Promoting good clinical practices in the conduct of clinical trials: experiences in the department of veterans affairs cooperative studies program

Mike R Sather Ph.D., F.A.S.H.P. , Dennis W Raisch Ph.D. , Clair M Haakenson M.S., C.C.R.A. , Julia M Buckelew B.S., C.C.R.A. , John R Feussner M.D., M.P.H.
{"title":"Promoting good clinical practices in the conduct of clinical trials: experiences in the department of veterans affairs cooperative studies program","authors":"Mike R Sather Ph.D., F.A.S.H.P. ,&nbsp;Dennis W Raisch Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Clair M Haakenson M.S., C.C.R.A. ,&nbsp;Julia M Buckelew B.S., C.C.R.A. ,&nbsp;John R Feussner M.D., M.P.H.","doi":"10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00074-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The ever-increasing concern for the welfare of volunteers participating in clinical trials and for the integrity of the data derived from those trials has generated the concept of Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, in anticipation of the need to comply with GCP guidelines, developed a Site Monitoring and Review Team (SMART), which consists of a Good Clinical Practice Monitoring Group and a Good Clinical Practice Review Group. The review group conducted 335 site reviews from fiscal years (FY) 1999 through 2001 to assess and encourage adherence to GCP. Data from reviews were compared for two time periods, a 2-year implementation period (FYs 1999/2000, <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->204) and a continuing follow-up period (FY 2001, <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->131). Overall, high GCP adherence was exhibited by 11.3% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->23) of study sites in FY 1999/2000 versus 20.6% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->27) in FY 2001, average to good adherence was exhibited by 84.3% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->172) in FY 1999/2000 versus 77.0% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->101) in FY 2001, and below average adherence was exhibited by 4.4% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->9) versus 1.5% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->3) in these two periods. These changes were statistically significant by chi square analysis (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.029). Moreover, GCP adherence was assessed within eight GCP focus areas: patient informed consent, protocol adherence, safety monitoring, institutional review board interactions, regulatory document management, patient records in investigator file, drug/device accountability, and general site operations. Median assessment scores for all 62 GCP review elements improved from 0.82 to 0.89 (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001). Median assessment scores for the 14 selected critical GCP items improved from 0.78 to 0.89 (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001). Median scores for five of the eight GCP focus areas improved significantly (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001) between the two time periods. These data suggest that the site-oriented activities of SMART combined with centralized quality assurance activities of the coordinating centers represent an integrated, versatile program to promote and assure GCP adherence and data integrity in Cooperative Studies Program trials.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72706,"journal":{"name":"Controlled clinical trials","volume":"24 5","pages":"Pages 570-584"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00074-6","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Controlled clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245603000746","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

The ever-increasing concern for the welfare of volunteers participating in clinical trials and for the integrity of the data derived from those trials has generated the concept of Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program, in anticipation of the need to comply with GCP guidelines, developed a Site Monitoring and Review Team (SMART), which consists of a Good Clinical Practice Monitoring Group and a Good Clinical Practice Review Group. The review group conducted 335 site reviews from fiscal years (FY) 1999 through 2001 to assess and encourage adherence to GCP. Data from reviews were compared for two time periods, a 2-year implementation period (FYs 1999/2000, n = 204) and a continuing follow-up period (FY 2001, n = 131). Overall, high GCP adherence was exhibited by 11.3% (n = 23) of study sites in FY 1999/2000 versus 20.6% (n = 27) in FY 2001, average to good adherence was exhibited by 84.3% (n = 172) in FY 1999/2000 versus 77.0% (n = 101) in FY 2001, and below average adherence was exhibited by 4.4% (n = 9) versus 1.5% (n = 3) in these two periods. These changes were statistically significant by chi square analysis (p = 0.029). Moreover, GCP adherence was assessed within eight GCP focus areas: patient informed consent, protocol adherence, safety monitoring, institutional review board interactions, regulatory document management, patient records in investigator file, drug/device accountability, and general site operations. Median assessment scores for all 62 GCP review elements improved from 0.82 to 0.89 (p<0.001). Median assessment scores for the 14 selected critical GCP items improved from 0.78 to 0.89 (p<0.001). Median scores for five of the eight GCP focus areas improved significantly (p<0.001) between the two time periods. These data suggest that the site-oriented activities of SMART combined with centralized quality assurance activities of the coordinating centers represent an integrated, versatile program to promote and assure GCP adherence and data integrity in Cooperative Studies Program trials.

促进临床试验的良好临床实践:退伍军人事务部合作研究项目的经验
对参与临床试验的志愿者的福利和来自这些试验的数据的完整性的日益关注产生了良好临床实践(GCP)的概念。退伍军人事务合作研究项目,预期需要遵守GCP指南,开发了一个现场监测和审查小组(SMART),它由一个良好临床实践监测小组和一个良好临床实践审查小组组成。审查小组从1999年财政年度(FY)到2001年进行了335次现场审查,以评估和鼓励遵守GCP。对两个时期的审查数据进行了比较,一个是2年的执行期(1999/2000财政年度,n = 204),另一个是持续的随访期(2001财政年度,n = 131)。总体而言,1999/2000财政年度,11.3% (n = 23)的研究地点表现出高依从性,而2001财政年度为20.6% (n = 27); 1999/2000财政年度,84.3% (n = 172)的研究地点表现出平均至良好的依从性,而2001财政年度为77.0% (n = 101);在这两个时期,低于平均依从性的研究地点为4.4% (n = 9),而1.5% (n = 3)。经卡方分析,这些变化具有统计学意义(p = 0.029)。此外,GCP依从性在八个GCP重点领域进行了评估:患者知情同意、方案依从性、安全监测、机构审查委员会互动、监管文件管理、研究者档案中的患者记录、药物/器械责任和一般现场操作。所有62个GCP评估要素的中位评估得分从0.82提高到0.89 (p<0.001)。14个选定的关键GCP项目的中位评估分数从0.78提高到0.89 (p<0.001)。在两个时间段内,八个GCP重点领域中有五个的中位数得分显著提高(p<0.001)。这些数据表明,SMART的现场导向活动与协调中心的集中质量保证活动相结合,代表了一个综合的、通用的项目,以促进和确保合作研究项目试验中GCP的遵守和数据完整性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信