Analytics

CRO/Sponsor

Clinical Operations

Clinical Trial Supply Chain

DE&I

Data Management

Early Phase Development

Emerging Technology

Executive Roundtable

Feature Article

Industry Trends

Investigative Sites

Metrics and Benchmarks

Oncology

Online Extras

Patient Participation

Peer-Reviewed Articles

Protocol Design

Real World Evidence

Regulatory

Risk-Based Monitoring

Study Start-Up

Therapeutic Areas

Trial Design

Vendor Strategy & Collaboration

eClinical

mHealth

News

Publications

All Publications

E-Books

Media

Editorial Podcasts

Editorial Videos

Conferences

Conference Coverage

Conference Listing

Columns

All Columns

A Closing Thought

Clinical Trial Insights

View from Brussels

View from Washington

Resources

Advertise

Blogs

Brand Insights

Events

Front & Center

White Papers

Webcasts

Subscribe

Latest solutions, case studies, interviews, practical articles for clinical trials operations, data management, technology, investigative sites and services.

About

Contact Us

Editorial Contacts

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Applied Clinical Trials Online

LinkedIN

Instagram

Twitter

Facebook

Youtube

Soundcloud

Threads

Spotlight

2023 Salary Survey

Topic

1rem

Authors

Gail Elber is the acting associate editor of Applied Clinical Trials.

Today, clinical trial data collection faces increased complexity due to data duplication between research systems and electronic health records (EHRs), particularly in oncology studies. Manual processes, such as data entry, consume significant time and resources. Over 50% of clinical trial data is duplicated between research systems and hospital EHRs, with around 20% of total study costs typically allocated to data duplication and verification.

The number of data points collected in oncology trials has surged dramatically over the past decade, driven by advances in genomic technologies, digital health tools, and personalized medicine. While this increase in data volume enhances our ability to understand and treat cancer more effectively, it also presents significant challenges in data management and analysis. In typical Phase III oncology trials, approximately 10,000 data points are collected per patient. However, in trials incorporating genomic and digital health data, this number can multiply ten to a hundredfold.

As a result, study sites, particularly clinical research coordinators (CRCs), face increased workloads, complex data management tasks, and the need for specialized training, leading to higher personnel costs. Sponsor companies incur additional expenses due to investments in advanced data management tools, extended trial timelines, and source data verification (SDV). To mitigate these challenges, sites and sponsors must explore innovative solutions, collaborate with stakeholders and vendors, and ensure regulatory compliance to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and enhance cancer treatment outcomes.

EHR to electronic data capture (EHR-to-EDC), or eSource technology and processes, offers a promising solution, delivering significant time and cost savings by streamlining data transfer.

The European EIT Health-supported EHR2EDC project estimated a total time of three minutes per data point in oncology trials, demonstrating substantial efficiency gains.

This paper presents a use case from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), emphasizing the critical role of CRCs. It highlights the burdensome nature of current double-entry processes and supports the three-minute-per-data-point estimate. Additionally, it revisits the value generated for investigational sites and sponsors by introducing this technology, exploring the transformative potential of eSource for future clinical trials.

The study employs a qualitative structured interview guide to understand the data entry process during clinical trials. An in-depth, semi-structured interview was conducted with an experienced CRC to gather insights into workflows, challenges, and perceptions regarding data entry tasks. Open-ended questions allowed for rich, nuanced responses, capturing the complexity and variability of the process. The validity and generalizability of the interview outcomes were assessed and found to correspond well with CRC practices at MSK.

Gynet Santiago is a seasoned CRC at MSK, with 16 years of experience and involvement in over 50 clinical studies. She summarizes her role as, “I am responsible for collecting, extracting, and entering data for research projects, databases, and clinical trial protocols. This includes reviewing patient charts, existing databases, and other sources within a specific timeframe.”

