Improving protocol design feasibility to drive drug development economics and performance

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 5069-5080

  Getz, Kenneth ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Direct drug development costs; Extraneous protocol procedures; Indirect drug development costs; Protocol amendments; Protocol design complexity; Protocol feasibility

Indexed keywords

COST ANALYSIS; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG PRESCRIBING; FEASIBILITY STUDY; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG EFFICACY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; PROCESS DESIGN; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; REVIEW; STUDY DESIGN; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; WORKLOAD; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; HUMANS;

EID: 84900485488     PISSN: 16617827     EISSN: 16604601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110505069     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Getz, K.A.; Kim, J.; Stergiopoulos, S.; Kaitin, K.I. New governance mechanisms to optimize protocol design. Ther. Innovat. Regul. Sci. 2013, 47, 651-655.
2. Getz, K.; Stergiopoulos, S.; Marlborough, M.; Whitehall, J.; Curran, M.; Kaitin, K. Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data. Amer. J. Ther. 2013, doi:10.1097/MJT.0b013e31826fc4aa.
3. Getz, K.; Zuckerman, R.; Cropp, A.; Hindle, A.; Krauss, R.; Kaitin, K. Measuring the incidence, causes, and repercussions of protocol amendments. Drug Inf. J. 2011, 45, 265-275.
4. Getz, K.; Wenger, J.; Campo, R.; Seguine, E.; Kaitin, K. Assessing the impact of protocol design change on clinical trial performance. Amer. J. Ther. 2008, 15, 449-456.
5. Clark, T. Data is King. Available online: http://www.samedanltd.com/magazine/13/issue/ 173/article/3242 (accessed on 4 May 2014).
6. 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.
7. Madsen, S.; Holm, S.; Riis, P. Ethical aspects of clinical trials. Attitudes of public and out-patients. J. Intern. Med. 1999, 245, 571-579.
8. Boericke, K.; Gwinn, B. Planned to perfection. Int. Clin. Trials. 2010, 17, 26-30.
9. Andersen, J.; Fass, R.; van der Horst, C. Factors associated with early study discontinuation in AACTG studies. Contemp. Clin. Trials 2007, 28,583-592.
10. Getz, K. Optimizing Study Design. In Proceedings of CenterWatch-iiBIG Conference, Boston, MA, USA, 20 May 2013.
11. Friedman, L.; Furberg, C.; DeMets, D. Data Collection and Quality Control in the Fundamentals of Clinical Trials; Springer Science and Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 199-214.
12. Nahm, M.L.; Pieper, C.F.; Cunningham, M.M. Quantifying data quality for clinical trials using electronic data capture. PLoS One 2008, 3, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003049.
13. Barrett, J. What's behind clinical trial data. Appl. Clin. Trials 2009, 18. Available online: http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/appliedclinicaltrials/CRO%2FSponsor/Whats-Behind-Clinical-Trial-Data/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/574840 (accessed on 4 May 2014).
14. Abrams, J.; Erwin, R.; Fyfe, G.; Schilsky, L.; Temple, R. Data Submission Standards and Evidence Requirements. In Proceedings of the Conference on Clinical Cancer Research, Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, Washington, DC, USA, October 2009.
15. Industry Usage of Social and Digital Media Communities in Clinical Research; Kaitin, K.I., Ed.; Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development: Boston, MA, USA, 2014.
16. SPIRIT. Available online: http://www.spirit-statement.org (accessed on 18 February 2014).
17. The Adoption and Impact of Adaptive Trial Design; Kaitin, K.I., Ed.; Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Boston, MA, USA, 2013.