Independence of clinical events committees: A consensus statement from clinical research organizations

Abstract

BackgroundRandomized clinical trials are the gold standard to assess the causal relationship between an intervention and subsequent outcomes, also known as clinical endpoints. In order to limit bias, central clinical events committees (CEC) are established to ensure consistent event reporting across participating centers, as well as complete and accurate ascertainment of endpoints. However, defining independence is challenging. MethodsThis consensus statement was generated by teleconferences and electronic communications among clinical research organizations from the United States, Europe and Australia. This document does not constitute regulatory guidance. ResultsAn independent CEC is defined when the adjudicators are not primarily involved in designing, funding, sponsoring, organizing, conducting, analyzing or regulating the clinical trial for which they serve as an adjudicator, beyond their role as CEC member. Moreover, independence requires absence of conflicts of interest with the steering committee, sponsor, grant giver, manufacturer, coordinating center, other independent committees, core laboratories, medical monitor, safety physician, participating clinical sites, statistician or data manager, regulatory agencies or authorities, which could influence (or be perceived to influence) a member's objectivity in evaluating trial data. Such conflicts of interest include financial benefits, directing or advisory role (paid or unpaid), decision-making position, as well as being a direct relative. An independent adjudicator has no other role within a clinical trial. ConclusionsThis consensus statement presents a standardized definition of an independent CEC to be considered by clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and investigators. In addition, it provides recommendations on best practices for implementation of an independent CEC.