肿瘤临床试验协议修订经验的新基准。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Emily Botto, Zachary Smith, Kenneth Getz
{"title":"肿瘤临床试验协议修订经验的新基准。","authors":"Emily Botto, Zachary Smith, Kenneth Getz","doi":"10.1007/s43441-024-00629-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The drug development industry's focus on cancer-related treatments continues to rise, with narrow patient populations and complex procedures increasing the complexity of oncology protocols at an accelerated rate compared to non-oncology drugs. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development utilized data from a study investigating the impact of protocol amendments to compare how oncology clinical trials differ from non-oncology and identify opportunities to optimize performance in oncology clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixteen drug development industry companies contributed data from 950 protocols and 2,188 amendments to a study conducted in 2022 investigating protocol amendments. Analysis compared differences in amendment impact and causes between 249 oncology and 701 non-oncology protocols.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to non-oncology, oncology protocols had a significantly higher prevalence (72.1% and 91.1%, respectively) and number (3.0 and 4.0, respectively) of protocol amendments. Oncology protocols with amendments had significantly lower participant completion rates compared to oncology protocols without amendments, while no significant differences were found among non-oncology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the study found an increased number of substantial amendments, lower completion rates, and higher dropout rates among oncology protocols compared to before the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Efforts to prevent avoidable protocol amendments in the industry have not been effective in oncology, where increasingly complex designs are reflected in difficult to predict cycle times, barriers to recruitment and retention and an increase in protocol amendments.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Experience in Oncology Clinical Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Botto, Zachary Smith, Kenneth Getz\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-024-00629-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The drug development industry's focus on cancer-related treatments continues to rise, with narrow patient populations and complex procedures increasing the complexity of oncology protocols at an accelerated rate compared to non-oncology drugs. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development utilized data from a study investigating the impact of protocol amendments to compare how oncology clinical trials differ from non-oncology and identify opportunities to optimize performance in oncology clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixteen drug development industry companies contributed data from 950 protocols and 2,188 amendments to a study conducted in 2022 investigating protocol amendments. Analysis compared differences in amendment impact and causes between 249 oncology and 701 non-oncology protocols.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared to non-oncology, oncology protocols had a significantly higher prevalence (72.1% and 91.1%, respectively) and number (3.0 and 4.0, respectively) of protocol amendments. Oncology protocols with amendments had significantly lower participant completion rates compared to oncology protocols without amendments, while no significant differences were found among non-oncology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the study found an increased number of substantial amendments, lower completion rates, and higher dropout rates among oncology protocols compared to before the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Efforts to prevent avoidable protocol amendments in the industry have not been effective in oncology, where increasingly complex designs are reflected in difficult to predict cycle times, barriers to recruitment and retention and an increase in protocol amendments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00629-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00629-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:药物开发行业对癌症相关治疗的关注度持续上升,与非肿瘤药物相比,狭窄的患者群体和复杂的程序加速了肿瘤方案的复杂性。塔夫茨药物开发研究中心利用一项调查方案修订影响的研究数据,比较了肿瘤临床试验与非肿瘤临床试验的不同之处,并确定了优化肿瘤临床试验绩效的机会:16 家药物开发行业公司为 2022 年开展的一项调查方案修订的研究提供了 950 项方案和 2188 项修订的数据。分析比较了 249 个肿瘤学方案和 701 个非肿瘤学方案在修订影响和原因方面的差异:与非肿瘤学方案相比,肿瘤学方案的修订率(分别为 72.1% 和 91.1%)和修订数量(分别为 3.0 和 4.0)都明显更高。与未进行修订的肿瘤学方案相比,进行了修订的肿瘤学方案的参与者完成率明显较低,而在非肿瘤学方案中未发现明显差异。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,研究发现与大流行之前相比,肿瘤学方案的实质性修订数量增加、完成率降低、退出率升高:结论:业界为防止可避免的方案修订所做的努力在肿瘤学领域并不奏效,肿瘤学领域日益复杂的设计反映在难以预测的周期时间、招募和留用的障碍以及方案修订的增加上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Experience in Oncology Clinical Trials.

Background: The drug development industry's focus on cancer-related treatments continues to rise, with narrow patient populations and complex procedures increasing the complexity of oncology protocols at an accelerated rate compared to non-oncology drugs. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development utilized data from a study investigating the impact of protocol amendments to compare how oncology clinical trials differ from non-oncology and identify opportunities to optimize performance in oncology clinical trials.

Methods: Sixteen drug development industry companies contributed data from 950 protocols and 2,188 amendments to a study conducted in 2022 investigating protocol amendments. Analysis compared differences in amendment impact and causes between 249 oncology and 701 non-oncology protocols.

Results: Compared to non-oncology, oncology protocols had a significantly higher prevalence (72.1% and 91.1%, respectively) and number (3.0 and 4.0, respectively) of protocol amendments. Oncology protocols with amendments had significantly lower participant completion rates compared to oncology protocols without amendments, while no significant differences were found among non-oncology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the study found an increased number of substantial amendments, lower completion rates, and higher dropout rates among oncology protocols compared to before the pandemic.

Conclusions: Efforts to prevent avoidable protocol amendments in the industry have not been effective in oncology, where increasingly complex designs are reflected in difficult to predict cycle times, barriers to recruitment and retention and an increase in protocol amendments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信