Aardvark released exploratory data from its stopped Phase 3 HERO trial in Prader-Willi syndrome after FDA lifted the hold, and plans a redesigned Phase 3.
|Articles|January 4, 2016
Number of Countries in Phase III Studies
Author(s)Harold E. Glass, PhD
The number of countries used in commercially sponsored Phase III clinical trials has not changed in recent years.
Advertisement
Are pharmaceutical company Phase III clinical trials becoming more complex? The most broadly based database available, ClinicalTrials.gov, does not support the assertion that clinical trials have become more complex in study/protocol design or execution. Illustrative is the number of countries used in pharmaceutical company sponsored Phase III clinical trials.
The number of countries used in commercially sponsored Phase III clinical trials has not changed in recent years. It is essential to stratify the results or otherwise the data appear to show that the number of countries per study has actually declined, so we stratified the studies by planned study duration: less than one year, 1 to 2 years and 3 or more years. This is important because the longer the planned study, the more likely the study may be opening sites in additional countries. When stratified this way, the data show practically no change over the years covered.
Average Number of Countries per Study by Designed Study Duration by Year
Source: Department of Health Policy and Public Policy, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, using ClinicalTrials.gov data.
Advertisement
Related to this article
Clinical trials capture data faster than ever, but the real bottleneck is the distance between data capture and a decision teams can trust.
In today’s ACT Brief, we examine why the future of AI in trials is a trusted orchestration system rather than a single model, how coordinators rate eSource-enabled workflows, and what a bipartisan bill proposes for reusable trial networks.
The Faster Clinical Trials Act would create an FDA Center for Clinical Trial Innovation and aims to cut trial costs and enrollment time by at least 30%.
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.
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.
In today’s ACT Brief, we examine how sites can avoid both fear-driven and overly aggressive AI adoption, why community-based research needs sustained financial investment, and why patient access matters more than organizational size.
Pacing obesity trial enrollment, anchoring eligibility to stable real-world therapies, and building site and physician relationships improve retention and data quality more than aggressive recruitment or restrictive exclusion criteria do.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trending on Applied Clinical Trials Online
1
Where the Industry Is Headed as Clinical, Operational, and Real-World Data Connect
2
Clinical Trials Do Not Have a Data Problem, They Have a Decision-Readiness Problem
3
ACT Brief: Orchestrated AI Clinical Environments, eSource Coordinator Satisfaction, and Faster Clinical Trials Act
4
Where AI Governance in Clinical Development Falls Short
5