Risk Based Monitoring (RBM): A global study focusing on perception and merits among clinical investigational sites

• Main Authors: Prajna P. Kumar, Jeroze Dalal, Manoj P. Jadhav
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2016-12-01
• Series: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
• Subjects: Risk Based Monitoring; RBM; Clinical investigators; Global implementation of RBM
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865416300187

Background: Several approaches to clinical trial monitoring, including the Risk Based Monitoring (RBM) are aimed at the protection of the human subjects (safety), improved data quality, and ultimately, reducing the cost of drug development and operations. There exists minimal evidence globally about the perceptions and the level of confidence among the clinical staff on the merits of RBM. The present study assessed the perception among clinical research staff globally (developed and emerging countries) on the applicability and adaptability of RBM. Methods: An electronic questionnaire survey consisting of twelve items was developed, validated, and then circulated globally via email to three thousand clinical research staff members at various investigational sites. This survey collected information on the use of RBM and factors that relate to clinical trial cost, data quality, subject safety, and the readiness to adopt RBM practices. The survey responses were summarized and analyzed by using the information e.g. responder's age, sex, clinical research role, global location, and experience in clinical research trials. Results: Responses were received from ten countries, six emerging and four developed. Of the 3000 surveys sent to emerging (1,000) and developed (2,000) countries, a total response of 595 (261 vs 334) participants was received, respectively. The emerging versus developed group had 100 vs 137 participants with complete responses (CR); 34 vs 35 participants with partial responses (PR); and 127 vs 162 participants were disqualified with no exposure (NE) responses. About 67% of the overall responders were investigators, followed by 23%, 10% coordinator and other staff respectively. There was not significant difference in feedback between the researchers in developing versus emerging countries (p = 0.20) with regards to their perception of RBM reducing the overall cost of conducting a clinical research. Responders from emerging countries had a more favorable response than in the developed countries. Similarly, when asked if RBM will be more effective in addressing data quality (p = 0.006), patient safety (p = 0.05) and findings fraud/fabrication (p = 0.01), researchers from emerging countries indicated more confidence than researchers from developed countries. There was also a significant difference in the readiness to adopt RBM between responders of emerging versus developed markets (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: This unique study performed across ten emerging and developed countries strongly supported the need for systematic global training, education, and implementation of RBM regulatory guidance, with an aim for better safety of subjects and improved quality of clinical trial data. Furthermore, studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to provide an evidence-based approach.