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
. 2019 Sep 10;20(1):556.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3619-6.

An evaluation of risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials in UK Clinical Trials Units

Daniel Beever  1 , Lizzie Swaby  2
Affiliations

An evaluation of risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials in UK Clinical Trials Units

Daniel Beever et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: Good Clinical Practice guidelines issued in 2016 encourage risk-based approaches to monitoring clinical trials. This study compared current risk assessment and monitoring approaches in UK Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) with the published guidance and makes recommendations for risk-based monitoring in pragmatic trials.

Methods: An online survey of UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered CTUs was administered via email invitation. Forty-nine units were invited, and 23 responded. Respondents were also invited to share copies of risk assessment templates.

Results: Most CTUs reported using remote combined with on-site monitoring. All reported undertaking a risk assessment for Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) and 21 units did so for non-CTIMPs. Most CTIMP risk assessments used MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) classifications, although some also employed staff judgement. Almost all units based their monitoring on perceived risk level; this number was higher for CTIMPs (n = 22) than for non-CTIMPs (n = 19). In most cases, monitoring plans were produced. More CTUs revisited risk assessments during trials in CTIMPs (n = 21) than in non-CTIMPs (n = 18). Small numbers of units reviewed the monitoring approach always (n = 4) or sometimes (n = 9) and few used the reflection to guide future monitoring.

Conclusions: A high proportion of UK CTUs are using risk-based monitoring in the UK, as recommended by guidelines, for both CTIMPs and non-CTIMPs. This has the potential to make trials more efficient and reduce costs. However, there appears to be a lack of reflection on the value of these revised approaches. There may be a benefit in CTUs collaborating nationally to improve processes for reflection and making changes during the life course of a trial.

Keywords: Risk assessment; Risk-adapted monitoring; Risk-based monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) – E6 (R1), 1996. Accessed at: https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Ef.... (Last accessed: 11 Jan 2017).
    1. Hurley C, Shiely F, Power J, Clarke M, Eustace J, Flanagan E, et al. Risk based monitoring (RBM) tools for clinical trials: a systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2016;51:15–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2016.09.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Molloy S, Henley P. Monitoring clinical trials: a practical guide. Trop Med Int Health. 2016;21:1602–1611. doi: 10.1111/tmi.12781. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Whitham D, Turzanski J, Bradshaw L, Clarke M, Culliford L, Duley L, et al. Development of a standardised set of metrics for monitoring site performance in multicentre randomised trials: a Delphi study. Trials. 2018;19:557. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2940-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tudur Smith C (2016) North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, Clinical Trial Monitoring: Towards Establishing Best Practice? 2012 Accessed at: http://www.methodologyhubs.mrc.ac.uk/files/5014/3713/3750/cts_monitoring.... (Last accessed: 11 Jan 2017).

Publication types