Membership of the assets and liabilities monitoring committee

Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e017235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhiannon L Harries ◽  
Julie Cornish ◽  
David Bosanquet ◽  
Buddug Rees ◽  
James Horwood ◽  
...  

ObjectivesIncisional hernias are common complications of midline abdominal closure. The ‘Hughes Repair’ combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. There is evidence to suggest this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared Hughes repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation. This paper aims to test the feasibility of running a randomised controlled trial of a comparison of abdominal wall closure methods following midline incisional surgery for colorectal cancer, in preparation to a definitive randomised controlled trial.Design and settingA feasibility trial (with 1:1 randomisation) conducted perioperatively during colorectal cancer surgery.ParticipantsPatients undergoing midline incisional surgery for resection of colorectal cancer.InterventionsComparison of two suture techniques (Hughes repair or standard mass closure) for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer.Primary and secondary outcomesA 30-patient feasibility trial assessed recruitment, randomisation, deliverability and early safety of the surgical techniques used.ResultsA total of 30 patients were randomised from 43 patients recruited and consented, over a 5-month period. 14 and 16 patients were randomised to arms A and B, respectively. There was one superficial surgical site infection (SSI) and two organ space SSIs reported in arm A, and two superficial SSIs and one complete wound dehiscence in arm B. There were no suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions reported in either arm. Independent data monitoring committee found no early safety concerns.ConclusionsThe feasibility trial found no early safety concerns and demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to patients. Progression to the pilot and main phases of the trial has now commenced following approval by the independent data monitoring committee.Trial registration numberISRCTN 25616490.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas R Fleming ◽  
Susan S Ellenberg ◽  
David L DeMets

Maintaining confidentiality of emerging data and ensuring the independence of Data Monitoring Committees are best practices of considerable importance to the ability of these committees to achieve their mission of safeguarding the interests of study participants and enhancing the integrity and credibility of clinical trials. Even with the wide recognition of these principles, there are circumstances where confidentiality issues remain challenging, controversial or inconsistently addressed. First, consider settings where a clinical trial’s interim data could provide the evidence regulatory authorities require for decisions about marketing approval, yet where such a trial would be continued post-approval to provide more definitive evidence about principal safety and/or efficacy outcomes. In such settings, data informative about the longer term objectives of the trial should remain confidential until pre-specified criteria for trial completion have been met. Second, for those other than Data Monitoring Committee members, access to safety and efficacy outcomes during trial conduct, even when presented as data pooled across treatment arms, should be on a limited “need to know” basis relating to the ability to carry out ethical or scientific responsibilities in the conduct of the trial. Third, Data Monitoring Committee members should have access to unblinded efficacy and safety data throughout the trial to enable timely and informed judgments about risks and benefits. Fourth, it should be recognized that a mediator potentially could be useful in rare settings where the Data Monitoring Committee would have serious ethical or scientific concerns about the sponsor’s dissemination or lack of dissemination of information. Data Monitoring Committee Contract Agreements, Indemnification Agreements and Charters should be developed in a manner to protect Data Monitoring Committee members and their independence, in order to enhance the Data Monitoring Committee’s ability to effectively address their mission.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2692-2692
Author(s):  
Xueyan Chen ◽  
Megan Othus ◽  
Brent L Wood ◽  
Roland B. Walter ◽  
Pamela S. Becker ◽  
...  

Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) diagnoses acute myeloid leukemia (AML) if ≥20% myeloid blasts are present in peripheral blood or bone marrow. Consequently a patient with even 19% blasts is often ineligible for an "AML study". A less arbitrary means to define "AML" and myelodysplastic syndromes ("MDS") emphasizes biologic features. Here, focusing on patients with WHO-defined MDS with excess (5-19%) blasts (MDS-EB) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC) or therapy-related (t-AML) (WHO defined secondary AML), we compared morphologic blast percentage (MBP) with the frequency of mutations in genes belonging to different functional groups, and with the variant allele frequency (VAF) for individually mutated genes. Methods: 328 adults with WHO-defined AML (de novo and secondary; n=149) or MDS (n=179) and with mutational analysis by next-generation sequencing (NGS) performed at the University of Washington Hematopathology Laboratory between 2015-2017 were included. Of these, 86 had MDS-EB and 49 had secondary AML. Mutational analysis was performed using a customized, amplicon-based assay, TruSeq Custom Amplicon (Illumina, San Diego, CA). Custom oligonucleotide probes targeted specific mutational hotspots in ASXL1, CBL, CEBPA, CSF3R, EZH2, FBXW7, FGFR1, FLT3, GATA1, GATA2, HRAS, IDH1, IDH2, JAK2, KIT, KMT2A, KRAS, MAP2K1, MPL, NOTCH1, NPM1, NRAS, PDGFRA, PHF6, PTEN, RB1, RUNX1, SF3B1, SRSF2, STAG2, STAT3, TET2, TP53, U2AF1, WT1, and ZRSR2. VAF ≥5% was required to identify point mutations. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to examine the relation between VAF of individually mutated genes and MBP. The Mann Whitney test served to compare the distribution of VAF in AML (≥20% blasts) vs. MDS (<20% blasts), before and after exclusion of subgroups as described below. Fisher's exact test was used to compare incidence of mutations. Results: 96% of cases had ≥one mutation in the 36 genes tested using NGS. Considering all 328 patients, mutations in tumor suppressor and cohesin complex genes were similarly frequent in MDS and AML, whereas spliceosomal genes, in particular SF3B1 and SRSF2, were more frequently mutated in MDS than in AML (46% vs. 26%, p<0.001). Mutations in epigenetic modifiers were more common in AML than MDS (54% vs. 42%, p= 0.035) as were transcription factor mutations (52% vs. 28%, p<0.001). However comparisons limited to MDS-EB vs. AML-MRC/t-AML, indicated the differences observed when comparing all MDS and all AML were less apparent, both statistically and more perhaps importantly with respect to observed frequencies. For example, spliceosomal gene mutations were found in 35% in MDS-EB and 27% in AML-MRC/t-AML (p=0.34) vs. 46% and 26% in all MDS and all AML. NPM1 mutations were detected in only 8% of AML-MRC/t-AML vs. 3% in MDS-EB but 29% for all AML. Results were analogous with FLT3 ITD, FLT3 TKD, and JAK2 mutations. Examining 20 individually mutated genes detected in ≥ 10 patients only with SRSF2 (p=0.04), did distribution of VAF differ statistically according to whether blast percentage was <20% versus ≥20%. Conclusions: The similar prevalence of mutations in different functional categories in MDS-EB and AML-MRC/t-AML suggests these entities are two manifestations of the same disease. We believe it appropriate to combine these WHO entities allowing patients in each to be eligible for both AML and MDS trials. Disclosures Othus: Glycomimetics: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; Celgene: Other: Data Safety and Monitoring Committee. Walter:Amgen: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Argenx BVBA: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; BioLineRx: Consultancy; BiVictriX: Consultancy; Covagen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Race Oncology: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Aptevo Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Becker:Accordant Health Services/Caremark: Consultancy; AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glycomimetics, Invivoscribe, JW Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Trovagene: Research Funding; The France Foundation: Honoraria.


2015 ◽  
pp. 343-372
Author(s):  
Lawrence M. Friedman ◽  
Curt D. Furberg ◽  
David L. DeMets ◽  
David M. Reboussin ◽  
Christopher B. Granger

The Monitoring Committee (MC), consisting of both government and union officials institutionalized dialogue as a practice in the governance of the implementation of the MOU. The MC demonstrated value by becoming a responsive mechanism and sounding board for preventative, dispute resolution, and for engaging in joint decision making. The unions rejuvenated their own discourse practice and acquired new avenues of influence in relation to public administration policy decisions. While the private sector occupied a position of self-exclusion, leadership engendered collaborative governance obfuscating the political divide, enabling the Monitoring Committee to consolidate the accord. The inclusion of discourse as a moment in actor networks is advocated as a means to reveal the inner operations and network interactions within the “black box,” rendering the impenetrable, penetrable.


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim A Calis ◽  
Patrick Archdeacon ◽  
Raymond P Bain ◽  
Annemarie Forrest ◽  
Jane Perlmutter ◽  
...  

Background: The use of data monitoring committees in the conduct of clinical trials has increased and evolved, but there is a lack of published information on when data monitoring committees are needed and utilized, the acceptable range of data monitoring committee practices, and appropriate qualifications of data monitoring committee members. Methods: To gain a better understanding of data monitoring committee operations and areas for improvement, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative conducted a survey and set of focus groups. A total of 143 respondents completed the online survey: 76 data monitoring committee members, 52 sponsors involved with organization of data monitoring committees, and 15 statistical data analysis center representatives. There were 42 focus group participants, including data monitoring committee members; patients and/or patient advocate data monitoring committee members; institutional review board and US Food and Drug Administration representatives; industry, government, and non-profit sponsors; and statistical data analysis center representatives. Results: Participants indicated that the primary responsibility of a data monitoring committee is to be an independent advisory body representing the interests of trial participants by assessing the risk and benefit ratio in ongoing trials. They noted that data monitoring committees must have access to unmasked data in order to perform this role. No clear consensus emerged regarding specific criteria for requiring a data monitoring committee for a given trial, and some participants felt data monitoring committees may be overused. Respondents offered suggestions for the data monitoring committee charter and communications with sponsors, institutional review boards, and regulators. Overall, data monitoring committee members reported that they are able to function independently and their recommendations are almost always accepted by the sponsor. Participants indicated that there are no standards or guidelines pertaining to qualifications of data monitoring committee members. Furthermore, only 8% (6/72) of data monitoring committee member survey respondents received any formal training, and 94% (68/72) were not aware of any training programs. Conclusion: Findings from the survey and focus groups provide a better understanding of contemporary data monitoring committee operations and insights regarding challenges and best practices. Overall, it was clear that increased training will be needed to prepare the next generation of qualified data monitoring committee members to meet the growing demand. These findings can be used by Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and others to develop recommendations and tools to improve data monitoring committee operations and the overall quality of trial oversight.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document