The CRC is pivotal in executing clinical trials, with responsibilities spanning various trial phases to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and ethical standards, while prioritizing patient safety and data integrity. During trial execution, CRCs manage participant recruitment, screening, and enrollment, ensuring informed consent is obtained. They accurately collect and document clinical data, monitor participants for adverse events, and ensure adherence to the trial protocol. CRCs act as liaisons between participants, investigators, and sponsors, maintaining communication and addressing issues. They also ensure regulatory compliance by maintaining accurate documentation and assisting with audits. These responsibilities are crucial for the smooth operation of trials, data integrity, and participant safety. Additionally, CRCs often manage multiple studies simultaneously, requiring efficient context switching throughout the week.

Navigating the complexities of EDC data entry

In clinical trials, EDC data entry is a multi-faceted process involving several crucial steps performed by a CRC (see Figure 1). This process, while systematic, is often challenging due to its time-consuming nature and the meticulous attention to detail required. 

The following is an overview of how a CRC manages the process of retrieving and manually entering data into an EDC system.

 One of the first tasks a CRC faces is finding and allocating time for EDC data entry. This often involves scheduling data entry activities around other demanding clinic responsibilities. For instance, a CRC might set aside Friday afternoons every two weeks for data entry once all other clinic activities have been addressed. Prioritizing EDC data entry among other tasks can be challenging, as the coordinator must balance immediate clinical duties with the time-consuming process of data entry. The irregularity and unpredictability of clinical activities can make it difficult to allocate consistent time slots for this purpose. Or as Santiago puts it, “Each day is based on what the priority is for that day, that’s how I know how to allocate my time. So, for example, if there’s a data lock coming up or an audit coming up for a particular study, that’s always going to be a top priority for me for that day or for that week.”

Patient information retrieval and manual searching for patient information. 

Once time is allocated, the CRC manually searches for patient information within EHRs. Unlike records specifically designed for clinical trials, these records are complex and primarily geared toward billing, with patient information spread across various locations, pages, and fields, including free-text entries. Confidence in the data source can vary, and locating the correct data points requires a detailed, page-by-page review, making this step particularly time-consuming.

The complexity of EHR systems presents additional challenges. Patient information is not always recorded in a standardized manner, which means that the CRC must have a thorough understanding of how different healthcare providers document data. This lack of standardization can lead to difficulties in finding specific data points, as information might be spread across multiple pages or hidden within lengthy notes. Santiago explains: “The way that EHR is set up is, once you open the records, it displays different categories of information in a particular folder, and it can be a challenge to locate the right data point because of the large amount of information that you must read through to find that correct data point.”

After retrieving the necessary patient information, the CRC logs into the sponsor’s EDC system using the appropriate URL and credentials. The next step involves navigating the EDC system to find the correct case report form (CRF) for data entry. This can be challenging due to the system’s complexity and the need to ensure that the information entered matches the patient’s records accurately. The CRC must be familiar with the EDC system’s layout and functionality to efficiently locate the correct CRF pages. It is a demanding process as Santiago explains: “It really is familiarizing yourself with the EDC. So EHR is one aspect of it where you’re able to know where it is. And now you must go to the EDC and confirm, okay, I’m entering this information in the proper place that it needs to be for the database.” And sometimes errors can multiply—“There’s challenges when you’re entering data into the EDC and inaccurate system queries require information that’s not always available,” adds Santiago.

After entering the data, the CRC reviews it for accuracy and resolves any discrepancies. This review process might involve understanding the data’s meaning, consulting with other study team members, and performing self-quality assurance checks to ensure data integrity. Ensuring data accuracy is crucial, as any errors can lead to significant issues in the trial’s results and regulatory compliance. Therefore, the CRC must be diligent in verifying that the data entered the EDC system accurately reflects the information in the patient’s medical records. Santiago highlights one common issue: “Sometimes the same data is being entered into different places in the EDC. So, I’m always pushing back and saying, why are we entering the same data in multiple places?”

Query resolution and collateral time efforts. 

