News|Articles|April 10, 2025

Applied Clinical Trials

  • Applied Clinical Trials-04-01-2025
  • Volume 34
  • Issue 2

Benchmarking Risks Across Therapeutic Areas

Study uncovers insights on the impact on safety, patient enrollment/retention, and compliance.

The monitoring of key risk indicators (KRIs) is an established form of risk control in the conduct of clinical trials. It is widely acknowledged that acceptable thresholds for KRIs vary by therapeutic area. However, the unavailability of benchmark data can limit the robustness of mitigations built into protocol and monitoring plans, in accordance with ICH E6 (R3).

We analyzed metrics from 746 studies to derive benchmarks. These were across five common KRIs (adverse events, serious adverse events, screen failure, early termination, and data entry delays) across five therapeutic areas for which we had data from a minimum of 50 studies. For each study and KRI, results were aggregated across one or multiple timepoints into a median study-level result.

In Table 1 at bottom, it appears clearly that therapeutic area has a fair impact and influence on those KRIs. For example, an average 0.7 adverse events are reported during each patient visit in oncology trials, while only 0.07 adverse events per patient visits are reported in infection and respiratory track diseases trials.

KRIs are often monitored for site or regional outliers within a study, based on expected range and/or statistical analysis. This benchmark data provides therapeutic area specificity to the setting of ranges for the most common KRIs. It will be most useful for small studies with minimal scope for statistical outlier detection and for organizations with limited therapeutic area-specific benchmark data of their own.

For studies where thresholds were not set using these benchmarks, study teams may periodically review study KRIs performance against this benchmark to identify any misalignments for further investigation.

These benchmark data provide a useful starting point for study teams to leverage existing data to apply meaningful risk controls. This will ensure execution of monitoring activities in the spirit of the ICH E6 (R3) guideline.

Sylviane de Viron, Data and Knowledge Manager; Sas Maheswaran, Vice President, Strategic Consulting; and Ken McFarlane, Vice President, Strategic Consulting; all with CluePoints


Related to this article

The Human Side of Clinical Trials: How Measuring Readiness at Training Predicts Trial Risk Before It Shows Up in the Data
This episode of The Human Side of Clinical Trials, hosted by Brian S. McGowan, PhD, FACEHP, chief learning officer and co-founder of ArcheMedX, Inc., and Kelly Ritch, chief operating officer of ArcheMedX, Inc., explores why training completion metrics like attendance and quiz scores fail to capture true study readiness, and how measuring both competence and confidence can reveal trial risks before enrollment even begins.
Why Seizure Counts Alone Can't Define Success in Epilepsy Trials
In this video interview, Amélie Lothe, global medical community head for rare epilepsies at UCB Pharma, explains why the full burden of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies extends far beyond clinical symptoms—and why endpoints must reflect what families are actually hoping for.
What This Study Means for Sponsors Still Struggling to Justify RBQM at Scale
In this video interview, Sylviane de Viron of CluePoints and Abigail Dirks of Tufts CSDD explain how ICH E6(R3) and new empirical evidence of RBQM's net financial impact give sponsors the tools they need to build the multi-functional buy-in required for successful adoption—and why RBQM only delivers full value when it replaces, not supplements, traditional monitoring.