Risk-adapted monitoring is not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring: Results of the ADAMON cluster-randomised study

Abstract

BackgroundAccording to Good Clinical Practice, clinical trials must protect rights and safety of patients and make sure that the trial results are valid and interpretable. Monitoring on-site has an important role in achieving these objectives; it controls trial conduct at trial sites and informs the sponsor on systematic problems. In the past, extensive on-site monitoring with a particular focus on formal source data verification often lost sight of systematic problems in study procedures that endanger Good Clinical Practice objectives. ADAMON is a prospective, stratified, cluster-randomised, controlled study comparing extensive on-site monitoring with risk-adapted monitoring according to a previously published approach.MethodsIn all, 213 sites from 11 academic trials were cluster-randomised between extensive on-site monitoring (104) and risk-adapted monitoring (109). Independent post-trial audits using structured manuals were performed to determine the frequency of major Good Clinical Practice findings at the patient level. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of audited patients with at least one major audit finding. Analysis relies on logistic regression incorporating trial and monitoring arm as fixed effects and site as random effect. The hypothesis was that risk-adapted monitoring is non-inferior to extensive on-site monitoring with a non-inferiority margin of 0.60 (logit scale).ResultsAverage number of monitoring visits and time spent on-site was 2.1 and 2.7 times higher in extensive on-site monitoring than in risk-adapted monitoring, respectively. A total of 156 (extensive on-site monitoring: 76; risk-adapted monitoring: 80) sites were audited. In 996 of 1618 audited patients, a total of 2456 major audit findings were documented. Depending on the trial, findings were identified in 18%–99% of the audited patients, with no marked monitoring effect in any of the trials. The estimated monitoring effect is −0.04 on the logit scale with two-sided 95% confidence interval (−0.40; 0.33), demonstrating that risk-adapted monitoring is non-inferior to extensive on-site monitoring. At most, extensive on-site monitoring could reduce the frequency of major Good Clinical Practice findings by 8.2% compared with risk-adapted monitoring.ConclusionCompared with risk-adapted monitoring, the potential benefit of extensive on-site monitoring is small relative to overall finding rates, although risk-adapted monitoring requires less than 50% of extensive on-site monitoring resources. Clusters of findings within trials suggest that complicated, overly specific or not properly justified protocol requirements contributed to the overall frequency of findings. Risk-adapted monitoring in only a sample of patients appears sufficient to identify systematic problems in the conduct of clinical trials. Risk-adapted monitoring has a part to play in quality control. However, no monitoring strategy can remedy defects in quality of design. Monitoring should be embedded in a comprehensive quality management approach covering the entire t...

Monitoring in practice – How are UK academic clinical trials monitored? A survey

“…The monitoring literature of interventional trials and studies is surprisingly sparse. Three Studies Within A Trial (SWATs) have been published in this area, showing that compared to full monitoring, risk-based monitoring is a reasonable approach [4][5][6]. Tudur Smith et al [7] and Embleton-Thirsk et al [8] have compared the analyses of the clinical trial data collected centrally by clinical trials units (CTUs) with that collected by using 100% on-site source data verification.…”

Impact of a targeted monitoring on data‐quality and data‐management workload of randomized controlled trials: A prospective comparative study

“…These two prospective, comparative, cluster-randomized trials both compared the efficacy of a riskbased monitoring strategy with a classic intensive monitoring approach. While the results of the OPTIMON study are awaited, the recently published results of the ADAMON study [33] showed that risk-adapted monitoring is non-inferior to extensive on-site monitoring on the number of audit findings, either overall or in specific error domains. This study also showed that the average number of monitoring visits and time spent on-site were 2.1 and 2.7 times greater, respectively, in extensive on-site monitoring than in risk-adapted monitoring.…”

Liberal transfusion strategy to prevent mortality and anaemia-associated, ischaemic events in elderly non-cardiac surgical patients – the study design of the LIBERAL-Trial

“…Clinical study monitoring On-site monitoring follows a risk-adapted approach. [32,33] Pre-study, initiation, regular, and closeout visits will be performed in all centres. The first regular visit takes place after discharge or day 30 after surgery of the first 3 randomized patients, the following visits will be performed after the discharge of additionally 15 more patients, but at least once a year.…”