Developments, news and strategies for drug development specific to phase I through Phase III global clinical trial management, execution, project management and outsourcing. Go→
News, articles and issues specific to clinical trial practice and implementation at the investigative site level. Go→
Strategies and innovations related to how clinical professionals are utilizing technology internal and external to their organizations to advance clinical trials. Go→
News, articles and issues specific to laboratories role in the clinical trial, including ECG, imaging, genotyping, tissue samples and more. Go→
News, developments and strategies for clinical trials conduct in relation to the FDA, EMEA and other global regulatory authorities overseeing the drug development industry. Go→
News, articles and strategies related to clinical trial design which impact postmarketing studies, therapeutic areas, adaptive trials, statistics, protocols and more. Go→
The research and development process continues to be long, complex and costly. Sponsors are challenged with filling pipelines, conducting complex global clinical trials and complying with requirements for additional safety and efficacy data. Because of these challenges, clinical development has been targeted as a key area in need of greater efficiency. While costs associated with drug development are increasing at an annual rate of 11.8%, sales are growing at a much slower pace, in the range of 4.5% to 5.5% globally and 2% to 5% in the United States.1
According to the PhRMA 2012 profile2 the time to develop a drug is 10 to 15 years, and the average cost to develop a compound (including the cost of failures) is as follows:
1970s = $140 million*
As a result of these increased costs and the high rate of failure in clinical development, only two of ten marketed drugs return revenues that match or exceed R&D costs.
All sponsors - whether an individual, company, institution or organization - and investigators conducting clinical trials in life sciences (i.e. pharmaceutical, biotechnology, or device trials) are required to maintain documentation for each clinical trial. Regulatory guidance, such as ICH E6 section 8, addresses only a minimum sub-set of documents that are commonly retained; there are significantly more documents in a TMF as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Definition of a Trial Master File4
Historically, there has been no comprehensive, common industry model for a TMF and therefore each trial sponsor has its own unique TMF structure as defined by its Standard Operating procedures (SOPs). This is a highly inefficient way for our industry to work for many reasons:
Rationale for a TMF Reference Model
To address the gap in TMF standards, in 2009 the TMF Reference Model team was initially created within the Document and Records Management Community of the Drug Information Association to develop a standardized taxonomy that outlines the clear definition and organization of TMF content using standard nomenclature. As of early 2013, the TMF Reference Model team is composed of over 330 representatives from more than 180 life science companies, contract research organizations, consultancies, technical vendors, industry groups, healthcare, academia, not-for-profit / NGO and regulatory agencies spread globally from the USA to Australia. The Asia-Pacific subgroup was an exciting addition in 2012, and to date there are already 25 members in the group.
The Model details the generic content that individually and/or collectively permit the evaluation of the conduct of a clinical trial and the quality of the data produced, in accordance with industry opinion and best practices. Company specific documents, dictated by SOPs, can be added. The Model is a reference for the industry and is not considered mandatory, but rather an opportunity for standardization across the industry. The Model can be adapted to an electronic or paper TMF. It does not endorse, nor require, any specific technology for application. The Model can be downloaded free from the DIA website at: http://www.diahome.org/en/News-and-Publications/Publications-and-Research/EDM-Corner.aspx.
Version 1.0 of the Model, first released in June of 2010, was updated in February of 2011 (V1.1) and again in December of 2011 (V1.2), based on broad feedback provided from end users and reviewers, including the UK and US regulatory agencies MHRA and FDA. Version 2.0 of the Model, released in June 2012, included numerous new aspects:
A subgroup of the TMF RM Team developed the first industry benchmark TMF surveys. The intent was to gather data on the industry’s current TMF processes and to develop benchmarks for quality and effectiveness improvements, both in paper and electronic TMFs. The first survey was completed in 3Q2010, and the second survey followed in 1Q2012. The 2012 survey provides valuable data from 168 respondents (57% of which were sponsors) on current TMF practices. A 2013 survey is currently in progress
Electronic Trial Master Files
The 2012 data also shows an overall trend to implementing eTMFs. The 2012 survey reveals that 28% of the respondents are currently using an eTMF, and 57% are in the process of planning, building or evaluating eTMF. In the 2010 data, only 45% of respondents were actively building or evaluating eTMF. In the 2012 survey, only 3% of respondents replied that they are not considering eTMF.
The 2012 survey results comparing process efficiency when using paper TMF vs. electronic TMF provide a compelling case for transition to an electronic Trial Master File.
The 2012 data indicates further efficiencies can be realized when the Model is applied in an eTMF...
Below are case studies of efforts which provide insight and examples of how the Model has been implemented.
