Data Safety Monitoring Board Provided Review and Adjudication of Safety Data

• Periodical List
• HHS Writer Manuscripts
• PMC3648617

Pediatr Crit Care Med. Author manuscript; bachelor in PMC 2014 May 1.

Published in final edited form equally:

PMCID: PMC3648617

NIHMSID: NIHMS415053

The part of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board in a clinical trial: The Crunch Study

Richard Holubkov, PhD, T. Charles Casper, PhD, J. Michael Dean, Md, MBA, K. J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Jerry Zimmerman, Dr., PhD, Kathleen Fifty. Meert, MD, Christopher J. L. Newth, Physician, FRCPC, John Berger, Doctor, Rick Harrison, Md, Douglas F. Willson, Dr., Carol Nicholson, Doc, and the Eunice Kennedy ShriverNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Collaborative Pediatric Disquisitional Intendance Research Network (CPCCRN)

Abstract

Objective

Randomized clinical trials are usually overseen past a data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) comprised of experts in medicine, ethics, and biostatistics. DSMB responsibilities include protocol approval, acting review of study enrollment, protocol compliance, condom, and efficacy data. DSMB decisions tin affect study design and conduct, every bit well as reported findings. Researchers must incorporate DSMB oversight into the design, monitoring, and reporting of randomized trials.

Pattern

Example study, narrative review.

Methods

The DSMB's role during the comparative pediatric Critical Illness Stress-Induced Immune Suppression (CRISIS) Prevention Trial is described.

Findings

The NIH-appointed Crisis DSMB was charged with monitoring sample size adequacy and feasibility, rubber with respect to adverse events and 28-mean solar day mortality, and efficacy with respect to the primary nosocomial infection/sepsis consequence. The Federal Drug Administration also requested DSMB interim review before opening Crunch to children below i year of historic period. The first interim analysis found college 28-day bloodshed in one treatment arm. The DSMB maintained trial closure to younger children, and requested a second acting data review six months afterward. At this second meeting, mortality was no longer of concern, while a weak efficacy tendency of lower infection/sepsis rates in one study arm emerged. As over 40% of total patients had been enrolled, the DSMB elected to examine provisional power, and unmask handling arm identities. Upon finding somewhat greater efficacy in the placebo arm, the DSMB recommended stopping CRISIS due to futility.

Conclusions

The design and operating procedures of a multicenter randomized trial must consider a pivotal DSMB role. Maximum study design flexibility must exist immune, and investigators must exist prepared for protocol modifications due to interim findings. The DSMB must take sufficient clinical and statistical expertise to assess potential importance of acting treatment differences in the setting of multiple looks at accumulating information with numerous outcomes and subgroups.

Keywords: clinical trials, randomized, interim analysis, safety, nosocomial infection, sepsis

External oversight of interventional studies, including randomized clinical trials, is standard in contemporary clinical research. For example, the NIH requires all agencies to establish a Data and Safe Monitoring Board (DSMB) for Phase Three multicenter clinical trials involving potential risk to participants [1], and NIH agencies require DSMBs in before-phase trials that involve vulnerable populations, including children [2]. DSMBs typically review and approve the final protocol before enrollment occurs, and run into periodically during the conduct of the trial to review all aspects of study progress, including patient enrollment, protocol compliance, data quality and completeness, reported adverse events, and other safety data. In many randomized trials, the DSMB additionally reviews interim efficacy of the proposed intervention and may recommend early on termination due to prove of efficacy (one handling arm being superior to the other) and/or futility (the trial having niggling chance of demonstrating superiority of one treatment).

In this report, nosotros discuss the function of the NIH-appointed DSMB during the planning and comport of the randomized comparative pediatric Disquisitional Disease Stress-Induced Immune Suppression (CRISIS) Prevention Trial, conducted within the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network (CPCCRN). CRISIS compared the issue of daily supplementation with zinc, selenium, glutamine, and metoclopramide, versus whey poly peptide, on the occurrence of nosocomial infection/sepsis among long-stay intensive care patients anile from i to 17 years. The CRISIS study protocol, as well as primary written report results, have been reported previously [3,4].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study pattern

This report is a narrative review of the role of the DSMB during the blueprint and execution of CRISIS. Clinical and biostatistical problems addressed by the DSMB in the last evolution of CRISIS are discussed, forth with the DSMB's determination process during two interim analysis meetings that culminated in the early stopping of Crunch. Nosotros discuss general applications of our experience in Crisis for future pediatric randomized trials.

The Institutional Review Boards of all CPCCRN centers canonical the Crunch protocol and informed consent documents. Parental permission was provided for each subject.

Cardinal Definitions

Interim analysis is examination of available trial data (condom and possibly efficacy) at a timepoint before target recruitment has been reached, with the possibility of stopping or modifying the study based on the findings.

