IControlER is known. Though most respondents thought the ICombinedER should be shared with the SC as it does not unmask relative effects between groups, we do not recommend sharing the ICombinedER as it is flawed measure that can have multiple interpretations possibly suggesting that one group is performing better, worse or the same as a comparator group, leading to guesses about how groups are doing relative to one another.
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. p. 1–208. Ellenberg SS, Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: a practical perspective. West Sussex: Wiley; 2003. p. 1–208.
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.CrossRefPubMed Borer JS, Gordon DJ, Geller NL. When should data and safety monitoring committees share interim results in cardiovascular trials? JAMA. 2008;299:1710–2.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Bloudoff-Indelicato M. Threat of interim data leaks prompts call for international rules. Nat Med. 2015;21:200.CrossRefPubMed Bloudoff-Indelicato M. Threat of interim data leaks prompts call for international rules. Nat Med. 2015;21:200.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Monitoring of clinical trials: issues and recommendations. Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:183–97.CrossRefPubMed Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Monitoring of clinical trials: issues and recommendations. Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:183–97.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Dillman DA. Mail and Internet surveys : the tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet surveys : the tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000.
13.
go back to reference Abramson JH. WINPEPI. In: Version 11.65 edn; 2011. Abramson JH. WINPEPI. In: Version 11.65 edn; 2011.
14.
go back to reference Microsoft. Microsoft Excel 2010. In: 14.0.7184.5000 edn; 2010. Microsoft. Microsoft Excel 2010. In: 14.0.7184.5000 edn; 2010.
16.
go back to reference George SL. A survey of monitoring practices in cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12(5–6):435–50.CrossRefPubMed George SL. A survey of monitoring practices in cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12(5–6):435–50.CrossRefPubMed
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. In: Health Technol Assess. 9; 2005: 1–238, iii-iv. England. 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. In: Health Technol Assess. 9; 2005: 1–238, iii-iv. England.
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. 2001;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. 2001;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 553CrossRefPubMed 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 553CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Survey of professional views on sharing interim results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB): what to share, with whom and why
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/s13063-018-2655-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Trials 1/2018 Go to the issue