New Estimates on the Cost of a Delay Day in Drug Development.

Two frequently cited figures by clinical research insiders and observers - the cost of missing a day to generate prescription drug sales and the cost of a day to conduct a clinical trial - are outdated and based on anecdotal evidence. In late 2023, the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted empirical research to gather more accurate and granular estimates and to test whether average sales per day have changed over time. 645 drugs launched since 2000, and 409 clinical trial budgets were drawn from commercially available and proprietary data sets and analyzed. The results indicate that a single day equals approximately $500,000 in lost prescription drug or biologic sales, with daily prescription sales for infectious, hematologic, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal diseases among the highest. The results also show that each year, the average sales per day of prescription drugs and biologics has decreased by approximately $80,000-$100,000. The estimated direct daily cost to conduct a clinical trial is approximately $40,000 per day for phase II and III clinical trials, with those in respiratory, rheumatology, and dermatology having the highest relative daily direct costs.

Examining the Association Between DCT Solutions Use and Participant Diversity in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Whereas anecdotal reports suggest that the use of decentralized clinical trial (DCT) solutions can improve participant diversity in clinical trials there is no quantitative evidence to support such reports. METHODS: Tufts CSDD conducted this initial study based on data collected from prior research and publicly available data drawn from Clinicaltrials.gov to compare and contrast participant diversity in trials which included various DCT solutions - virtual visits or televisits, home visits, devices or wearables, and the use of local labs. RESULTS: The results of this analysis indicate that the use of local labs is associated with a lower percentage of white participants; the use of virtual visits or televisits is associated with a lower percentage of Black participants; and the use of devices or wearables was not associated with any significant change in participant demographics. The use of home visits could not be tested for significant differences.

Benchmarking Site Activation and Patient Enrollment.

Clinical trial conduct poses numerous challenges, many pertaining to patient recruitment. The primary objectives of this study were to update benchmarks on site activation and patient enrollment gathered in previous Tufts CSDD studies and examine current usage of recruitment and retention tactics. The data collection focused on site activation and patient enrollment metrics used for studies. Analyses were conducted comparing results from 2012, 2019 and 2023. The results indicate that actual enrollments exceeded planned enrollments for a majority of studies and timelines were shorter than expected. In addition, differences were found for enrollment achievement by global region and site type. Further investigation into studies conducted during a later time frame and post-pandemic could be compared with current benchmarks to examine differences.

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.

New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Practices, Trends and their Impact on Clinical Trial Performance.

The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) conducted a follow-up study in 2022 to assess trends in protocol amendment experiences and the impact amendments have had on clinical trial performance, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sixteen pharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations provided data on 950 protocols and 2188 amendments. The results show that, since 2015, the prevalence of protocols with at least one amendment in phases I-IV has increased substantially (from 57 to 76%) and the mean number of amendments per protocol has increased 60% to 3.3, up from 2.1. Phase I and III protocols saw the highest increases in the mean number of amendments implemented per protocol. A much higher percentage of amendments-77%-were deemed unavoidable with regulatory agency requests and changes to the study strategy as the top reasons cited for amending a protocol. The total average duration to implement an amendment has nearly tripled during the past decade. The time from identifying the need-to-amend to last oversight approval now takes an average of 260 days and the mean duration during which investigative sites operate with different versions of the clinical trial protocol spans 215 days. Protocols that implemented at least one amendment were more effective at increasing patient screening volume and reducing the actual number of patients enrolled relative to plan. Lastly, the prevalence of protocols with at least one amendment and mean number of amendments was significantly higher for protocols conducted during the pandemic.

Comprehensive Assessment of Risk-Based Quality Management Adoption in Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Risk-based monitoring (RBM) and risk-based quality management (RBQM) offer a compelling approach to increase efficiency, speed and quality in clinical trials by prioritizing and mitigating risks related to essential safety and efficacy data. Since 2013, the FDA and EMA have encouraged the use of RBM/RBQM, however adoption has been slow with limited understanding of the barriers to adoption. METHODS: The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted an online survey among pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and contract research organizations and gathered 206 responses on 32 distinct RBQM practices. RESULTS: On average, companies implemented RBQM in 57% of their clinical trials. Lower levels of adoption were observed among companies conducting fewer than 25 trials annually (48%) compared to those conducting more than 100 trials annually (63%). Primary barriers to adoption include lack of organizational knowledge and awareness, mixed perceptions of the value proposition of RBQM, and poor change management planning and execution. Insights into improving the level of adoption are discussed.