Efficacy monitoring boundaries are statistical guidelines for recommending whether a trial should be stopped at an interim analysis due to evidence that ane treatment arm is superior with respect to efficacy. These prospectively determined boundaries are designed to limit the overall Blazon I mistake, or the adventure that a trial reports a pregnant handling effect when none truly exists, to an overall value such as five%, considering multiple looks at the accumulating study data.

Provisional power of a trial is the chance that the (partially completed) trial will ultimately written report a statistically pregnant treatment effect, given the treatment effect currently observed amongst patients for whom the outcome is already known. Conditional power can be evaluated under various scenarios (e.g., if the true treatment upshot matches the magnitude that was initially expected, or of the magnitude currently observed).

Futility is the state of a trial when interim analysis indicates it is unlikely that the trial volition generate statistically significant findings if connected (for instance, the conditional power of the trial is judged unacceptably low).

Statistical Methods

The motivation for monitoring boundaries is that repeated analyses of accumulating data can increase the chances of false-positive claims if standard statistical methods are used for each interim assay with no adjustments for the repetition. For example, presume nosotros are testing the hypothesis of a significant departure between two treatments with a desired Type I error (besides termed "α level") of 5%, declaring a significant treatment deviation if we discover p<0.05. If in that location is truly no treatment difference, and we clarify our report data twice (in one case at the trial'south halfway point, once at study end), the run a risk that at least ane of the two analyses volition show p<0.05 is 8% rather than 5% [5]. The chances of such a false-positive finding increase to 14% with five equally spaced acting data analyses, and to twenty% with ten analyses.

Various statistical methods are available to control the report-broad Type I error bookkeeping for multiple analyses. A very general, commonly used arroyo is the "alpha-spending function" [six], which prespecifies the Type I fault to be used at each interim analysis, according to the proportion of the total written report'southward statistical information available at each interim assay. These functions (of which there are infinitely many, as Type I mistake spending over time can be varied per each trial's requirements) control the studywide α–level, while assuasive the number and exact timing of interim analyses to be flexible. Such flexibility is desirable since DSMB meetings are usually scheduled months in advance without cognition of exact number of patients who will accept consequence information, and since DSMBs may schedule additional meetings in response to concerns either within or exterior of the clinical trial.

RESULTS

Crisis Study Design

The master efficacy outcome in Crisis was time to nosocomial infection or sepsis. Inclusion and exclusion criteria take been previously reported [three,four]. Nosocomial infection was clinically defined as a new microbiologically proven infection in a patient with fever, hypothermia, chills, or hypotension [vii]. Sepsis was defined as fever, hypotension, or oliguria, leading to initiation of new antibiotic therapy without microbiologic show of infection or other recognized cause of symptoms. Enrolled children were considered at run a risk for this effect from 48 hours afterwards PICU access until the earlier of hospital belch or three days after PICU discharge. In the double-blind CRISIS setting, site investigators initially reported positive outcomes (dates of whatsoever infection and/or sepsis events) for study patients. For the final outcome, performance site investigator determinations were reviewed and adjudicated by the (treatment-masked) CPCCRN Steering Committee during in-person last adjudication meetings, based on daily histories of relevant symptoms, cultures, and use of antibiotics for each patient.

CRISIS was designed to have sufficient power to detect a "chance charge per unit" for infection i.5-fold higher in the whey arm compared to the active study arm. Assuming that the time-to-infection "outcome curves" follow an exponential distribution, this magnitude of relative hazard implies that the timepoint at which half of patients exhibit infection or sepsis would exist 1.5 times higher in the active arm compared to the whey arm (for example, a median time to infection of 6 days in the agile arm versus 4 days in the whey arm). Table 1 shows numbers of patients needed to achieve 80% and 90% ability nether diverse assumptions regarding the infection/sepsis rate in the whey arm, number of days each patient is at adventure for developing infection, and the hazard charge per unit in the agile arm relative to the whey arm. As the critical outcome rate and days-at-risk parameters were unknown, the sample size in CRISIS was initially specified as 600 to 800 patients.