Case Study #1: Jamie Toth, Director, e-TMF Business Lead, Covance
Consistency with data governance and regulatory standards, controlling costs, and satisfying our Sponsors’ needs, required a standard and efficient way of filing essential documents while ensuring the TMF was audit-ready. We aligned leaders to each of the 11 TMF Reference Model zones. The Zone Leaders systematically conducted an analysis of how they were historically filing within the zone, comparing it to the TMF Reference Model, and considered how they wanted to file in the future. This effort was not trivial, nor should be under-estimated.
In early 2011, approximately 65+ employees globally, representing all disciplines of clinical development operations, worked together to map the historical TMF Index to the TMF Reference Model, categorizing each artifact (value-added or wet-ink) and ultimately developed the future state TMF Index. Looking across the operations, Phase I – Phase IV, each Zone obtained agreement from key stakeholders. Critically important to the effort was ensuring buy-in from the various parties responsible for translating these processes to our Sponsors.
While the work may not have been trivial (~12 months and ~65 people), it was an important milestone in building the TMF structure that would eventually become our new eTMF system. The new TMF Index is being used with all in-flight paper studies and within the eTMF system launched in September 2012. Through the work of this team, we removed ~72 business file documents, resulting in a significant reduction of filing work effort. We continue to evaluate the TMF Reference Model updates as they are released. Our process evaluates the updates and determines whether to incorporate the updates into our TMF Index via a Change Control Review Board, which implements changes for the TMF Index and SOPs, in addition to the eTMF system configuration.
Case Study #2: Martin Thorley, TMF Content Integration Lead, Pfizer
Pfizer is currently implementing a new eTMF process and software solution where the focus has been very much on quality and standards. At any point in time Pfizer has hundreds and hundreds of clinical trials ongoing in every size, shape and form. Therefore, having consistency of quality and standards is crucial to the success of managing and demonstrating control of a Study TMF.
Among the many benefits to using a central single eTMF repository are the ability to present a cohesive and centrally accessible TMF to study teams, auditors and inspectors in any geographical location as well as interoperability with other systems and supporting downstream activities. This eliminates the need for:
Because getting content out is equally as important as getting content in, utilizing standards in the form of metadata not only ensures consistency in what is put into the eTMF but makes the possibility of retrieving the content more robust. Additionally, interoperability of a single eTMF with other systems, i.e. CTMS, brings huge benefits in the reusability of data and elimination of transcriptional errors as well as the need for extensive, expensive and duplicative QC processes.
Who Benefits from a TMF Reference Model?
Improved Process Efficiency
How does the TMF RM facilitate process efficiency?
The Case for the TMF Reference Model becoming a Standard?
Taking all of the facts into account, should the TMF Reference Model become in Industry Standard? A Standard can be defined as “something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model”.
An effective standard includes the following key features:
Many standards fail due to lack of compliance, communication to the relevant community, lack of compatibility with reality and an inability to map to the current common situation. If the Model is to become a Standard, then these pitfalls need to be avoided.
The case studies and our 2010 and 2012 surveys provide compelling data and a clear case for establishing a common model for the organization and management of the Trial Master File. Standards promote interoperability, increase quality and reduce effort for all clinical trials and are foundational for transition to an electronic Trial Master File, which provides significant process efficiencies in the conduct of clinical trials.
As the Model continues to evolve through implementation and improvement, there is an opportunity to offset some of the challenges that industry is currently facing. Establishing consensus and working as a group rather than individually will ensure that the Model is an enduring standard which continues to provide significant value to all participants in the R&D process.
It ain’t easy, but it’s worth it.
You are invited to follow TMF RM activities on LinkedIn by joining the TMF Reference Model group
About the Authors
Maryanne Quinn, President, Integrated Submission Strategies (ISS), is Chair of the TMF RM Communication Team and has over 25 years of experience in the Life Sciences Industry and can be reached at ISS.Quinn@verizon.net
Karen Redding, Global Business Development Director of Phlexglobal, is the Co-Chair of the TMF Reference Model Group and can be reached at email@example.com
Fran Ross, Principal Consultant, Clin/Reg Optimization | Paragon Solutions, is Chair of the TMF RM Survey Team and Lead for Asia Pacific SubTeam and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
Editor’s Note: A version of this article is currently in peer-review and is slated to appear in Applied Clinical Trials magazine in 2014.
1. Neuer, et al., “The Upfront Cost Hurdle of EDC”, Applied Clinical Trials Online, April 1, 2010
2. 2012 PhRMA 2012 Profile; www.pharma.org
3. ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, E 6, Section 8
4. Rammell Consulting, Ltd.