Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Protocol Design and Performance Benchmarks by Phase and by Oncology and Rare Disease Subgroups
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Protocol Design and Performance Benchmarks by Phase and by Oncology and Rare Disease Subgroups
Do you wish to request the book?
Protocol Design and Performance Benchmarks by Phase and by Oncology and Rare Disease Subgroups
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Protocol Design and Performance Benchmarks by Phase and by Oncology and Rare Disease Subgroups
2023
Overview
Background
Benchmark data characterizing protocol design practices and performance informs clinical trial design decisions and serves as important baseline measures for assessing protocol design behaviors and their impact during and post-pandemic.
Methods
Tufts CSDD, in collaboration with a working group of 20 major and mid-sized pharmaceutical companies and CROs, gathered phase I–III data from protocols completed just prior to the start of the global pandemic.
Results
Data for 187 protocols were analyzed to derive benchmarks overall and for two primary subgroups: oncology vs. non-oncology protocols and rare disease vs. non-rare disease protocols. The results show a continuing upward trend across all protocol design variables. Phase II and III protocols average more endpoints, eligibility criteria, protocol pages; investigative sites; countries and datapoints collected. Oncology and rare disease protocols’ enrolled-to-completion rates are much lower, involve a much higher average number of countries and investigative sites, require more planned patient visits and generate considerably more clinical research data. As such, oncology and rare disease clinical trial cycle times are longer—most notably at time periods occurring after study startup and prior to database lock—due to intense patient recruitment and retention challenges.
Conclusions
The results of this study present valuable design insights and comparative baseline measures. The implications of these results and the expected impact of decentralized clinical trials on protocol design practices and performance is discussed.
