Quality assurance of research protocols conducted in the community: the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network experience.

Background: Quality assurance (QA) of clinical trials is essential to protect the welfare of trial participants and the integrity of the data collected. However, there is little detailed information available on specific procedures and outcomes of QA monitoring for clinical trials.

Purpose: This article describes the experience of the National Institute on Drug Abuse's (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) in devising and implementing a three-tiered QA model for rigorous multi-site randomized clinical trials implemented in community-based substance abuse treatment programs. The CTN QA model combined local and national resources and was developed to address the unique needs of clinical trial sites with limited research experience.

Methods: The authors reviewed internal records maintained by the sponsor, a coordinating site (Lead Nodes), and a local site detailing procedural development, training sessions, protocol violation monitoring, and site visit reporting.

Results: Between January 2001 and September 2005, the CTN implemented 21 protocols, of which 18 were randomized clinical trials, one was a quality improvement study and two were surveys. Approximately 160 community-based treatment programs participated in the 19 studies that were monitored, with a total of 6560 participants randomized across the sites. During this time 1937 QA site visits were reported across the three tiers of monitoring and the cost depended on the location of the sites and the salaries of the staff involved. One study reported 109 protocol violations (M = 15.6). Examples are presented to highlight training, protocol violation monitoring, site visit frequency and intensity and cost considerations.

Limitations: : QA data from the entire network were not easily available for review as much of the data were not electronically accessible. The authors reviewed and discussed a representative sample of internal data from the studies and participating sites.

Conclusions: The lessons learned from the CTN's experience include the need for balancing thoroughness with efficiency, monitoring early, assessing research staff abilities in order to judge the need for proactive, focused attention, providing targeted training sessions, and developing flexible tools. The CTN model can work for sponsors overseeing studies at sites with limited research experience that require more frequent, in-depth monitoring. We recommend that sponsors not develop a rigid monitoring approach, but work with the study principal investigators to determine the intensity of monitoring needed depending on trial complexity, the risks of the intervention(s), and the experience of the staff with clinical research. After careful evaluation, sponsors should then determine the best approach to site monitoring and what resources will be needed.