• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.33-42
• /
• 2023

In the conduct of multicenter clinical trials, multiple reviews by multiple Institutional Review Board (IRB) result in unnecessary duplication of efforts, delays and increased expenses of the trials, placing unavoidable burdens on not only investigators and sponsors but also IRBs. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic periods, as the need of multicenter clinical trials for its therapeutics and vaccines increased, a centralized IRB became more important than before in order to efficiently conduct the multicenter trials without unnecessary multiple reviews. Accordingly, government-supported central IBR as a new centralized IRB has launched to foster multicenter clinical trials while to avoid unnecessary reviews and delays and to reduce burdens of all stakeholders. However, there are still barriers to be overcome and problems to be solved in the central IRB. In this review, we introduce background and history of the central IRB and try to propose some strategies or solutions against the barriers and problems.

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1994.02b
• /
• pp.336-341
• /
• 1994

Multicenter controlled clinical trials require It synthesis of the scientific method and the precepts of modern management. The management tasks associated with these studies are akin to those found in other kinds of complex corporate endeavors. It is recommended that clinical investigators become more knowledgeable about management concepts and methods and management specialists be given a major role in the planning and conduct of large-scale clinical trials.

• The Korean journal of internal medicine
• /
• v.33 no.6
• /
• pp.1119-1128
• /
• 2018

Background/Aims: In multicenter clinical trials, laboratory tests are performed in the laboratory of each center, mostly using different measuring methodologies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate coefficients of variation (CVs) of laboratory results produced by various measuring methods and to determine whether mathematical data adjustment could achieve harmonization between the methods. Methods: We chose 10 clinical laboratories, including Green Cross Laboratories (GC Labs), the central laboratory, for the measurement of total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), serum triglycerides, creatinine, and glucose. The serum panels made with patient samples referred to GC Labs were sent to the other laboratories. Twenty serum samples for each analyte were prepared, sent frozen, and analyzed by each participating laboratory. Results: All methods used by participating laboratories for the six analytes had traceability by reference materials and methods. When the results from the nine laboratories were compared with those from GC Labs, the mean CVs for total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, and glucose analyzed using the same method were 1.7%, 3.7%, 4.3%, and 1.7%, respectively; and those for triglycerides and creatinine analyzed using two different methods were 4.5% and 4.48%, respectively. After adjusting data using Deming regression, the mean CV were 0.7%, 1.4%, 1.8%, 1.4%, 1.6%, and 0.8% for total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, triglyceride, creatinine, and glucose, respectively. Conclusions: We found that more comparable results can be produced by laboratory data harmonization using commutable samples. Therefore, harmonization efforts should be undertaken in multicenter trials for accurate data analysis (CRIS number; KCT0001235).

• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.14-20
• /
• 2023

Purpose: To obtain fundamental data on selection tools for an internal audit and develop a new guideline. We scored the indicated points from the internal audit, identified the research progress and problems that occurred, and confirmed the validity of the risk factors involved. Methods: Of the 63 internal audits conducted by Keimyung University Dongsan Hospital from 2014 to 2021, we analyzed 55 clinical trials with an inspection checklist. We excluded 8 that failed to transfer data and refused to comply with the internal audit. The statistical summary of the collected data was verified and interpreted by using frequency analysis and a chi-square test. Result: Of total 55 cases included in the internal audit, sponsor-initiated trial (SIT) was 63.6% (vs. investigator-initiated trial [IIT]), clinical trial for investigational drug was 71.0% (vs. nonclinical or clinical trial for investigational device), domestic multicenter trial was 60.0% (vs. single center or multinational multicenter trial), and trial requisition for MFDS approval was 69.1% (vs. exception for MFDS approval). The 10 areas of the clinical trial inspection checklist (reports, protection of subjects, compliance with protocols, records, management of investigational drug and/or device, delegation of duties, qualification of investigators, management of specimen, contract-agreement and approval of protocols, and preservation of recorded documents) were weighted between 2 to 5 points. The average of the total points was 16.09±13.2 and 20 clinical trials were above the average. As a result of comparing the average of the total points weighted by year, the highest score was in 2020. The 4 factors that play significant roles in determining the internal quality were (1) principal subjects that initiated the clinical trials (p=0.049), (2) type (p=0.003), (3) phase of clinical trials (p=0.024), and (4) number of registered subjects reported at the time of continuing deliberation (p=0.019). Of the 10 areas of the clinical trial inspection checklist, 'record' was the most inappropriate and insufficient. We found more indicated points; the quality of performance declined in IIT, nonclinical trials, and other clinical trials that were not in phase I1-IV4, and the study of more than 30 registered subjects at the time of continuing review. Conclusion: If an institution has an internal audit selection tool that reflects the aforementioned risk factors, it will be possible to effectively manage high-risk studies; thereby, contributing to an efficient internal audit and improving the quality of clinical trials.