Queries from the sponsor or contract research organization (CRO) can arise weeks or months after initial data entry, requiring the CRC to spend additional time for resolution. This involves revisiting medical records to locate specific data points, often repeating original data retrieval steps. If significant time has passed, the CRC may need to refamiliarize themselves with the patient’s records and data points.

Managing queries is time-consuming and demanding, often due to double data entry. As Santiago explains, “Query resolution is part of the role. I would say 50% is data entry, and 50% can be query resolution, especially if a study is active.” Queries can be frequent and complex. Adds Santiago: “Queries can be raised weekly or even daily, and sponsors usually require them to be resolved within one or two weeks.” This process involves thorough research, confirming data accuracy. During this process, the CRC may also need to check or verify with other study personnel to address the query. Monitoring visits by sponsors or CROs are crucial for ensuring data quality and protocol adherence. These visits involve reviewing data entered into the EDC system and verifying its accuracy against source documents. The CRC may also implement process improvements based on queries and share these with the broader study team.

The interview highlights the multifaceted role of a CRC, including data entry, patient information retrieval, and managing queries. The CRC must navigate systems such as EDCs, clinical trial management systems, and EHRs, often facing challenges such as locating specific data points and handling system queries. Effective query resolution is crucial, often consuming as much time as initial data entry, underscoring the need for efficient processes and tools to streamline these tasks.

Three minutes and 5,000 hours: A significant investment of time

During the European EIT Health-sponsored EHR2EDC project from 2018 to 2020, AstraZeneca and Sanofi collaborated on a retrospective analysis to estimate the average total time spent per data point per patient in a Phase II-III oncology study. The combined analysis determined that local study personnel spend at least three minutes per data point. This time encompasses all the tasks we covered in the interview, including data searches, manual entry, checking, reviewing, and resolving queries.

To put this in context, for an oncology study involving 10 patients, each with 10,000 data points, this equates to about 5,000 hours of work. Scaling up to an ordinary Phase III study with over 200 patients, the time and associated costs increase exponentially (see Figure 2).

Based on the MSK use case, we can conclude that straightforward data points can be entered within three minutes total time if the data is normal. However, complex data points, such as those involving adverse events or abnormal lab values, can take significantly longer. Santiago explained that query resolution is a significant part of her workload, often consuming 50% of her time. Queries can range from simple confirmations to complex requests requiring additional information from treating physicians or further investigation. She noted that resolving queries can be particularly challenging and time-consuming when dealing with historical data. She agreed that the estimation of three to five minutes per data point is reasonable for straightforward cases but emphasized that overall time varies. Santiago also highlighted the potential for eSource technology to streamline data entry and reduce manual processes and query resolution, potentially saving more than 50% of the current time required. This underscores the variability and complexity of data management in clinical research.

What is eSource technology and what can it do?

EDC-to-EDC, or eSource, is a streamlined process specifically designed to transfer routinely collected EHR data relevant to clinical research, particularly data collected at investigator/hospital sites during clinical trials (including randomized controlled trials). This transfer occurs with patient consent, meeting regulatory eSource requirements, into either an EDC system or the sponsor’s study database. It’s important to emphasize that EHR as eSource does not involve replacing staff or vendors for data entry at sites, duplicative data capture, or extraction of datasets from the EHR.

In the case of the “eSource data flow” and the transfer of mapped study data from EHR to study data base, it will always be in the control of the CRC, who will have oversight and final say of data transfer. In this perspective, the eSource technology should be viewed as a “virtual research assistant.”

Contrasting traditional EDC trial with eSource-enabled trial

The eSource approach improves clinical trial conduct. By automating data transfer from existing EHR directly to EDC systems, it eliminates manual entry, reducing investigator site burden and enhancing data quality (see Figure 3). This automation minimizes transcription errors, improving data accuracy and streamlining and sometimes eliminating SDV, leading to cost savings and faster trial timelines. Furthermore, eSource fosters collaboration by integrating EHR and EDC systems. Sponsors gain valuable insights into site data collection processes, enabling the optimization of electronic CRFs to align with specific EHR capabilities. This collaborative approach ultimately enhances overall clinical trial efficiency.

