|Articles|August 24, 2015

Enrolled Patient Numbers

Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) have constituted the foundation for new drug approvals for over fifty years.

Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) have constituted the foundation for new drug approvals for over fifty years. An Institute of Medicines (IOM) report concluded though in 2008 that RCTs may become unsustainable because of the time and expense involved. In addition, as therapies become more targeted, the financial calculus may make these RCTs even more problematic.

Some industry critics have argued that the increasing number of patients in Phase III clinical trials is actually an industry strategy to improve the statistical strength of clinical trial results and RCTs will actually have to continue to increase in size. As differences between active and non-active arms become more difficult to establish, larger sample sizes are used to improve the chances of reporting statistically significant differences.1 Rather than a response to scientific necessity, the growing number of enrolled patients is a conscious strategy to improve the chances of a favorable regulatory approval decision.

ClinicalTrials.gov reports the actual number of targeted enrolled patients. ClinicalTrials.gov is a federally mandated database with a large, and growing, number of mandatory data fields. One of these mandated fields is number of patients. Another is therapeutic area. These data fields are particularly robust, with missing data under three percent. ClinicalTrials.gov requires that information be reported for any study operating under the auspices of the FDA. This analysis examines Phase III studies conducted by commercial pharmaceutical companies. 

The average number of enrolled patients has not changed since 2008 when the enrolled patients variable became mandatory. Only one MedRHA therapeutic area--vascular disorders--shows a statistically significant difference from the overall results for the six years covered by the analysis. However, the number of patients has actually declined over the period in question.

1Adrian G. Sacher, Lisa W. Le, Natasha B. Leighl. Shifting patterns in the interpretation of phase III clinical trial outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the bar is dropping. Journal of Clinical Oncology. March 2014.

 

Average Patient Enrollment per Phase III Study by Year

 

Source: Department of Health Policy and Public Policy, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, PA

 

 


Related to this article

© photon_photo - © photon_photo - stock.adobe.com
Standardized measurement across five oncology centers found that clinical research coordinators rated eSource-enabled workflows positively (Overall Mean Satisfaction 5.79 of 7), with reduced manual entry and electronic data transfer earning strong marks, while perceived reduction in sponsor and monitor queries lagged as the one domain below threshold.
Where the Industry Is Headed as Clinical, Operational, and Real-World Data Connect
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, describes the industry’s trajectory toward a unified intelligence orchestration environment—and explains why the future isn’t one model that knows everything, but a trusted system that brings the right evidence to the right human decision.
What Expanding AI Ecosystems Mean for Sponsor Complexity and Oversight
In this video interview, Rajneesh Patil, global head of AI, digital, and innovation in clinical development at Syneos Health, argues that CROs must act as orchestrators rather than aggregators—and that the real test of any AI ecosystem is whether it reduces sponsor coordination burden or just hands it back to them.