Quantifying Site Burden to Optimize Protocol Performance.

BACKGROUND: The increase in protocol complexity and the resulting rise in the effort required by investigative sites to implement protocols have been well documented, but existing measures of site burden only offer an incomplete view of the burden experienced by site personnel. The introduction of Decentralized Clinical Trials-trials supported by remote and virtual technologies and services-is expected to impact the burden imposed on sites, but this impact has not yet been systematically measured. METHODS: The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted an online survey among clinical research sites worldwide and gathered 355 responses assessing the burden associated with distinct activities and procedures related to the implementation of clinical trial protocols using traditional and decentralized approaches. RESULTS: A high percentage of investigative sites (50.5%) have had no experience with DCT solutions and only a small percentage (6.6%) have participated in fully decentralized clinical trials. Overall, half of respondents view DCT solutions as more burdensome than traditional clinical trials. In general, activities related to operational and managerial aspects of trial implementation were viewed as less burdensome when done remotely, while clinical procedures or elements that require study team-patient interactions were viewed as more burdensome when using DCT approaches versus in-person or traditional methods.

New Benchmarks on Demographic Disparities in Pivotal Trials Supporting FDA-Approved Drugs and Biologics.

BACKGROUND: A lack of diversity and representation in clinical trials is an established issue in drug development, and the COVID-19 pandemic increased awareness of the problem among the general public. This awareness has led to increased pressure on drug development sponsors, as well as additional attention and regulation from federal bodies, to improve the diversity of clinical trials. This study updates existing baselines regarding demographic disparities, as well as detecting early signs that the situation may be starting to improve. METHODS: Building on an existing dataset, this study collected and analyzed pivotal trial demographic data for drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 2007 and 2021. Demographic data were collected from applications on the FDA website and clinicaltrials.gov, and compared to indication-specific demographic data when available, or US census estimates when they were not. Regression analyses were used to test for significant trends in reporting of demographic data and representation in pivotal trials, as well as the effect of representation on clinical trial duration and FDA review. RESULTS: Reporting of demographic data has improved significantly for all three demographic categories (sex, racial identity, and ethnic identity) over the observed time period (p < 0.0001). During this time period, overrepresentation of white participants has decreased significantly (p < 0.0001), and representation of Black participants has increased (p = 0.0003). Other racial and ethnic identities did not show significant trends. Representation of demographic subgroups was not significant predictors of trial duration except for the representation of Black participants, which was a negative correlation, indicating that as representation of Black participants increases, trial duration decreases (p = 0.0350).

A Case Study Assessment on the Rationale for, and Relevance of, Non-Core Protocol Data.

To better understand the nature of Non-Core procedures and derive new insight into protocol simplification and optimization, Tufts CSDD collaborated with the FDA and sponsor companies to assess alignment on the rationale for collecting, and relevance of, Non-Core protocol data. Twelve sponsor companies classified and rated 700 distinct procedures from 19 pivotal trials supporting new drug and biologics approvals. FDA reviewers classified and rated 80 distinct procedures for three of the 19 pivotal trials. The results of this assessment indicate areas of alignment and misalignment. Sponsors and FDA reviewers agreed on the classification for more than half of endpoints. However, FDA reviewers classified a much higher percentage of procedures as Non-Core (26% vs. 18%) with the largest proportion (50%) of these procedures perceived as Core by sponsor companies. Sponsors indicated that one-out-of-six Non-Core procedures were administered due to perceived regulatory requirement and expectation. The results of this study characterize the challenge in aligning the different-and potentially conflicting-imperatives of sponsors and regulators and speak to the importance of more effective FDA-sponsor communication to help simplify protocol designs.

Applying Systems Thinking to Inform Decentralized Clinical Trial Planning and Deployment.