Ongoing studies at MSK utilizing data from past clinical trials to simulate feasibility and outcomes with eSource technology have shown promising results. These findings strongly support the value generation as outlined in this report.

Consider an example: An industry-sponsored oncology trial includes three investigational sites, each with 10 patients. All sites meet the minimum eSource HCO requirements for early adopters, including EHRs with structured data and coding standards for data domains such as laboratory results, vital signs, and medications. They have adopted the FHIR® (Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) standard to ensure smooth information flow across platforms and organizations.

In this example, all sites are eSource-enabled, encompassing 300,000 data points (10,000 per patient) across the mentioned domains, accounting for over 50% of the entire study data. Implementing eSource technology in this study is expected to significantly reduce site burden, cutting site staff time by 50%, equivalent to more than 2.5 full-time equivalent months per site. Most issues from double entry and query resolution will be eliminated, leading to faster trial completion. There will be a significant reduction in SDV from the sponsor’s side and a notable decrease in study costs, estimated at $150.000 per site.

In the coming years, hybrid eSource-enabled trials will include more eSource-capable sites among traditional “double-entry EDC” sites. This hybrid approach may not immediately reduce the study database lock time, but it will enhance efficiency and reduce site burden at eSource sites. A transformational shift will occur when trials become 100% eSource-enabled. These trials will likely have fewer but larger super-sites, transferring over 80% of all study data as eSource. This shift will enhance value generation for investigational sites by reducing the total time per data point by over 90%. This improvement in efficiency and resource utilization will almost completely eradicate SDV and other time-consuming processes. Fully eSource-enabled studies are expected to reduce total study costs by over 20%, achieving database lock significantly faster.

This MSK use case highlights the significant benefits of eSource technology and corroborate time metrics in supporting CRC and site personnel during trial execution. The widespread adoption of eSource technology represents a paradigm shift in hospital clinical trials, optimizing processes, saving time, and reducing double entry. If innovations such as eSource, or EHR-to-EDC, were fully implemented, they could also enable research that might otherwise not happen, paving the way for the development of medicines that otherwise would never reach patients.

, PhD, is Industry Science Director, i-HD; 

 is a Clinical Research Coordinator, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK); 

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK)

1. Kalankesh, L.R.; Monaghesh, E. Utilization of EHRs for Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review. 

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-024-02177-7

2. Passut, C. Oncology Trials Outpacing Rest of the Field in Complexity and Duration. CenterWatch. May 10, 2021. 

https://www.centerwatch.com/articles/25599-oncology-trials-outpacing-rest-of-the-field-in-complexity-and-duration-study-shows

3. Monira, S; Toral, M. Possibilities and Challenges for Digital Medicine in Oncology Clinical Trials.

https://acrpnet.org/2023/08/possibilities-and-challenges-for-digital-medicine-in-oncology-clinical-trials/

4. Parab, A.A.; Mehta, P.; Vattikola, A.; et al. Accelerating the Adoption of eSource in Clinical Research: A TransCelerate Point of View. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32128701/

5. Garza, M.; Myneni, S.; Nordo, A.; et al. eSource for Standardized Health Information Exchange in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30741183/

6. Sundgren, M.; Keong Wong, W. eSource Interoperability Between EHR and EDC. 

s://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/view/esource-interoperability-between-ehr-and-edc

7. Ammour, N.; Griffon, N.; Djadi-Prat, J.; et al. TransFAIR Study: A European Multicenter Experimental Comparison of EHR2EDC Technology to the Usual Manual Method for eCRF Data Collection. 

https://informatics.bmj.com/content/30/1/e100602

8. Beresniak, A.; Schmidt, A.; Proeve, J.; et al. Cost-Benefit Assessment of Using Electronic Health Records Data for Clinical Research Versus Current Practices: Contribution of the Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research (EHR4CR) European Project. 2016. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26600286/

A use case by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center explores the potential of EHR-to-EDC.

