Register Now: Beyond EDC: Designing a Connected Data Strategy for Predictive Clinical Development
|Articles|August 10, 2015

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Show Minimal Rise

Few topics occasion the lamentations of clinical trial professionals more than the topic of patient inclusion/exclusion criteria in clinical protocols.

Few topics occasion the lamentations of clinical trial professionals more than the topic of patient inclusion/exclusion criteria in clinical protocols.  Presentations and publications have pointed to dramatic increases in the number of these criteria.  The data sources for these claims have often been proprietary databases, sometimes associated with commercial firms offering products and services to identify and reduce the number of criteria.  ClinicalTrials.gov represents an important public data source to establish base line numbers of inclusion/exclusion criteria.   A review of these publically available data shows that there is a small increase in the number of commercially funded Phase III inclusion/exclusion criteria, but nowhere as dramatic as is sometimes portrayed in industry press and industry conferences.

 

ClinicalTrials.gov is a federal database, mandated since 2007 for all organizations conducting studies under FDA auspices.  Over time the number of mandated variables has increased.  Missing data for any of the variables is often close to zero, and rarely exceeds 3%.  Although companies almost always enter fairly extensive information, there is no way of knowing for certain that all inclusion/exclusion criteria have been included.  For example companies may simply just stop entering criteria after a self-determined number.  However, this seems unlikely since the criteria counts followed a near perfect negative binomial distribution.

 

Every year there is a statistically significant 0.41 increase in inclusion/exclusion criteria counts in commercially funded Phase III studies.  Although the increase is not large, the mere size of the database itself helps to make that even mild changes statistically significant.  Two MedDRA therapeutic areas, renal and urinary disorders as well as gastrointestinal disorders, differ statistically significantly from the overall trend, evincing slight declines in the total number of criteria.

Average Number of Inclusion/Exclusion

Criteria per 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.