• The Journal of Korean Obstetrics and Gynecology
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.42-52
• /
• 2010

Purpose: This report aims to administer methodologic issues around recently conducted multicenter study for evaluating the effects of acupuncture on menopusal hot flashes and discuss practical issues for further implementation of acupuncture clinical trial for hot flashes. Methods: Study process were mentioned, and issues related to avoiding risk of bias, designing appropriate control group, optimal outcome measurement, potential different effects of menopausal status on study outcomes, and suggestions for developing future clinical trials are discussed. Results: Shortcomings of our multicenter study include lack of allocation concealment and assessor blinding, subjective outcome measurement, short-term follow-up, and fixed acupuncture regimen despite pragmatic purpose of this study. Improving trial design, using objective or validated outcomes, assessing long-term effects of acupuncture, and individualizing acupuncture regimen are needed in future clinical trials. Conclusion: We expect these practical discussions to enable researchers to plan and develop future well-designed clinical trials for evaluating the effects of acupuncture on hot flashes or other women's health issues.

• The Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.55-77
• /
• 2024

Objectives This study aimed to analyze the registration status and characteristics of clinical trials on herbal medicine (HM) and medication interventions for simple obesity in children and adolescents. Methods All interventional clinical trials registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization until December 12, 2024, were collected. The study design, interventions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and outcome measures were extracted. Results A total of 24 clinical trials (23 medications and 1 HM) were analyzed. The most common study designs were single-center, randomized controlled, parallel, and phase 2. Placebo controls were used in 87.5% of the studies, blinding was used in 79.1%, and quadruple blinding was the most common. Informed consent was obtained from 70.8% of the participants. Among the oral medications (66.6%), metformin was the most common (25%). Among the non-oral medications (29.1%), exenatide (Bydureon) was the most common intervention (42.8%). Body mass index was the most commonly reported primary outcome measure (79.1%), with most assessments performed at 6 months. Conclusions Based on the characteristics of the medication interventional clinical trial design analyzed in this study, additional high-quality multicenter traditional Korean medicine trials need to be designed in the future.

• Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods
• /
• v.25 no.5
• /
• pp.501-512
• /
• 2018

We propose Sequential Patient Recruitment Monitoring (SPRM), a new monitoring procedure for patient recruitment in a clinical trial. Based on the sequential probability ratio test using improved stopping boundaries by Woodroofe, the method allows for continuous monitoring of the rate of enrollment. It gives an early warning when the recruitment is unlikely to achieve the target enrollment. The packet data approach combined with the Central Limit Theorem makes the method robust to the distribution of the recruitment entry pattern. A straightforward application of the counting process framework can be used to estimate the probability to achieve the target enrollment under the assumption that the current trend continues. The required extension of the recruitment period can also be derived for a given confidence level. SPRM is a new, continuous patient recruitment monitoring tool that provides an opportunity for corrective action in a timely manner. It is suitable for the modern, centralized data management environment and requires minimal effort to maintain. We illustrate this method using real data from two well-known, multicenter, phase III clinical trials.

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2001.10a
• /
• pp.302-304
• /
• 2001

• Clinical Endoscopy
• /
• v.57 no.3
• /
• pp.302-308
• /
• 2024

With incessant advances in information technology and its implications in all domains of our lives, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a requirement for improved machine performance. This brings forth the query of how this can benefit endoscopists and improve both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy in each part of the gastrointestinal tract. Additionally, it also raises the question of the recent benefits and clinical usefulness of this new technology in daily endoscopic practice. There are two main categories of AI systems: computer-assisted detection (CADe) for lesion detection and computer-assisted diagnosis (CADx) for optical biopsy and lesion characterization. Quality assurance is the next step in the complete monitoring of high-quality colonoscopies. In all cases, computer-aided endoscopy is used, as the overall results rely on the physician. Video capsule endoscopy is a unique example in which a computer operates a device, stores multiple images, and performs an accurate diagnosis. While there are many expectations, we need to standardize and assess various software packages. It is important for healthcare providers to support this new development and make its use an obligation in daily clinical practice. In summary, AI represents a breakthrough in digestive endoscopy. Screening for gastric and colonic cancer detection should be improved, particularly outside expert centers. Prospective and multicenter trials are mandatory before introducing new software into clinical practice.

• 대한예방의학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 1994.02b
• /
• pp.313-319
• /
• 1994

Phase I of the Trials of Hypertension Prevention was a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial designed to determine the efficacy of seven nonpharmacologic interventions in reducing blood pressure among persons with high-normal diastolic blood pressure. the initial goal for recruitment was to enroll 2,100 participants over a nine-month period. The yield from the first screening visit to randomization was 13% overall, with clinic-specific yields ranging from 4.5% to 31.7%. After five months of recruitment, approximately 60% of the goal for that point in the recruitment timetable had been randomized. Clinical centers falling short of their goals at that time altered their recruitment strategies and intensified their efforts, and centers that had exceeded their goals recruited additional participants. As a result, 2,182 participants, or 104\% of the goal for recruitment, were randomized over a 13-month period. Those clinics using a cohort, or wave, type of enrollment were most successful in achieving their recruitment goals within the prescribed timetable.