TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing the potential for prevention or earlier detection of on-site monitoring findings from randomised controlled trials: further analyses of findings from the prospective TEMPER triggered monitoring study JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.04.01.20033647 SP - 2020.04.01.20033647 AU - William J Cragg AU - Caroline Hurley AU - Victoria Yorke-Edwards AU - Sally P Stenning Y1 - 2020/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/07/2020.04.01.20033647.abstract N2 - Background/Aims Clinical trials should be designed and managed to minimise important errors with potential to compromise patient safety or data integrity, employ monitoring practices that detect and correct important errors quickly, and take robust action to prevent repetition. Regulators highlight the use of risk-based monitoring, making greater use of centralised monitoring and reducing reliance on centre visits. The TEMPER study was a prospective evaluation of triggered monitoring (a risk-based monitoring method), whereby centres are prioritised for visits based on central monitoring results. Conducted in three UK-based randomised cancer treatment trials of investigational medicine products with time-to-event outcomes, it found high levels of serious findings at triggered centre visits but also at visits to matched control centres that, based on central monitoring, were not of concern. Here, we report a detailed review of the serious findings from TEMPER centre visits. We sought to identify feasible, centralised processes which might detect or prevent these findings without a centre visit.Methods We considered a representative example of each finding type through a three-staged consensus exercise. 1: Three trialists independently reviewed the issues and graded their potential for detection by central monitoring or prevention by some described process, each on a five-point scale. 2. Results of round 1 were shared anonymously and each trialist re-reviewed the list choosing whether or not to change their grading. 3. The three trialists discussed and agreed grades for any issues without consensus, and proposed a feasibility score for each proposed process. In a consultation exercise, the proposed processes were reviewed and rated for feasibility by an invited external trialist group. The primary outcome was the proportion of all major and critical findings theoretically detectable or preventable through a feasible, centralised process.Results In TEMPER, 312 major or critical findings were identified at 94 visits. These findings comprised 120 distinct issues, for which we proposed 56 different centralised processes. Following independent review of the feasibility of the proposed processes by 87 consultation respondents across different stakeholder groups, we conclude that 306/312 (98%) findings could theoretically be prevented or identified centrally.Conclusions This work presents a best-case scenario, where a large majority of monitoring findings were deemed theoretically preventable or detectable by central processes. Caveats include the cost of applying all necessary methods, and the resource implications of enhanced central monitoring for both centre and trials unit staff. Of processes not currently deemed feasible, use of electronic health records has the largest potential benefit.Our results will inform future monitoring plans and emphasise the importance of continued critical review of monitoring processes and outcomes to ensure they remain appropriate.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe TEMPER study was funded by a grant from Cancer Research UK (grant C1495/A13305) from the Population Research Committee); additional support for the present work was provided by the Medical Research Council London Hub for Trial Methodology Research (MC_UU_12023/24).Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data supporting this work are available on reasonable request. Please contact the corresponding author in the first instance: w.cragg{at}leeds.ac.uk. The underlying data were collected as part of the TEMPER study. Please refer to the main study publication for details of how to access these data (Stenning et al, Clinical Trials 15:6(600-609), doi: 10.1177/1740774518793379) ER -