Streamlining Clinical Trials with eSource: Insights from MSK

This webinar will focus on common requirements and overarching challenges to ensuring quality data and successful end-to-end completion in capturing endpoints, specifically in clinical trials for obesity.

https://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/act_w/weight-management

Global obesity has more than doubled since 1990, with one in eight people currently living with obesity. As of 2022, there are over 2.5 billion adults who are overweight, of which approximately 890 million are obese. Childhood and adolescent obesity has quadrupled, posing long-term health risks. Obesity is linked to increased risk of noncommunicable diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers. There are many unanswered questions related to obesity, often revolving around the most effective interventions for long-term weight management and the underlying genetic, behavioral and environmental factors that contribute to obesity. This has led to an exponential increase in interest and demand for effective, long- acting novel treatment options over the last 5 years. As of the latest available data, there are 1,072 ongoing clinical trials involving obesity.

This webinar will focus on the various digital health technologies (DHTs) that measure endpoints currently being used in weight management studies and the challenges and considerations around the use of these technologies.



Assess the different possibilities of use and criteria in choosing DHTs for clinical trials.


Understand the benefits of using of multiple DHTs in weight management clinical trials and what to consider.


Learn best practices from examples where technologies were used in combination, such as weight scales, BIAs, eCOAs, CGM, and ECGs.


Director, Strategic Solutions, Connected Devices


With a background in medicine and clinical research education, 

 has more than 20 years of experience working in the CRO industry managing centralized cardiac safety operations and data management. He also is experienced in creating end-to-end solutions for using medical devices data as a part of the safety and efficacy endpoints for clinical drug development and device trials.

In his current role with IQVIA, Raval works on the protocol, program digital endpoint strategy and facilitates selection of the best fit medical grade digital technology for the specific protocol or program from scientific, medical and regulatory aspects. Raval has been a speaker on multiple forums and has authored white papers and publications related to scenarios using medical devices within clinical trials directly from a participant’s home and through participating sites. He is based in Mumbai, India.





Director, Strategic Solutions Lead, Endocrinology and Imaging


IQVIA

As a strategic solutions lead within the connected devices team at IQVIA, 

is responsible for developing the strategy and design requirements for device- driven data collection. He is focused primarily on devices associated with endocrinology, but he also supports imaging. Wulff has worked in the pharmaceutical and CRO industry of over 24 years. His previous roles have included working in and leading project management, data management and statistical programming organizations.

Over the course of his career, Wulff has held roles at Eli Lilly and Co., i3 Statprobe, Indiana University Health, PharmaNet, inVentiv Health Clinical and Syneos Health. He earned his bachelor’s in telecommunications and master’s in information and communication science from Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana.

Webinar Date/Time: Thursday, September 12th, 2024 at 11am EDT|8am PDT|4pm BST|5pm CEST       

Webcasts: Clinical Operations

Webcasts: Data Management

Webcasts: Patient Participation

Webcasts: Protocol Design

Webcasts: Real-World Evidence

  Transforming Weight Management Trials: Embracing Digital Health Technologies

Think you need an eTMF? I think you know the answer. Listen in and learn how IQVIA can guide you to a quick, effective implementation.

https://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/act_w/etmf-for-you


The regulatory environment in which clinical trials are conducted is increasingly complex. New and changing regulations are a constant. Technological advances in eTMF systems have provided sponsors and CROs powerful tools that enable compliance with strict regulatory oversight. But these same tools can also be a double-edged sword, providing health authority inspectors new and powerful ways to observe and audit trial-related documentation. Have we conjured a monster? Are these beloved eTMF systems our 

?

Please join this IQVIA-sponsored eTMF webinar to learn what to look for when adopting eTMF technology. Our eTMF team has worked with clients across the spectrum, from large sponsors and the world’s largest CROs, to small biotech firms and boutique CROs. Our eTMF has spanned many changes in delivery approaches (on premises to SaaS), from the beginning of the TMF Reference Model through the latest changes in regulations and oversight, and from automated workflow processes to the introduction of artificial intelligence (AI). This breadth of expertise and technology allows us to guide you to an informed decision when it comes to implementing and adopting eTMF technology.



