Data and safety monitoring boards: some enduring questions.
Data Safety and Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) have been referred to as a "growth industry," and this trend continues to be fueled by recent FDA guidance and the NIH's requirement that DSMBs be employed in virtually all phase III clinical trials. The widening role of DSMBs has been sporadically questioned on ethical grounds, but growth has continued, despite the fact that many of the questions endure, unanswered, save for repeated references to safeguarding the scientific integrity of trials. This may be about to change. The recently appointed director of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Jerry Menikoff, is on record as regarding current practices--where consent forms often promise what the DSMB has been assembled to specifically not provide--as constituting fraudulent behavior. That is, a subject may inherently rely on, to their detriment, information that has been misrepresented in the consent document. In this paper, we assemble some of the enduring questions and top them off with Menikoff's tour de force to present what we hope will be a compelling argument to require that consent forms fairly represent what the DSMB will do--and not do--with trial data as they accumulate. We argue that DSMBs should be used only in rare circumstances, and question the practice of precluding principal investigators from DSMB membership, but our main thrust is to ensure that DSMBs, when used at all, are properly described in trial consent forms.
Kowalski
Charles J
CJ
University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Hewett
Jan L
JL
D003625:Data Collection / Q000941:ethics*; D003657:Decision Making / Q000941:ethics*; D028744:Ethics Committees, Research / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics; D028701:Patient Rights / Q000941:ethics*; D014481:United States