Literature DB >> 23429165

Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data.

Kenneth A Getz1, Stella Stergiopoulos, Michelle Marlborough, Jane Whitehill, Marla Curran, Kenneth I Kaitin.   

Abstract

Although most research professionals believe that protocol designs contain a growing number of unnecessary and redundant procedures generating unused data, incurring high cost, and jeopardizing study success, there are no published studies systematically examining this issue. Between November 2011 and May 2012, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted a study among a working group of 15 pharmaceutical companies in which a total of 25,103 individual protocol procedures were evaluated and classified using clinical study reports and analysis plans. The results show that the typical later-stage protocol had an average of 7 objectives and 13 end points of which 53.8% are supplementary. One (24.7%) of every 4 procedures performed per phase-III protocol and 17.7% of all phase-II procedures per protocol were classified as "Noncore" in that they supported supplemental secondary, tertiary, and exploratory end points. For phase-III protocols, 23.6% of all procedures supported regulatory compliance requirements and 15.9% supported those for phase-II protocols. The study also found that on average, $1.7 million (18.5% of the total) is spent in direct costs to administer Noncore procedures per phase-III protocol and $0.3 million (13.1% of the total) in direct costs are spent on Noncore procedures for each phase-II protocol. Based on the results of this study, the total direct cost to perform Noncore procedures for all active annual phase-II and phase-III protocols is conservatively estimated at $3.7 billion annually, not including the indirect costs associated with collecting and managing Noncore procedure data and the ethical costs of exposing study volunteers to unnecessary risks associated with conducting extraneous procedures.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 23429165     DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0b013e31826fc4aa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ther        ISSN: 1075-2765            Impact factor:   2.688


  11 in total

1.  Standardizing Safety Assessment and Reporting for Neonatal Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Jonathan M Davis; Gerri R Baer; Susan McCune; Agnes Klein; Junko Sato; Laura Fabbri; Alexandra Mangili; Mary A Short; Susan Tansey; Barry Mangum; Isamu Hokuto; Hidefumi Nakamura; Thomas Salaets; Karel Allegaert; Lynne Yao; Michael Blum; Joseph Toerner; Mark Turner; Ron Portman
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 4.406

Review 2.  Good Clinical Practice Guidance and Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Balancing the Best of Both Worlds.

Authors:  Robert J Mentz; Adrian F Hernandez; Lisa G Berdan; Tyrus Rorick; Emily C O'Brien; Jenny C Ibarra; Lesley H Curtis; Eric D Peterson
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 3.  Design and conduct of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials.

Authors:  Nathaniel Katz
Journal:  Pain Rep       Date:  2020-12-18

4.  Getting it wrong most of the time? Comparing trialists' choice of primary outcome with what patients and health professionals want.

Authors:  Shaun Treweek; Viviane Miyakoda; Dylan Burke; Frances Shiely
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 2.728

5.  Increasing complexity in oncology phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Laeeq Malik; David Lu
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 3.850

Review 6.  Registry-Based Pragmatic Trials in Heart Failure: Current Experience and Future Directions.

Authors:  Lars H Lund; Jonas Oldgren; Stefan James
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2017-04

7.  Early warnings and repayment plans: novel trial management methods for monitoring and managing data return rates in a multi-centre phase III randomised controlled trial with paper Case Report Forms.

Authors:  William J Cragg; Fay Cafferty; Carlos Diaz-Montana; Elizabeth C James; Johnathan Joffe; Monica Mascarenhas; Victoria Yorke-Edwards
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-04-27       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Improving protocol design feasibility to drive drug development economics and performance.

Authors:  Kenneth Getz
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Enhancing clinical evidence by proactively building quality into clinical trials.

Authors:  Ann Meeker-O'Connell; Coleen Glessner; Mark Behm; Jean Mulinde; Nancy Roach; Fergus Sweeney; Pamela Tenaerts; Martin J Landray
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 2.486

10.  Using systematic data categorisation to quantify the types of data collected in clinical trials: the DataCat project.

Authors:  Evelyn Crowley; Shaun Treweek; Katie Banister; Suzanne Breeman; Lynda Constable; Seonaidh Cotton; Anne Duncan; Adel El Feky; Heidi Gardner; Kirsteen Goodman; Doris Lanz; Alison McDonald; Emma Ogburn; Kath Starr; Natasha Stevens; Marie Valente; Gordon Fernie
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.