Table i

CRISIS Sample Size Requirements under Various Assumptions most Time To Infection, Days at Risk, and Take chances Ratio

Median Time to Nosocomial Infection/Sepsis among Patients at Risk	Median Days Patients are at Adventure for Event	Take a chance for an Issue in Placebo Arm, Relative to the Active Arm	Patients required for eighty% Power	Patients required for 90% Power
6 days	3 days	one.five-fold	662	886
		ii-fold	254	340
		2.5-fold	160	214
six days	5 days	1.5-fold	476	636
		two-fold	180	240
		2.five-fold	112	150
6 days	7 days	ane.v-fold	396	530
		two-fold	148	198
		2.5-fold	92	124
8 days	3 days	1.5-fold	820	1096
		2-fold	316	424
		ii.5-fold	200	268
8 days	5 days	one.5-fold	570	762
		ii-fold	218	290
		2.5-fold	136	182
8 days	7 days	1.5-fold	464	620
		two-fold	176	234
		ii.five-fold	110	146
13 days	3 days	1.5-fold	1212	1622
		2-fold	474	634
		2.5-fold	302	404
xiii days	5 days	1.v-fold	806	1078
		2-fold	312	416
		2.5-fold	196	264
13 days	seven days	1.5-fold	634	850
		ii-fold	244	326
		2.5-fold	154	204

CRISIS Analytic Program

The chief assay in CRISIS was specified as a time-to-outcome analysis of time until first infection/sepsis, to exist summarized by Kaplan-Meier "survival curves" and compared betwixt treatment arms by the logrank examination, stratified by patient status equally immunocompromised or immunocompetent at study entry. A secondary, supportive assay would compare rates of events per report mean solar day (allowing counting of multiple events in the aforementioned patient) between written report arms using Poisson count models. Additional secondary efficacy outcomes included study days free from antibiotic use and prolonged lymphopenia (absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1,000/mmⁱⁱⁱ for seven or more consecutive study days)

As typically occurs in larger clinical trials, several patient subgroups were prespecified for analysis, including immunocompromised status at entry (vs. not), surgical procedure immediately preceding PICU admission (vs. non), gender, race/ethnicity, and clinical center.

As this critically ill population of children was expected to develop substantial numbers of adverse events related to their underlying medical conditions, the initial trial protocol specified that unexpected adverse events would be collected and assessed according to severity and relationship to the study drug.

Initial DSMB Monitoring Program

The original Crunch analytic plan proposed that, after an initial meeting to review the concluding protocol, the DSMB would meet twice for interim safety and efficacy analyses, afterward approximately 200 and 400 patients had completed the study. At the time of the showtime interim analysis, the DSMB would as well be asked to approve a final written report sample size. Since modifying a trial'southward sample size conditional on knowledge of observed treatment issue can also modify the study's chances of incorrectly declaring a meaning treatment event [8], the DSMB's sample size review would exist performed without noesis of the observed treatment effect at time of interim analysis. Parameters such as overall rates of infection/sepsis and distributions of PICU length of stay across both study artillery combined would be examined, and the final sample size determined (along the lines of the Table 1 calculations) before DSMB review of the interim efficacy data.

For formal interim review of efficacy information, it was proposed that the DSMB adhere to O'Brien-Fleming-type monitoring boundaries [ix] to guide stopping recommendations. The CRISIS Data Analogous Center biostatisticians proposed using these very conservative boundaries (which, with ii interim looks, would recommend stopping only if the p-value for significance of treatment effect were ≤ 0.0002 with one-3rd of the study data available, or ≤ 0.012 with ii-thirds available) due to potential concerns about unequal study rollout beyond CPCCRN centers, possible "learning effects" in delivering treatments at the start of study implementation [10], criticism of studies stopped early for big furnishings for statistical too as clinical reasons [11], and a lower sample size penalty for early on looks when boundaries are conservative [12].

The DSMB was to exist initially masked to the identity of treatment arms during interim analyses, with study arms labeled as "Arm A" and "Arm B" in all materials presented. The DSMB would accept the option to unmask treatment assignments at any time.

Protocol Review past the DSMB

The NIH-appointed Crisis DSMB, whose membership is listed in the Acknowledgement at the end of this report, was comprised of four experts in the areas of pediatric critical care medicine and biostatistics, who were non affiliated with Crisis and had no other potential conflicts of interest. The DSMB's operation was formalized in a written lease that specified the DSMB'due south composition and requirements for membership, along with the projected enrollment, initial coming together schedule, and early on stopping guidelines as discussed to a higher place.

The initial, in-person CRISIS DSMB meeting occurred in November 2006 prior to initiation of patient enrollment. At this meeting, the DSMB approved the study design including the clinical protocol, frequency of meetings, and monitoring boundaries. Withal, the DSMB requested that the target sample size calculations at the offset acting coming together be made more authentic by taking whatsoever treatment event observed at that fourth dimension into account. At the time of interim analysis, the DCC biostatistician would assess any observed treatment result, blinded to handling arm identities, and in the presence of a substantial event calculate sample size under a scenario assuming that the amend-performing arm is the active arm. Specific technical logistics of this approach were to be adult past the DCC prior to the interim analysis.

FDA Review and Input

Crunch was performed under an FDA IND, and the DCC and FDA interacted during 2006 and 2007 with conference calls and paper/electronic correspondence. 4 requests past the FDA essentially afflicted the study design and conduct: (1) the written report's age criteria, by design 40 weeks gestational age to 17 years, were to exist express to children anile i to 17 years pending safety review by the DSMB after enrollment of 33% of patients; (2) patients in the study were to take all adverse events, expected and unexpected, reviewed from study entry until 28 days after entry, and be assessed for survival at 28 days; (3) DCC staff involved in the analysis were to be blinded to the identity of treatment arms in the study; (4) the interim analyses of the efficacy data in the trial were to be based on numbers of observed events in the trial rather than on the numbers of patients recruited.

The last FDA request above, which was fabricated after the initial DSMB coming together, was most helpful to the trial conduct, facilitating formal study monitoring (every bit will be illustrated beneath) as well equally assessment of recruitment targets by the DSMB. The statistical power of a trial is determined by the total corporeality of statistical "information" nerveless, and for fourth dimension-to-event trials, this information may exist expressed every bit the total number of patients experiencing an effect. In detail, when one study arm is causeless to have an event adventure rate ane.5-fold higher than the other, enrollment until 263 events are observed (increasing to 268 events, if early stopping is possible with conservative monitoring boundaries) yields 90% power to discover a significant treatment effect under standard assumptions. Viewing the accumulating study data in this information-based fashion prevents the need to recalculate sample size mid-study, since recruitment merely continues (subject to funding and other resource availability) until the required number of events occurs.

First Interim Analysis

CRISIS began recruitment in April 2007, and 204 patients had been enrolled by the finish of 2008. The DSMB met in Feb 2009 to review data for these patients, 183 of whom had infection/sepsis outcomes available. Events occurred in 40% of these 183 patients, leading to an estimated full recruitment of 670 patients to observe the required 268 study events. Based on to-appointment recruitment of approximately 10 patients per month, an estimated twoscore additional months would be required to achieve the required sample size. However, based on screening data near numbers of children excluded from CRISIS solely because they were under 1 year erstwhile, it was estimated that allowing such children into CRISIS might increase enrollment by up to 100%.

The acting assay of efficacy establish approximately equal freedom-from-event curves for the master nosocomial infection/sepsis result between the two treatment arms (Figure one). Stopping the trial due to efficacy would have been recommended by the monitoring boundaries simply if the p-value for the logrank exam comparing the curves had been <0.00004, which was conspicuously not the example (observed p=0.8). Outcomes were besides examined for the prespecified study subgroups; immunocompromised status and gender were subgroup factors for which this interim analysis showed trends towards a differential treatment outcome, although no subgroup effects were significant (Figure 2). In light of multiple comparisons and per their clinical expertise, the DSMB was not excessively concerned well-nigh these subgroup trends. Assay of event rates per 100 days was consistent with the above analyses.

Freedom from nosocomial sepsis according to assigned treatment for all randomized patients, using information bachelor at time of first interim analysis. Numbers above the horizontal fourth dimension axis denote number of patients remaining at take chances at each timepoint. p=0.80 for logrank examination comparing curves between written report arms, stratified by allowed competent status.

Pinnacle Left Panel: Freedom from nosocomial sepsis according to assigned treatment for patients immunocompetent at study entry, using data available at fourth dimension of kickoff interim analysis. Numbers above the horizontal time axis denote number of patients remaining at run a risk at each timepoint. Top Right Panel: Freedom from nosocomial sepsis according to assigned treatment for patients immunocompromised at study entry, using information available at fourth dimension of first interim analysis. Numbers in a higher place the horizontal time axis denote number of patients remaining at risk at each timepoint. Bottom Left Panel: Freedom from nosocomial sepsis according to assigned treatment for female patients, using data available at fourth dimension of first interim analysis. Numbers higher up the horizontal fourth dimension axis denote number of patients remaining at run a risk at each timepoint. Bottom Right Console: Freedom from nosocomial sepsis according to assigned treatment for male patients, using data available at fourth dimension of first acting analysis. Numbers above the horizontal time axis denote number of patients remaining at risk at each timepoint.

Secondary analyses of antibody-complimentary days (non shown) found no handling differences. However, analyses of 28-day mortality and lymphopenia (Table 2) plant some trends of potential concern, with Treatment A showing a trend toward lower mortality, while the Treatment B arm had lower rates of prolonged lymphopenia. The higher Arm B mortality was uniformly observed within patient subgroups. Review of causes of death, and of adverse event rates (comparable betwixt study arms) and types, did non provide definitive information regarding possible cause for the differences noted, which could also accept occurred due to hazard. The DSMB elected non to unmask handling arm identities during this interim analysis.

Table 2

Observed Mortality and Lymphopenia at time of First Interim DSMB Analysis

Event	Treatment A Northward=xc	Treatment B N=93	p-value
All Crusade 28-Day Mortality	4/90 (four.4%)	xi/90 (12.ii%)	0.059
Prolonged Lymphopenia	10/90 (11.1%)	3/93 (3.2%)	0.038
Moderate Lymphopenia	21/90 (23.3%)	16/93 (17.2%)	0.30

Based on their acting data review, the DSMB recommended that the trial continue; however, based on concerns about the mortality trend, they did not recommend expanding the trial to children under one year of historic period. In addition, the DSMB elected to add a previously unscheduled meeting and reconvene subsequently approximately 6 additional months of enrollment, to again review rubber and efficacy data, and to reconsider the issue of expanding CRISIS to younger children. No technical or other design modifications were necessary due to this boosted meeting, because of the use of flexible monitoring boundaries as discussed to a higher place. The DSMB as well requested that mortality also every bit efficacy be examined according to patient infection/sepsis status at study entry (presented with existing infection, existing sepsis, or neither).

2d Interim Assay

The DSMB met again in November 2009 to review data for the 288 patients randomized by the end of October 2009, 273 of whom had infection/sepsis outcomes bachelor. Events had occurred in 41% of patients, leading to a revised estimated requirement of 654 patients to observe 268 with events.

At the time of this second acting assay, 53/133 (xl%) of Arm A and 60/140 (43%) of Arm B patients had experienced events. The corresponding primary event curves, shown in Figure 3, indicated a weak trend (p=0.xvi by logrank exam) of shorter time to issue in Arm B. Updated subgroup curves found continued reversal of treatment event among immunocompetent versus immunocompromised patients (Figure iv, top panels), though the subgroup consequence was still not significant. When counting multiple events per patient in a secondary Poisson analysis, this subgroup effect was pregnant (p=0.006 unadjusted for multiplicity), with a pregnant Treatment B benefit among the 34 immunocompromised patients. The tendency of gender-specific differences in time to infection observed during the commencement interim assay was no longer prominent in the second acting analysis (Figure 4, lesser panels).

Freedom from nosocomial sepsis according to assigned treatment for all randomized patients, using data available at time of 2d interim analysis. Numbers above the horizontal fourth dimension axis denote number of patients remaining at risk at each timepoint. p=0.16 for logrank test comparing curves between study artillery, stratified by immune competent condition.

Top Left Panel: Freedom from nosocomial sepsis according to assigned treatment for patients immunocompetent at study entry, using data available at time of 2nd interim analysis. Numbers above the horizontal time axis denote number of patients remaining at hazard at each timepoint. Top Right Panel: Freedom from nosocomial sepsis according to assigned treatment for patients immunocompromised at study entry, using data available at fourth dimension of second acting analysis. Numbers above the horizontal time axis denote number of patients remaining at chance at each timepoint. Bottom Left Panel: Freedom from nosocomial sepsis co-ordinate to assigned treatment for female person patients, using data available at fourth dimension of second acting assay. Numbers above the horizontal time centrality denote number of patients remaining at take chances at each timepoint. Bottom Right Panel: Freedom from nosocomial sepsis co-ordinate to assigned handling for male patients, using data bachelor at time of second acting analysis. Numbers higher up the horizontal time axis denote number of patients remaining at take chances at each timepoint.

Antibiotic-gratuitous days in the PICU (not shown) were once again comparable by treatment arm. The updated analysis of bloodshed and lymphopenia (Table iii) plant that since the showtime acting analysis, the departure in 28-twenty-four hour period mortality betwixt handling artillery had macerated somewhat in terms of magnitude and statistical significance. Of patients randomized since the beginning interim analysis, iv/43 in Arm A and 5/50 in Arm B had died at 28 days. Rates of prolonged lymphopenia were now (unadjusted for the many comparisons in the DSMB reports) statistically significantly higher in Arm A, and rates of (at least) moderate lymphopenia were also somewhat college in this arm.

Table 3

Observed Mortality and Lymphopenia at time of Second Interim DSMB Analysis

Upshot	Treatment A Northward=133	Treatment B N=140	p-value
All Cause 28-Twenty-four hours Mortality	viii/133 (6.0%)	16/137 (xi.7%)	0.102
Prolonged Lymphopenia	13/133 (9.8%)	5/140 (3.6%)	0.039
Moderate Lymphopenia	32/133 (24.i%)	21/140 (fifteen.0%)	0.0585

In summary, at the time of the second interim analysis, 28-24-hour interval mortality was somewhat higher in Arm B, merely there was not substantial business organisation well-nigh the rate differences. Arm A had somewhat lower rates of the primary efficacy outcome, only trended towards higher rates of the secondary lymphopenia outcome.

At this point, the DSMB returned to the primary efficacy analysis and elected to consider study futility issues. At this bespeak in the trial, approximately 42% of the total statistical data (113 of the 268 required patients with events) was available, and a trend was emerging of a higher event rate in Arm B. The DSMB wanted to know the estimated conditional power of the written report to find a pregnant treatment issue if it were continued. The DCC biostatisticians, masked to treatment identity, calculated and presented conditional power under various scenarios (Table 4).

Table 4

Conditional Power of Crisis at time of Second Interim Assay: Scenarios Presented to the DSMB

Scenario	Conditional Power of CRISIS to find a Statistically Significant Treatment Effect (in either direction) under this Scenario
The true treatment effect is exactly as in the current analysis. The hazard of an upshot is ane.31 times college in Arm B than in Arm A.	61%
The true treatment result has the aforementioned direction as in the current analysis. However, the true hazard of an event is as hypothesized (a picayune higher than currently observed): i.v times higher in Arm B than in Arm A.	86%
In that location is truly no treatment deviation between Arm A and Arm B.	8%
The true handling upshot is as originally hypothesized – i.v times higher in one arm than the other. However, due to an unlucky coincidence, the trend in the interim data is reversed, and Arm A has the truly college event rate.	10%

As the results were trending towards a lower event rate in Arm A with a substantial proportion of patients having completed the study, the power of the study to observe a pregnant effect would be substantial, an estimated 61%–86%, if Arm A were truly the superior handling. On the other mitt, if treatment B were truly superior, reducing take chances of infection/sepsis i.5-fold (and the Crunch interim findings favoring Arm A were a coincidence due to random run a risk), the power of Crisis to find a meaning consequence in favor of either treatment would be only 10%, equally insufficient new patients remained to reverse the trend in the interim data.

Based on the conditional ability discussion and the observed differences in lymphopenia rates, the Crisis DSMB elected to unmask themselves to the identities of the treatment arms. The DCC biostatisticians left the meeting room in order to maintain blinding if the trial were connected. The DCC'south pharmacy monitor, necessarily aware of treatment arm identities due to on-site pharmacy visits, was called to the coming together room and opened a prepared sealed envelope with identities of treatment arms. Arm A, with the lower infection/sepsis charge per unit, was the placebo arm. Later boosted discussion, the DSMB recommended that further recruitment in the CRISIS trial exist stopped due to futility. Enrollment was immediately stopped at all centers, with patients nevertheless in the trial existence followed per protocol although additional treatment with the report agent was halted.

The final CRISIS results, reflecting findings after the few remaining patients had completed follow-up, closely reflected the DSMB-reviewed analysis. CRISIS was reported equally a negative study without substantial safety issues, with the immunocompromised subgroup findings potentially worthy of further investigation.

Give-and-take AND SUMMARY

Increased awareness of complications in clinical research studies, and an ethical imperative to ensure the condom of patients enrolled in a clinical trial, mandates the need for a DSMB. This report describes the role of the DSMB during the blueprint and enrollment phases of the Crunch trial, with the goal of identifying aspects of futurity trials that should exist considered with the role of the DSMB in listen. A DSMB, which should consist of experts in relevant medical disciplines, biostatistics, and often ethics, should have very broad breadth in the recommendations that they tin brand. Fundamental aspects of the protocol, such as patient entry criteria or follow-up schedules, may exist modified during initial DSMB review (these were really modified by our FDA reviewers) or subsequently interim analysis. The DSMB may elect to run into more than frequently than initially scheduled, necessitating actress clinical and biostatistical effort to gather and analyze data for an unscheduled acting analysis. Finally, the DSMB may recommend early stopping of a trial (or terminating merely sure arms of a multi-arm trial, or stopping recruitment of a specific patient subgroup) later interim analysis. Trials and their infrastructure must exist constructed with the flexibility to handle these possibilities and others.

From a biostatistical point of view, development of statistical monitoring boundaries for acting efficacy analysis is relatively straightforward for common settings. The written report sample size must be adapted upward to maintain required statistical power when interim analyses occur; this aligning is around 1–3% when conservative monitoring boundaries are used.

Modification of the study sample size mid-trial, to maintain desired ability if initial estimates of study parameters were inaccurate, is more challenging. Trials where the chief outcome is time-to-event every bit in CRISIS, as well equally studies with event count outcomes, are readily expressible in terms of numbers of events needed to achieve desired power under a specified relative hazard rate. This number of events remains constant regardless of the overall issue rate, and informs the DSMB precisely about the proportion of full statistical information available during an interim analysis, which is needed to apply monitoring boundaries and recalculate target sample size. We would certainly begin with such an data-based approach when designing hereafter trials involving events. Studies with other types of outcomes, including continuous and binary, tin can similarly be treated equally data-based, though derivations are more challenging [13]. We did not encounter the issues of sample size modification incorporating observed handling effect. Conventional [14] and Bayesian [15] approaches exist for such mid-trial sample size re-estimation; use of these approaches requires appropriate investigator and DSMB expertise, and explicit methodology details must exist specified before trial launch.

During interim analysis, information technology is quite common to find strong, or even statistically significant, trends in the DSMB reports. Such findings are oftentimes due to the numerous safety and efficacy endpoints being examined, overall and often within a number of subgroups likewise. The mortality trend in the first interim analysis was obviously of key business organization equally early mortality was the key safety endpoint. Because of the modest number of patients in CRISIS at that time, and limited available information on causes of death (a relatively frequent consequence in this long-term PICU stay population), the bachelor information neither sufficiently assuaged DSMB concerns or elucidated the potential mechanisms of increased mortality run a risk. This led to the decision for an boosted, unscheduled analysis of report data in six months' time, with potential opening of Crisis to children nether i twelvemonth of age, if there were not continued safe concerns at that time.

During the second interim analysis, concerns about excess handling-specific mortality were indeed moderated, although the DSMB did not deliberate formally on opening Crisis to younger children. Attention turned to a tendency towards improved efficacy in 1 treatment arm, at a time when nigh 1 half of enrollment was completed. The DSMB elected to unmask treatment arms in response to this trend. This unmasking, and their subsequent decision to recommend stopping Crunch enrollment, reflected a view that a potential definitive determination that the whey arm was superior to the active arm (if the trial were connected) was not justifiable, when weighed confronting potential risks to future report subjects. The observed early on bloodshed differences in the trial may take played a role in this conclusion.

Some biostatisticians have opined that DSMBs should typically exist unmasked to treatment identity beginning from initial data review [16], as the identity of treatment artillery is key data potentially useful in decision making. Recent NIH guidance besides encourages unmasked review of interim study information past DSMBs [17]. It is difficult to conjecture whether the DSMB being unmasked at time of the starting time acting analysis (and the resulting noesis that 28-solar day mortality was trending higher in the active arm, while lymphopenia rates were lower in that arm) would have led to different decisions regarding study continuation and timing of subsequent information reviews. Blinded review requires simultaneous consideration of different possible scenarios, and the Crisis DSMB members were sufficiently comfortable with the two possibilities to maintain masking until the second data review.

The decisions to go on Crunch closed to younger children, to unmask treatments, and to formally assess futility were DSMB-specific, every bit no formal statistical criteria were in place for these decisions. All potential findings of an interim analysis cannot be predicted in accelerate, and in larger clinical trials formal prespecified guidelines are typically reserved for "alpha-level spending" and other efficacy-related decisions. While formal futility stopping boundaries can also be constructed when planning a trial [12], many trialists believe that examining provisional ability (every bit was carried out in our setting) is preferable when considering futility [eighteen]. When this approach is used, only general guidelines, such equally recommending stopping if provisional power is below 20–25% under nigh favorable realistic scenarios, are prespecified. Assessing provisional power nether various scenarios engages the DSMB in active word of interim results, original study assumptions nigh treatment effect, and other pertinent issues. A criticism of this approach is potentially excessive focus on ultimate statistical significance of the data, rather than on more general usefulness of the trial'southward findings [xix].

A more important controversy than technical futility monitoring details is whether such assessment should be considered at all during DSMB interim data review. If no prophylactic concerns be nearly either treatment, there is arguably non an ethical imperative to terminate a trial early solely because statistically significant findings are unlikely [18]. When a written report is stopped early, the resulting smaller dataset will limit ability to appraise (and report to the clinical customs) handling-related complication rates and other prophylactic outcomes. Precise assessment of treatment issue, overall and among important subgroups, will also be compromised, with respect to secondary too every bit primary outcomes [20]. The main argument in favor of stopping a likely-futile trial is that the resources of the study sponsor and/or research network volition exist immediately made available for examining other potentially effective treatments, or for studying other of import research topics that are "in the pipeline" [xx]. In the CRISIS setting, the NICHD accepted equally advisable the DSMB'due south recommendation to cease the trial.

It is possible that in the CRISIS setting, other DSMB good bodies may have differed in their decisions as to timing of a second interim assay and assessment of efficacy and futility. However, it is extremely unlikely that any such variations would take led to a different conclusion regarding not-efficacy of the active CRISIS arm.