Recently, there has been a growing interest in understanding how decentralized clinical trial (DCT) solutions can mitigate existing challenges in clinical development, particularly participant burden and access, and the collection, management, and quality of clinical data. This paper examines DCT deployments, emphasizing how they are integrated and how they may impact clinical trial oversight, management, and execution. We propose a conceptual framework that employs systems thinking to evaluate the impact on key stakeholders through a reiterative assessment of pain points. We conclude that decentralized solutions should be customized to meet patient needs and preferences and the unique requirements of each clinical trial. We discuss how DCT elements introduce new demands and pressures within the existing system and reflect on enablers that can overcome DCT implementation challenges. As stakeholders look for ways to make clinical research more relevant and accessible to a larger and more diverse patient population, further robust and granular research is needed to quantify the impact of DCTs empirically.

Benchmarking Patient Engagement Capabilities and Preparedness of Drug Development Sponsors.

Consistent implementation and measurement of patient engagement initiatives across the industry have remained aspirational and elusive despite strong interest in adopting patient-centric approaches. One factor contributing to this inertia stems from a lack of standardized implementation of patient engagement activities, which varies widely from company to company, making it difficult to track and measure. Further, empirical evidence mapping the impact of patient engagement capabilities on clinical research outcomes has remained sparse. To address this gap, the Drug Information Association (DIA) and Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) at the Tufts University School of Medicine developed and administered an assessment tool that companies can use to not only evaluate their organization's patient engagement capabilities and implementation preparedness but can also measure the impact of such activities on trial outcomes. Results showed that while most organizations are providing logistical support to increase patient engagement in the form of travel stipends, accommodation, and financial incentives, most are not implementing more involved forms of patient engagement such as gathering patient input through patient input panels or patient steering committees. This paper discusses the process for designing and administering this assessment tool, the results of the assessment, and future implications.

Insights from a Multi-company Workshop to Apply a Patient Participation Burden Algorithm to Protocol Data.

BACKGROUND: Utilizing a participation burden algorithm developed in a previous study, Tufts CSDD, in collaboration with ZS, led a workshop among 8 pharmaceutical companies to validate the methodology of benchmarking the participation burden of a set of retrospective protocols and comparing these data to a prospective protocol design. METHODS: Eight participating companies collected data for 66 retrospective protocols and participation burden scores were calculated for each. Data from one prospective protocol was provided and prospective burden scores were compared to mean retrospective protocol burden for each company. Participating companies provided feedback on data collection process and final reports. RESULTS: Comparisons between retrospective and prospective burden scores revealed higher comparative burden in lab and blood procedures. Companies were able to gather most requested data, but some variables hypothesized to affect burden were not available to sponsors. Time constraints were reported as a challenge throughout the data collection process. CONCLUSIONS: Feedback indicated the need for establishing a larger database to enable comparisons between protocols with the same therapeutic area and indication. Investigating the impact of standard of care burden by indication on overall participation burden and encouraging sponsors to collect more accurate data contributing to participation burden at the site level are also important takeaways from this exercise.

Assessing the Financial Value of Decentralized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Deployment of remote and virtual clinical trial methods and technologies, referred to collectively as decentralized clinical trials (DCTs), represents a profound shift in clinical trial practice. To our knowledge, a comprehensive assessment of the financial net benefits of DCTs has not been conducted. METHODS: We developed an expected net present value (eNPV) model of the cash flows for new drug development and commercialization to assess the financial impact of DCTs. The measure of DCT value is the increment in eNPV that occurs, on average, when DCT methods are employed in comparison to when they are not. The model is populated with parameter values taken from published studies, Tufts CSDD benchmark data, and Medable Inc. data on DCT projects. We also calculated the return on investment (ROI) in DCTs as the ratio of the increment in eNPV to the DCT implementation cost. RESULTS: We found substantial value from employing DCT methods in phase II and phase III trials. If we assume that DCT methods are applied to both phase II and phase III trials the increase in value is $20 million per drug that enters phase II, with a seven-fold ROI. CONCLUSIONS: DCTs can provide substantial extra value to sponsors developing new drugs, with high returns to investment in these technologies. Future research on this topic should focus on expanding the data to larger datasets and on additional aspects of clinical trial operations not currently measured.