Learn about the changes in the eTMF environment and regulations and how they have shaped eTMF systems


Acquire approaches to quickly implement a full-featured eTMF that grows with your business


Evaluate how AI may change the way you think and operate an eTMF


Director, Client Services, eTMF Solutions


IQVIA Digital Products & Solutions (DP&S)



leads the Client Services organization supporting IQVIA’s eTMF SaaS application and related technologies. Lou’s team performs new client implementations, provides migration and integration services, and delivers a variety of Professional and Managed Services for IQVIA’s eTMF customers. Lou has 30+ years of experience delivering software solutions and professional services to clients in Life Sciences and is a frequent speaker at industry conferences clinical quality, compliance, and related technologies.



Associate Director, Solution Engineering, eTMF Solutions


IQVIA Technologies

As Associate Director, Solution Engineering 

is the lead SE for the Wingspan eTMF since 2017. Charlie is responsible for sharing in-depth, technical knowledge of IQVIA clinical technologies with clients.

With over 20 years’ experience in technical sales and customer service, 12 of that in the TMF space, Charlie is known for his ability to manage teams, develop productive business relationships and provide innovative solutions for customers.

He graduated from the University of CT with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Industrial Psychology with a focus on time and motion studies and a minor in Marketing.

Webinar Date/Time: Wednesday, September 11th, 2024 at 11am EDT|8am PDT|4pm BST|5pm CEST   

Webcasts: Regulatory, Other

Webcasts: CRO/Sponsor

What eTMF is Right for You?

In the clinical trial ecosystem these days, patient-centricity has become quite the buzzword. And for good reason: Incorporating the patient perspective into study design and execution is downright good for business. According to a report by The Economist Intelligence Unit, which compared 4,000 clinical trials including significant patient-centered elements with 20,000 traditionally run trials over a five-year period, the trials that prioritized the patient experience were nearly 20% more likely to end with positive results (87% chance of product launch versus 68%, respectively).

Yet, even with this burgeoning understanding in the industry, many studies still leave a lot to be desired when it comes to protecting the needs of the patient—an unpleasant truth that Joel Vandenbrink found out when he took part in a clinical trial for Crohn’s Disease just a few years ago.

Protocol deviations heap undue burden on patients

Over the course of his participation in the months-long trial, not one but two of Joel’s samples were lost due to protocol deviations, which required him to come back in for collection. These additional trips not only increased his already substantial burden—including stool and blood samples needing to be collected every four to eight weeks and multiple colonoscopies—but it also left him with a bad taste in his mouth regarding the study as a whole. When asked how this experience affected him during TruLab’s webinar “Patient Burden in Clinical Trials: Ethics of Biospecimen Management,” Joel did not mince words:

“It reiterates that you are just a specimen and a number on a page. You are a means to an end, and you start to begin to feel a little bit not taken care of. Just a lack of care, and if it goes far enough, you begin to feel like you're being dehumanized,” Joel said. “You’re just part of this thing, where they need these specimens from you, and nobody really seems to care what happens and how you’re treated along the way.”

Protocol deviations are not patient-centric

Sentiments like these—feelings of “not [being] taken care of” and being “made to feel like a lab rat,” as Joel goes on to describe his experience later in the webinar—are consistently tied to the industry’s pervasive challenges with patient recruitment and retention. And this is indeed a serious problem: Upwards of 80% of clinical trials experience costly delays due to their failure to recruit and maintain adequate sample sizes.

 While “having a positive, trusting relationship” with researchers is commonly cited as a facilitator to participation, studies also show that the inverse is an even greater barrier, particularly among minority patient populations.

 Indeed, “the rapport built between the investigating team and the participant plays a vital role in retention,” write Subramani Poongotha, et al.

It’s also, importantly, these negative feelings that patient-centric approaches to clinical trials attempt to mitigate. As Joel’s experience demonstrates, designing trial protocols that minimize deviations can go a long way toward nurturing these integral relationships.

But that isn’t just because it reduces inconveniences. As the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development recently pointed out, some protocol deviations can be so significant that they “put the rights and safety of study volunteers at risk.”

It’s perhaps no wonder, then, that the FDA has started to take notice, making “patient-centricity a matter of regulatory necessity,” Meerim Almazbek explains.

 While protocol deviations remain the number one cause of enforcement action by the agency—30% of all warning letters sent to sites are for failure to follow the established protocol—the agency is doubling down on its commitment to patients with the introduction of its Patient-Focused Drug Development guidelines.

 Among the many facets of this systematic guidance, “minimizing the burden of patient participation in clinical trials” is central.

But it also comes down to data integrity: How many samples can a trial site lose before the overall data gets called into question? How trustworthy is a clinical trial methodology that passes the burden of its mistakes onto patients? According to Julius Wilder, MD, PhD, principal investigator and associate professor at Duke University’s School of Medicine, these are the types of questions the FDA will be thinking about as the patient burden becomes increasingly front of mind when determining what high-quality research looks like.

The imperative is clear: Sponsors can no longer afford to 

do their utmost to minimize protocol deviations that harm the patient-centricity of their studies.

, vice president, client services, TruLab

The Innovation Imperative: The Future of Drug Development. The Economist Intelligence Unit. June 28, 2018. 

Patient Burden in Clinical Trials: Ethics of Biospecimen Management. TruLab. June 30, 2022. 

Desai M. Recruitment and Retention of Participants in Clinical Studies: Critical Issues and Challenges. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2020 Apr-Jun;11(2):51-53. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_6_20. Epub 2020 May 6. PMID: 32670827; PMCID: PMC7342339.

Getz K. How Much Does a Day of Delay in a Clinical Trial Really Cost? Applied Clinical Trials. June 6, 2024. 

https://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/view/how-much-does-a-day-of-delay-in-a-clinical-trial-really-cost-

Sheridan R, Martin-Kerry J, Hudson J, Parker A, Bower P, Knapp P. Why Do Patients Take Part in Research? An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Psychosocial Barriers and Facilitators. Trials. 2020 Mar 12;21(1):259. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3. Erratum in: Trials. 2020 Oct 8;21(1):840. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04793-2. PMID: 32164790; PMCID: PMC7069042.

New Poll Shows Minority Populations Support Clinical Trials to Improve Health of Others. Medical Xpress. July 31, 2013. 

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-07-poll-minority-populations-clinical-trials.html

Poongothai S, Anjana RM, Aarthy R, Unnikrishnan R, Narayan KMV, Ali MK, Karkuzhali K, Mohan V. Strategies for Participant Retention in Long Term Clinical Trials: A Participant-centric Approach. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2023 Jan-Mar;14(1):3-9. doi: 10.4103/picr.picr_161_21. Epub 2022 Jul 23. PMID: 36909219; PMCID: PMC10003583.

Getz K, Smith Z, Jain A, Krauss R. Benchmarking Protocol Deviations and Their Variation by Major Disease Categories. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science. 2022 Jul;56(4):632-636. doi: 10.1007/s43441-022-00401-4. Epub 2022 Apr 4. PMID: 35378712; PMCID: PMC8979478.

Almazbek M. How Patient-Centered Strategies Are Transforming Clinical Trials. Clinical Research News. September 2, 2022. 

https://www.clinicalresearchnewsonline.com/news/2022/09/02/how-patient-centered-strategies-are-transforming-clinical-trials

CDER Patient-Focused Drug Development. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/cder-patient-focused-drug-development

Minimizing protocol deviations is a simple, yet effective way for sites to keep trials patient-centric.

Gail Elber

Articles

Latest Updated Articles