Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

New Benchmarks Characterizing Growth in Protocol Design Complexity

  • Clinical Trials: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development and Medidata Solutions Inc analyzed data from 9737 protocols and 130,601 investigative site contracts associated with these protocols to derive updated benchmarks characterizing protocol complexity. The results of the study indicate that protocol design complexity continues to grow rapidly. Nearly all phase I, II, and III complexity measures associated with protocol execution increased significantly (eg, P <.0001) from 2001–2005 to 2011–2015. These measures include the number of unique and total procedures performed per patient over the course of a study, the site work effort to administer protocol procedures, the number of study volunteer visits, and the total number of procedures performed per study volunteer visit. The total cost per planned study volunteer per visit also increased significantly (eg, P <.0001) as did the total cost per study volunteer across all planned study visits. Phase I protocols remain the most complex and the most demanding to execute. Phase III protocols have seen the most substantial growth in protocol complexity. Phase IV protocols saw only modest increases in executional complexity during the 10-year time horizon. The implications of the study findings are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rosenblatt M. The large pharmaceutical company perspective. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:52–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schuler P, Heering C. What makes a good protocol better? In: Schuler P, Buckley B, eds. Reengineering Clinical Trials. London: Academic Press; 2015:137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  3. DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG. The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different? Manage Decis Econ. 2007;28:469–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wampler S. Tackling protocol complexity. Good Clin Pract J. 2000;7:6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fast Track Systems. Index of clinical study complexity by year, phases I-IV. In: Mathieu M, ed. Parexel’s Pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook, 2007/2008. Waltham, MA: Parexel International Corp; 2007:116.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kahn M, Broverman C, Wu N, et al. A model-based method for improving protocol complexity. Appl Clin Trials, May 2002:40–50.

  7. Getz KA, Stergiopoulos S, Marlborough M, Whitehill J, Curran M, Kaitin KI. Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data. Am J Ther. 2013;22:117–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Getz KA, Stergiopoulos S, Short M, et al. The impact of protocol amendments on clinical trial performance and cost. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2016;50.

  9. Getz K, Wenger J, Campo R, Seguine E, Kaitin K. Assessing the impact of protocol design change on clinical trial performance. Am J Ther. 2008;15:450–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Maxwell S, Zuckerman S, Berenson R. Use of physician’s services under Medicare’s resource-based payments. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1853–1861.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Boericke K, Gwinn B. Planned to perfection. Int Clin Trials. 2010;17:26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Andersen J, Fass R, van der Horst C. Factors associated with early study discontinuation in AACTG studies, DACS 200. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:583–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Clark T. Data is king. Int Clin Trials. 2012;173:32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Friedman L, Furberg C, DeMets DL. Data collection and quality control. In: the Fundamentals of Clinical Trials. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International; 2010:199–214.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Nahm ML, Pieper CF, Cunningham MM. Quantifying data quality for clinical trials using electronic data capture. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomized controlled trials—a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:1143–1156.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Getz KA, Kim J, Stergiopoulos S, Kaitin KI. New governance mechanisms to optimize protocol design. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013;47:651–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University School of Medicine, 75 Kneeland Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA, 02111, USA

    Kenneth A. Getz MBA

  2. Medidata Solutions, Inc, New York, NY, USA

    Rafael A. Campo BS

Authors
  1. Kenneth A. Getz MBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rafael A. Campo BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth A. Getz MBA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Getz, K.A., Campo, R.A. New Benchmarks Characterizing Growth in Protocol Design Complexity. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 22–28 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017713039

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017713039

Keywords

Search

Navigation