Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct;12(5):530-6.
doi: 10.1177/1740774515597697. Epub 2015 Sep 15.

Data monitoring committees for pragmatic clinical trials

Affiliations

Data monitoring committees for pragmatic clinical trials

Susan S Ellenberg et al. Clin Trials. 2015 Oct.

Abstract

In any clinical trial, it is essential to monitor the accumulating data to be sure that the trial continues to be safe for participants and that the trial is being conducted properly. Data monitoring committees, independent expert panels who undertake regular reviews of the data as the trial progresses, serve an important role in safeguarding the interests of research participants and ensuring trial integrity in many trials. Many pragmatic clinical trials, which aim to inform healthcare decisions by comparing alternate interventions in heterogeneous healthcare delivery settings, will warrant review by an independent data monitoring committee due to their potential impact on clinical practice. However, the very features that make a trial "pragmatic" may pose challenges in terms of which aspects of a trial to monitor and when it is appropriate for a data monitoring committee to intervene. Using the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary tool that draws distinctions between pragmatic and explanatory clinical trials, we review characteristics of pragmatic clinical trials that may have implications for data monitoring committees and interim monitoring plans. These include broad eligibility criteria, a focus on subjective patient-centered outcomes, and in some cases a lack of standardized follow-up procedures across study sites. Additionally, protocol adherence is often purposefully not addressed in pragmatic trials in order to accurately represent the clinical practice setting and maintain practicability of implementation; there are differing viewpoints as to whether adherence should be assessed and acted upon by data monitoring committees in these trials. Some other issues not specifically related to the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary criteria may also merit special consideration in pragmatic trials. Thresholds for early termination of a pragmatic clinical trial might be controversial. The distinguishing features of pragmatic clinical trials require careful consideration when developing interim data monitoring plans, and trial sponsors, investigators, and data monitoring committees should agree on a plan before trial inception. Finally, special expertise, such as an informatics, may be helpful on data monitoring committees for some pragmatic clinical trials. Patient representatives may provide particularly valuable insights in the monitoring process.

Keywords: Pragmatic clinical trials; biostatistics; cluster-randomized trials; data monitoring committee; early termination.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of conflicting interests: Suzanne Schrandt is Deputy Director for Patient Engagement at the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and Maryan Zirkle is a Program Officer for the CER Methods and Infrastructure Program at PCORI. Their views, and those of the other authors of this article, do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.

All other authors have no conflicting interests to disclose.

References

    1. Ellenberg SS, Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: a practical perspective. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
    1. Herson J. Data and safety monitoring committees in clinical trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2009.
    1. DeMets DL, Furberg CD, Friedman LM, editors. Data monitoring in clinical trials: a case studies approach. New York: Springer; 2006.
    1. Hess CN, Roe MT, Gibson CM, et al. Independent data monitoring committees: preparing a path for the future. Am Heart J. 2014;168:135–141. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ellenberg S, Fernandes RM, Saloojee H, et al. Standard 3: data monitoring committees. Pediatrics. 2012;129(Suppl 3):S132–S137. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms