Planning for Data and Safety Monitoring: Developing Your Study-specific DSMP OCR/GCRC Clinical Research Seminar November 15 th, 2006 Mary-Tara Roth, RN,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Role of the IRB An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a review committee established to help protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Advertisements

Susan Burner Bankowski, M.S., J.D. Chair, OHSU IRB
Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events
What is a Data and Safety Monitoring Plan and how do I get one? Presented by Office of Human Research Protection.
Marian University is sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis, Oldenburg. Human Subjects Research and the Marian University Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Reporting Unanticipated Problems Involving Risk to Subjects or Others and Adverse Events WFUHS Policy/Procedure Effective Date 6/1/07 Wendy Murray Monitoring.
IRB Determinations 1. AAHRPP Site Visit Results Site visitors observed a real commitment to human subject protections Investigator and research staff.
Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee of Pediatric Advisory Committee, September 10, 2004 Analysis of Research Protocols Involving Children: Combining Subparts.
Capturing and Reporting Adverse Events in Clinical Research
1 FDA DRAFT GUIDANCE ON CLINICAL TRIAL DATA MONTORING COMMITTEES Susan S. Ellenberg, Ph.D. Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology Center for Biologics.
Pharmacists Responsibilities in Clinical Studies Mike R Sather, PhD Crystal L Harris, PharmD February 26, 2004.
Director, Investigator Support & Integration Services, OCTRI
John Naim, PhD Director Clinical Trials Research Unit
IRB-Investigator/ Research Coordinator Mtg. “CUMC’s New Progressive Policy For Adverse Event Reporting” April 13, 2004 George Gasparis Andrew Wit, Ph.D.
Columbia University IRB IRB 101 September 21, 2005 George Gasparis, Executive Director, CU IRB Asst. V.P. and Sr. Asst. Dean for Research Ethics.
Human Research Protection Program Training: Post-Approval Event Reporting March 26, 2008 Lisa Voss, MPH, CIP Assistant Director, QIU Human Research Protection.
Brookhaven Science Associates U.S. Department of Energy 1 Brookhaven National Laboratory Protocol Compliance Monitoring Darcy Mallon May 7, 2009.
Unlocking the Mystery of General Information Reporting Research Compliance Administration Training Presentation Wednesday, June 6, 2007 Presenter:Heather.
Is this Research? Exempt? Expedited?
Overview of Good Clinical Practices (GCPs)
Defining Unanticipated Problems Involving Risks to Subjects or Others (UPIRSO)
Continuing Review VA Requirements Kevin L. Nellis, M.S., M.T. (A.S.C.P.) Program Analyst Program for Research Integrity Development and Education (PRIDE)
Adverse Events, Unanticipated Problems, Protocol Deviations & other Safety Information Which Form 4 to Use?
SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTING Elizabeth Dayag IRB Administrator Naval Medical Center Portsmouth.
Adverse Events and Unanticipated Problems Presented by: Karen Jeans, PhD, CCRN, CIP COACH Program Analyst.
ORO Reviews: Frequent Findings Related to IRBs Bob Brooks Associate Director Research Compliance Education and Policy VHA Office of Research Oversight.
THE ROLE OF DSMB’s in CLINICAL RESEARCH Data and Safety Monitoring Monitoring.
Reporting Unanticipated Problems and Adverse Events: A Change in Policy Mary A. Banks RN, BS, BSN Director, BUMC IRB Wednesday, November 14, 2007.
Unanticipated Problems Potentially Involving Risks to Subjects or Others Research Protections Office Serving UVM and FAHC Updated April 2012.
New Adverse Event Reporting Policy Effective September 1, 2007.
EMORY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD VERSION Unanticipated Problems, Protocol Deviations and Non-Compliance.
RESCUE: ACRIN 4701 Protocol Development & Regulatory Compliance (PDRC) Josephine Schloesser, ACRIN Monitor Chris Steward, ACRIN QC Auditor.
Adverse Event/Unanticipated Problems Policy and Procedures November 2007.
An agency of the European Union Presented by: Paolo Tomasi Data Safety Monitoring Boards / Data Monitoring Committees in paediatric studies Paolo Tomasi,
Data and Safety Monitoring
THE ROLE OF DSMB’s in CLINICAL RESEARCH Data and Safety Monitoring Monitoring.
Understanding Unanticipated Problems (UPs) Elizabeth Ness, RN, MS Director, Staff Development Office of the Clinical Director Center for Cancer Research,
Human Research Protection Program & IRB Responsibilities Marisue Cody, PhD Director Center on Advice & Compliance Help.
Continuing Review Presented by: Karen Jeans, PhD, CCRN, CIP Program Analyst, COACH.
TUN IRB: The Basics February 26, IRB Function Review human-subject research Ensure the rights & welfare of human subjects are adequately protected.
Criteria For Approval 45 CFR CFR Minimized risks Reasonable risk/benefit ratio Equitable subject selection Informed consent process Informed.
Investigational Devices and Humanitarian Use Devices June 2007.
Enrollment and Monitoring Procedures for NCI Supported Clinical Trials Barry Anderson, MD, PhD Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program National Cancer Institute.
Case Studies: Puzzles in Human Research Kevin L. Nellis, M.S., M.T. (A.S.C.P.) Program Analyst, Program for Research Integrity Development and Education.
APPROVAL CRITERIA AN IRB INFOSHORT MAY CFR CRITERIA FOR IRB APPROVAL OF RESEARCH In order for an IRB to approve a research study, all.
WELCOME to the TULANE UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION OFFICE WORKSHOP for SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH (March 2, 2010) Tulane University HRPO Uptown.
0 Ethics Lecture Research. ACADEMY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY Disclosures  The speaker has no financial interest in the subject matter of this.
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY IRB ADAPTED FROM DHHS GUIDANCE ON UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS Unanticipated Problems.
GCP (GOOD CLINICAL PRACTISE)
Main Line Hospitals Institutional Review Board Unanticipated Problems Anne Marie Hobson, BSN, JD, ORA Director Theresa Greaves, ORA Manager.
Bussara Sukpanichnant, Human Subject Protection Office, USAMD-AFRIMS Unanticipated Problems 15 th FERCAP International Conference 24 Nov 15 Nagasaki, Japan.
Instructions for New IRB Continuing Review (Progress) Report
Safety of the Subject Cena Jones-Bitterman, MPP, CIP, CCRP
Dartmouth Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) Data Safety Monitoring and Reporting requirements Brown Bag Series: Noon / First Tuesday of the Month.
Clinicaltrials.gov Update
What is a Data and Safety Monitoring Plan and how do I get one?
Reportable Events & Other IRB Updates February 2017
Adverse Event Reporting: Trials and Tribulations
Criteria for Approval Is an IND Required? Devices
Pharmacovigilance in clinical trials
THE ROLE OF DSMB’s in CLINICAL RESEARCH
Safety of the Subject Cena Jones-Bitterman, MPP, CIP, CCRP
Jeffrey M. Cohen, Ph.D. CIP President HRP Associates, Inc.
NIH Forms E Town Hall
To start the presentation, click on this button in the lower right corner of your screen. The presentation will begin after the screen changes and you.
SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTING
To start the presentation, click on this button in the lower right corner of your screen. The presentation will begin after the screen changes and you.
Reporting to the CPHS: Unanticipated Problems & Serious Adverse Events
Exploring 45 CFR , Criteria for IRB Approval of Research
Research with Human Subjects
Presentation transcript:

Planning for Data and Safety Monitoring: Developing Your Study-specific DSMP OCR/GCRC Clinical Research Seminar November 15 th, 2006 Mary-Tara Roth, RN, MSN, MPH GCRC Research Subject Advocate

Today’s Topic Data Safety Monitoring Plans (DSMPs) –DHHS OHRP and FDA CFR 45CFR.111 (a) (6) and 21 CFR (a) (6) “The IRB must make a determination that, where appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring data collected to ensure the safety of subjects: –INSPIR Section H

Today’s Topic Regulatory history related to DSMPs What is a DSMP How do I put a plan together that is suitable for MY study?

Some Recent Regulatory History June 1979 –Every clinical trial should have a provision for data and safety monitoring June 1998 –All clinical trials require monitoring Commensurate with risks, size and complexity Focus is safety and validity/integrity of the data Each IC in NIH should have a system for overseeing monitoring June 1999 –How to report AEs in multi-center trials June 2000 –Recommendations for monitoring for Phase 1 and 2 trials May 2001 –NCRR directed 78 GCRCs to develop RSA position –Assist with developing a DSMP –DSMP templates – ensuring required elements are in the plan

What is a DSMP? A plan and process, individualized to the study, that is developed in regards to the study purpose and design and prospectively defines the methods to be used by the Sponsor, PI and study team to oversee safety of study participants by on- going evaluation of study data. Purpose: ensure the safety of the participants and the integrity and validity of the data

DSMPs: One Size Does Not Fit All…

Content of a DSMP 1)Assignment of the level of risk in the particular study. 2)Who is monitoring… what is being monitored… and at what frequency. -Description of what each individual or group will monitor -Indication of the frequency of monitoring for each of the individuals and groups listed -Description of stopping points, interim analysis (if applicable) and unblinding plan 3) AE Reporting -AE Definitions and AE grading and attribution scales -Description of AE reporting mechanism: what gets reported, to whom, and in what timeframe

Assignment of Risk Level Risk in clinical research: “probability of harm occurring as a result of participation in a research study.” (IRB Guidebook)

Assignment of Risk Risk related to research: combination of factors: –Known side effects of intervention and procedures (and how much is not known… i.e. phase of study) –The disease or condition and the main outcomes –Study design (logistical considerations) –Risk-to-benefit ratio –Potential for invasion of privacy/breech of confidentiality –Potential for psychological impact of the study –Study population –Conflicts of interest

Definitions of Risk Only “minimal risk” is specifically defined by the regulations (45 CFR i) : “Probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.”

Assignment of Risk: Greater than Minimal Risk Definitions provide a framework from which decisions about the appropriateness of the level of monitoring can be made. Meant to serve as a general guide.. Differ from IRB categories 1 through 4 (Section E1 of INSPIR)

Assignment of Risk: Categories Greater than Minimal Risk Description/ExampleMonitoring guidance LOW: Minor increase over minimal risk. Increased probability of a low- severity event that is reversible (i.e. muscle/joint soreness). PI and staff; team meetings to discuss AEs; possibility of independent reviewer if a COI. MODERATE: Increased potential for AEs, but likelihood of serious harm rare. Low risk interventions in potentially vulnerable populations. PI monitors on on-going basis with staff; indep. safety monitor or DMC may be utilized; DSMB in large multi-site studies. HIGH: Potential for high incidence of AEs. Increased probability of serious and prolonged or permanent problems. Uncertainty about the nature or likelihood of adverse events. Frequent monitoring by PI and staff; often necessitates independent monitor or DSMB.

Level of Monitoring... Commensurate with Risk PI monitoring at regular intervals… Multiple staff at local site, outside monitoring, DSMB, etc. Minimal risk, single site, low # ptps High risk, multiple-sites, high # ptps

On-going Monitoring: Who, What, How? List of all individuals and groups who are monitoring. What is being monitored? How frequently is the monitoring performed?

On-going Monitoring: Who, What, How? Always PI – at least the PI May also include: Members of the local study team Independent monitor (i.e. for PI/sponsor) Individuals at Sponsor level –Safety Officer –Medical Monitor –Outside monitor (from CRO or sponsor) Steering Committee or other sponsor group Outside independent monitoring group –DSMB

On-going Monitoring: Who, What, How? Data to monitor –Individual AEs –Progress of study, recruitment, accrual, retention, compliance, consents –Quality of data CRFs, data entry, etc. –Security of data –Assessment of timeliness of data transfer –PE, lab data, non-lab diagnostic –And more…

On-going Monitoring: Who, What, How? Monitoring focus should be: Trends for an individual participant which may show that participation in the trial has become too risky. Stopping rules (safety and efficacy) and Interim Analysis (plans, if applicable; specified in protocol) Developments which may change the risk-to- benefit ratio in response to which the study (as a whole) must be: –Changed? –Suspended? –Terminated?

AE Reporting Institutional policies –BUMC AE Reporting Regulations under which your study is conducted –HHS (45 CFR ), FDA (drugs biologics: 21 CFR 312, ; ; devices: 21 CFR ; unanticipated problems: 21 CFR ), ICH GCP (3.38, 4.11, 5.17) Sponsor requirements –Each NIH IC will have its own specific policies Funding agency requirements (i.e. if different from “sponsor”) Requirements of the DSMB and/or Steering committee

AE Reporting Prospectively define: –AE definitions (serious and non-serious) –Severity (grades) ex: World Health Organization Toxicity Criteria Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) –Attribution –Reporting process (what, to whom, and in what timeframe)

AE Reporting CategoryToxicityGr 0Gr 1Gr 2Gr 3Gr 4 CardiacHTNNoneAsymp., transient inc. by > 20 mm Hg (D) or to > 150 / 100 if prev. WNL. No tx required. recurrent or persistent inc. by > than 20 mm HG (D) or to > 150 / 100 if prev. WNL. No tx req. Req. txHyper- tensive crisis GIVomitingNone1 episode in 24 hrs 2-5 in 24 hrs6-10 in 24 hrs >10 in 24 hrs; req. parenteral support WHO Toxicity Criteria

AE Reporting Attribution scale example: Definite: AE is clearly related to intervention Probable: AE is likely related to intervention Possible: AE is possibly related to intervention Unlikely: AE is doubtfully related to intervention Unrelated: AE is clearly not related to intervention

AE Reporting Timeframe Example: new drug under IND; serious, unexpected AE PI report to BU IRB by ph/fax w/in 24 hours and in writing w/in 2 business days for gr 4-5 and 10 days gr 3 Sponsor reports to FDA by ph/fax asap and in written safety report w/in 7 calendar days if life-threatening or death and w/in 15 calendar days if non-life-threatening. Sponsor reports to other study sites via safety report within 15 calendar days.

AE Reporting AEPI/local study staffLocal IRB Sponsor/CRO DSMB Outside information incl. other trial results, new info, etc. Other trials using same agent and same DSMB Other sites FDA Example Scenario: Multi-center trial of new drug (under IND) Drug developer/ manufacturer (if not sponsor) Steering Committee Other sites’ IRBs Devices only: unanticipated SAE

Conclusions The parts of a DSMP are: Assignment of the level of risk in the particular study; who, what, how the monitoring happens; and the AE reporting mechanism, including grading and attribution and what, to whom and in what timeframe do events get reported. Bottom line: planning for research participant safety and the success of your study.

Thank you!