In summary, a combination of statistical rigor and maximal flexibility comes into play when an investigator designs a randomized trial with DSMB monitoring in mind. This case report illustrates how a well-functioning DSMB provided guidance during the pattern phase of a clinical trial, and made trial conduct decisions based on their existent-time interpretation of the accumulating trial data at disquisitional timepoints.

Acknowledgments

The CRISIS DSMB members included Jeffrey R. Fineman, MD (Chair), Jeffrey Blumer, PhD, MD, Thomas P. Green, MD, and David Glidden, PhD.

Additional members of the CPCCRN participating in Crisis: Children'due south Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA: Joseph Carcillo, Md, Michael Bell, MD, Alan Abraham, BA, Annette Seelhorst RN, Jennifer Jones RN; University of Utah (Data Coordinating Center), Salt Lake Urban center, UT: Jeri Burr, MS, RN-BC, CCRC, Amy Donaldson, MS, Angie Webster, MStat, Stephanie Bisping, RN, Teresa Liu, MPH, Brandon Jorgenson, BS, Rene Enriquez, BS, Jeff Yearley, BS; Children's National Medical Eye, Washington DC: Angela Wratney, MD, Jean Reardon, BSN, RN; Children's Infirmary of Michigan, Detroit, MI: Sabrina Heidemann, MD, Maureen Frey, PhD, RN; Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Stone, AR: Parthak Prodhan, MD, Glenda Hefley, MNSc, RN; Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA: David Jardine, MD, Ruth Barker, RRT; Children's Infirmary Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA: J. Francisco Fajardo, CLS (ASCP), RN, Dr.; Mattel Children's Infirmary at University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA: National Institute of Child Health and Human Evolution, Bethesda, Doc: Tammara Jenkins, MSN, RN.

This work was supported past the post-obit cooperative agreements from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Constitute of Child Health and Human Evolution (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS): U10HD050096, U10HD049981, U10HD500009, U10HD049945, U10HD049983, U10HD050012 and U01HD049934.

Footnotes

The authors have not disclosed any potential conflicts of involvement

References cited

3. Carcillo J, Holubkov R, Dean JM, Berger J, Meert KL, Anand KJS, Zimmerman J, Newth CJ, Harrison R, Willson DF, Nicholson C. Rationale and Pattern of the Pediatric Disquisitional Affliction Stress-Induced Immune Suppression (Crunch) Prevention Trial. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009;33:368–374. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

four. Carcillo JA, Dean JM, Holubkov R, Berger J, Meert KL, Anand KJ, Zimmerman J, Newth CJ, Harrison R, Burr J, Willson DF, Nicholson C Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Kid Health and Homo Development (NICHD) Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network (CPCCRN) The randomized comparative pediatric critical disease stress-induced immune suppression (CRISIS) prevention trial. Pediatr Crit Intendance Med. 2012;13:163–173. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Armitage P, McPherson CK, Rowe BC. Repeated significance tests on accumulating information. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 1969;132:235–244. [Google Scholar]

6. Lan Thousand, DeMets D. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 1983;70:659–663. [Google Scholar]

7. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions of nosocomial infections. In: Olmsted RN, editor. APIC infection control and applied epidemiology: Principles and practice. St. Louis: Mosby; 1996. pp. A1–A20. [Google Scholar]

8. Proschan MA, Hunsberger SA. Designed extension of studies based on provisional ability. Biometrics. 1995;51:1315–1324. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35:549–556. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ten. Palestrant D, Frontera JA, Mayer SA. Treatment of massive cerebral infarction. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2005;5:494–502. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Mueller PS, Montori VM, Bassler D, et al. Upstanding problems in stopping randomized trials early because of apparent benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:878–881. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Jennison C, Turnbull B. Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall; 2000. [Google Scholar]

xiii. Mehta CR, Tsiatis AA. Flexible sample size considerations using information-based interim monitoring. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:1095–1112. [Google Scholar]

xiv. Friede T, Kieser M. Sample size recalculation in internal pilot study designs: a review. Biometrical J. 2006;48:537–555. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Wang Yard. Sample size reestimation past Bayesian prediction. Biometrical J. 2007;49:365–377. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Piantadosi S. Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. ii. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2005. [Google Scholar]

17. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Wellness. [accessed 8/26/2012]; NHLBI policy for data and safety monitoring of extramural clinical studies. 2011 Oct; http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/policies/dsmpolicy.htm.

18. Snapinn Southward, Chen MG, Jiang Q, Koutsoukos T. Assessment of futility in clinical trials. Pharm Stat. 2006;5:273–281. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Pocock SJ. Current controversies in data monitoring for clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2006;3:513–521. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Schoenfeld DA, Meade MO. Pro/con clinical contend: it is adequate to stop large multicentre randomized controlled trials at interim assay for futility. Crit Care. 2005;9:34–36. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

leesonot1954.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3648617/

Share this post