Assessment and classification of protocol deviations
Ravindra Bhaskar Ghooi, Neelambari Bhosale, Reena Wadhwani, Pathik Divate, Uma Divate, Ravindra Bhaskar Ghooi, Neelambari Bhosale, Reena Wadhwani, Pathik Divate, Uma Divate
Abstract
Introduction: Deviations from the approved trial protocol are common during clinical trials. They have been conventionally classified as deviations or violations, depending on their impact on the trial.
Methods: A new method has been proposed by which deviations are classified in five grades from 1 to 5. A deviation of Grade 1 has no impact on the subjects' well-being or on the quality of data. At the maximum, a deviation Grade 5 leads to the death of the subject. This method of classification was applied to deviations noted in the center over the last 3 years.
Results: It was observed that most deviations were of Grades 1 and 2, with fewer falling in Grades 3 and 4. There were no deviations that led to the death of the subject (Grade 5).
Discussion: This method of classification would help trial managers decide on the action to be taken on the occurrence of deviations, which would be based on their impact.
Keywords: Data quality; deviations; noncompliance; subject protection.
Figures
References
- ICH E6. [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29]. Available from: .
- ICH E6 Integrated Addendum. [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29]. Available from: .
- Dampier CD, Smith WR, Wager CG, Kim HY, Bell MC, Miller ST, et al. IMPROVE trial: A randomized controlled trial of patient-controlled analgesia for sickle cell painful episodes: Rationale, design challenges, initial experience, and recommendations for future studies. Clin Trials. 2013;10:319–31.
- Bhattacharya S, Cantor MN. Analysis of eligibility criteria representation in industry-standard clinical trial protocols. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46:805–13.
- Getz K. Improving protocol design feasibility to drive drug development economics and performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:5069–80.
- Al-Shahi Salman R, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, Savulescu J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014;383:176–85.
- Smuck B, Bettello P, Berghout K, Hanna T, Kowaleski B, Phippard L, et al. Ontario protocol assessment level: Clinical trial complexity rating tool for workload planning in oncology clinical trials. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7:80–4.
- Ermete R. Clinical trials and communicating safely. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2012;16:25–7.
- Moyé LA. P value interpretation and alpha allocation in clinical trials. Ann Epidemiol. 1998;8:351–7.
- Salerno SM, Wrenn KD, Slovis CM. Monitoring EMS protocol deviations: A useful quality assurance tool. Ann Emerg Med. 1991;20:1319–24.
- Théroux P, Ouimet H, McCans J, Latour JG, Joly P, Lévy G, et al. Aspirin, heparin, or both to treat acute unstable angina. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:1105–11.
- Weinstein AG. Improving adherence to asthma therapies. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2015;21:86–94.
- Glickman SW, McHutchison JG, Peterson ED, Cairns CB, Harrington RA, Califf RM, et al. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:816–23.
- Bhatt A. Indian clinical trials: Paradigm shift from speed to quality? Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3:1–3.
- Al-Marzouki SM. A Statistical Investigation of Fraud and Misconduct in Clinical Trials. Thesis for Ph. D., Submitted to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29]. Available from: .
- Bhatt A. Protocol deviation and violation. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3:117.
- Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive office of the President. Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. Federal Register. 2000. [Last accessed on 2016 Jan 29]. p. 76260-4. Available from: .
- Polanin-Huk J, Huk J, Filip R. Fraud and misconduct in clinical research. J Pre Clin Clin Res. 2010;4:158–60.
- Pogue JM, Devereaux PJ, Thorlund K, Yusuf S. Central statistical monitoring: Detecting fraud in clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2013;10:225–35.
- Schreiner MS, Feltman D, Wiswell T, Wootton S, Arnold C, Tyson J, et al. When is waiver of consent appropriate in a neonatal clinical trial? Pediatrics. 2014;134:1006–12.
- Shetty YC, Jadhav KS, Saiyed AA, Desai AU. Are institutional review boards prepared for active continuing review? Perspect Clin Res. 2014;5:11–5.
- George SL. Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: Prevalence and causal factors. Int J Clin Oncol. 2015 [Epub ahead of print]
- Gupta A. Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: A concern. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4:144–7.
- Mehra M, Kurpanek K, Petrizzo M, Brenner S, McCracken Y, Katz T, et al. The life cycle and management of protocol deviations. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2014
- Hajos AK, Kamble SK. Strategies for ensuring quality data from Indian investigational sites. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2:54–8.
- Divate U, Das S, Bhosale N, Divate P. Best practices sharing: Setting up a professional clinical research unit in India. Perspect Clin Res. 2014;5:37–40.
- Ohri N, Shen X, Dicker AP, Doyle LA, Harrison AS, Showalter TN. Radiotherapy protocol deviations and clinical outcomes: A meta-analysis of cooperative group clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:387–93.
Source: PubMed