临床试验中的数据监测委员会:最佳实践、复杂性和考虑因素

S. Day
{"title":"临床试验中的数据监测委员会:最佳实践、复杂性和考虑因素","authors":"S. Day","doi":"10.4155/CLI.15.31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is the problem all about? Clinical trials are sometimes described as being rather ‘blunt’ instruments, and that often may be true: we use them to find answers to very broad questions such as ‘does this drug work better than a control drug?’ But they are also very important and delicate instruments: we use them to find answers to questions such as ‘how much does this drug work?’ ‘what is the safety profile of this drug?’ and so on. And in the nature of research, we do not know what the right answer is and we have to rely on the clinical trial to give us the right answer. If anything is broken in the trial, it might give us the wrong answer – but we might have no way of know whether answer is right or wrong (unless we can see a break, or maybe just a dent, in the trial). Bias is one of the big concerns in any trial and it is why we typically use the key building blocks of blinding and randomization. It is also why we typically do not look at the data every week or two and see how one treatment is doing compared with another. We set up an experiment, we allow it to run unhindered, and then we look at the results. The problem (of course) is what should we do if something in the trial is going in a very different direction to where we thought it was? This might be that the new treatment is far better than the control treatment – even to the extent that it is far better than we initially expected. Patients are potentially being disadvantaged by being randomized to the control arm; something needs to be done. Or it might be that our new treatment, while backed by some of the greatest investors and optimists the world has produced, actually is not working. We are wasting a lot of time, resource, patients’ goodwill and, not to forget ... quite a lot of money. Something surely needs to be done! So we are in the dilemma of wanting to run a trial, without external interference, maintaining blinding and randomization, but we also want to know what the results look like. Enter the independent data monitoring committee (DMC).","PeriodicalId":10369,"journal":{"name":"Clinical investigation","volume":"15 1","pages":"615-617"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: best practice, complexities and considerations\",\"authors\":\"S. Day\",\"doi\":\"10.4155/CLI.15.31\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What is the problem all about? Clinical trials are sometimes described as being rather ‘blunt’ instruments, and that often may be true: we use them to find answers to very broad questions such as ‘does this drug work better than a control drug?’ But they are also very important and delicate instruments: we use them to find answers to questions such as ‘how much does this drug work?’ ‘what is the safety profile of this drug?’ and so on. And in the nature of research, we do not know what the right answer is and we have to rely on the clinical trial to give us the right answer. If anything is broken in the trial, it might give us the wrong answer – but we might have no way of know whether answer is right or wrong (unless we can see a break, or maybe just a dent, in the trial). Bias is one of the big concerns in any trial and it is why we typically use the key building blocks of blinding and randomization. It is also why we typically do not look at the data every week or two and see how one treatment is doing compared with another. We set up an experiment, we allow it to run unhindered, and then we look at the results. The problem (of course) is what should we do if something in the trial is going in a very different direction to where we thought it was? This might be that the new treatment is far better than the control treatment – even to the extent that it is far better than we initially expected. Patients are potentially being disadvantaged by being randomized to the control arm; something needs to be done. Or it might be that our new treatment, while backed by some of the greatest investors and optimists the world has produced, actually is not working. We are wasting a lot of time, resource, patients’ goodwill and, not to forget ... quite a lot of money. Something surely needs to be done! So we are in the dilemma of wanting to run a trial, without external interference, maintaining blinding and randomization, but we also want to know what the results look like. Enter the independent data monitoring committee (DMC).\",\"PeriodicalId\":10369,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical investigation\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"615-617\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical investigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4155/CLI.15.31\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical investigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4155/CLI.15.31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

问题到底是怎么回事?临床试验有时被描述为相当“钝”的工具,这通常可能是真的:我们用它们来寻找非常广泛的问题的答案,例如“这种药物是否比对照药物更好?”“但它们也是非常重要和精密的工具:我们用它们来寻找诸如‘这种药物有多大作用?“这种药物的安全性如何?”等等。在研究的本质上,我们不知道正确的答案是什么,我们必须依靠临床试验来给我们正确的答案。如果在试验中有什么东西坏了,它可能会给我们错误的答案——但我们可能无法知道答案是对还是错(除非我们能在试验中看到一个坏的,或者只是一个凹痕)。在任何试验中,偏见都是一个大问题,这就是为什么我们通常使用盲法和随机化的关键组成部分。这也是为什么我们通常不会每隔一两个星期看一次数据,看看一种治疗方法与另一种治疗方法相比效果如何。我们做了一个实验,让它不受阻碍地进行,然后看看结果。问题(当然)是,如果试验中的某些东西与我们想象的方向完全不同,我们该怎么办?这可能是新疗法比对照疗法好得多——甚至在某种程度上,它比我们最初预期的要好得多。患者被随机分配到对照组可能会处于不利地位;需要做点什么。或者,我们的新疗法,虽然得到了世界上一些最伟大的投资者和乐观主义者的支持,但实际上并不奏效。我们浪费了大量的时间、资源、病人的善意,还有,别忘了……相当多的钱。确实需要做点什么!所以我们处于两难的境地,我们想要在没有外部干扰的情况下进行试验,保持盲法和随机化,但我们也想知道结果是什么样子的。进入独立数据监控委员会(DMC)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: best practice, complexities and considerations
What is the problem all about? Clinical trials are sometimes described as being rather ‘blunt’ instruments, and that often may be true: we use them to find answers to very broad questions such as ‘does this drug work better than a control drug?’ But they are also very important and delicate instruments: we use them to find answers to questions such as ‘how much does this drug work?’ ‘what is the safety profile of this drug?’ and so on. And in the nature of research, we do not know what the right answer is and we have to rely on the clinical trial to give us the right answer. If anything is broken in the trial, it might give us the wrong answer – but we might have no way of know whether answer is right or wrong (unless we can see a break, or maybe just a dent, in the trial). Bias is one of the big concerns in any trial and it is why we typically use the key building blocks of blinding and randomization. It is also why we typically do not look at the data every week or two and see how one treatment is doing compared with another. We set up an experiment, we allow it to run unhindered, and then we look at the results. The problem (of course) is what should we do if something in the trial is going in a very different direction to where we thought it was? This might be that the new treatment is far better than the control treatment – even to the extent that it is far better than we initially expected. Patients are potentially being disadvantaged by being randomized to the control arm; something needs to be done. Or it might be that our new treatment, while backed by some of the greatest investors and optimists the world has produced, actually is not working. We are wasting a lot of time, resource, patients’ goodwill and, not to forget ... quite a lot of money. Something surely needs to be done! So we are in the dilemma of wanting to run a trial, without external interference, maintaining blinding and randomization, but we also want to know what the results look like. Enter the independent data monitoring committee (DMC).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Targeting TGF-beta pathway with COVID-19 Drug Candidate ARTIVeda/PulmoHeal Accelerates Recovery from Mild-Moderate COVID-19 A Prospective on Allergic Rhinitis Use of Cladribine for multiple sclerosis treatment: An image article Thalidomide may be an effective medicine for Blau Syndrome Prophylactic administration of a clinically safe low dose of the COVID-19 drug candidate Rejuveinix (RJX) effectively prevents fatal cytokine storm and mitigates inflammatory organ injury in a mouse model of sepsis
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1