Protocol Design and Performance Benchmarks by Phase and by Oncology and Rare Disease Subgroups.

BACKGROUND: Benchmark data characterizing protocol design practices and performance informs clinical trial design decisions and serves as important baseline measures for assessing protocol design behaviors and their impact during and post-pandemic. METHODS: Tufts CSDD, in collaboration with a working group of 20 major and mid-sized pharmaceutical companies and CROs, gathered phase I-III data from protocols completed just prior to the start of the global pandemic. RESULTS: Data for 187 protocols were analyzed to derive benchmarks overall and for two primary subgroups: oncology vs. non-oncology protocols and rare disease vs. non-rare disease protocols. The results show a continuing upward trend across all protocol design variables. Phase II and III protocols average more endpoints, eligibility criteria, protocol pages; investigative sites; countries and datapoints collected. Oncology and rare disease protocols' enrolled-to-completion rates are much lower, involve a much higher average number of countries and investigative sites, require more planned patient visits and generate considerably more clinical research data. As such, oncology and rare disease clinical trial cycle times are longer-most notably at time periods occurring after study startup and prior to database lock-due to intense patient recruitment and retention challenges. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study present valuable design insights and comparative baseline measures. The implications of these results and the expected impact of decentralized clinical trials on protocol design practices and performance is discussed.

Quantifying Diversity and Representation in Pivotal Trials Leading to Marketing Authorization in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Following up on a study from 2019, Tufts CSDD collected and analyzed data on demographic disparities and representation in pivotal trials supporting the marketing authorization of novel drugs and biologics approved in Europe between 2007 and 2019. METHODS: Data were collected from products' EPAR, the EUDRACT database, and other publicly available sources, and compared to indication-specific demographic data or a census estimate. In total, data were collected on 446 drugs and 943 pivotal trials. RESULTS: Results indicated that gender demographic data were only reported for 80.7% of pivotal trials, and that racial and ethnicity demographic data were reported less often (64.1% and 29.9% of pivotal trials, respectively). Results also indicated that non-white racial identities were under-represented by more than 20% in nearly half or more of pivotal trials. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines encouraging the reporting of patient demographic data are insufficient and availability of the data is problematic. The available data suggest that under-representation in pivotal trials is widespread.

Global Investigative Site Personnel Diversity and Its Relationship with Study Participant Diversity.

BACKGROUND: There is little to no empirical data on the race and ethnicity of the global community of professionals conducting clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and little empirical evidence on the relationship between the race and ethnicity of investigative site personnel and the overall and corresponding diversity of participants enrolled. METHODS: A global online survey conducted in mid-2021 gathered responses from 3462 clinical research professionals representing approximately 3300 distinct investigative sites. RESULTS: Worldwide, including all research settings, the majority (64%) of investigative site personnel are White, 20% are LatinX, 6% are Black, 7% are Asian and 3% are other races and ethnicities (e.g., indigenous peoples, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, etc.). The representation of non-white site personnel is significantly higher in North America and Rest of World (ROW) compared to Europe. The highest levels of personnel diversity are found in private community-based practices, investigative sites and site networks. A significant correlation (p < 0.001) was found between site personnel diversity and patient enrollment diversity worldwide. As the mix of site personnel by race and ethnicity increases, the diversity of patients enrolled-except for Asian patients in sites outside of North America-also increases. A significant relationship was also found between the proportion of a given race or ethnicity of investigative site personnel and the corresponding race and ethnicity of patients enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: An opportunity exists to address under-representation in clinical trials through identifying, hiring and supporting investigative site personnel to best reflect the patient communities that they serve.

Benchmarking Protocol Deviations and Their Variation by Major Disease Categories.

BACKGROUND: Little to no data exist quantifying and benchmarking the magnitude of protocol deviation experience. METHODS: Nearly two-dozen companies provided the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) with data on the design and the performance of 187 protocols. RESULTS: The results of this working group study show that phase II and III protocols have a mean total of 75 and 119 protocol deviations, respectively, involving nearly one-third of all patients enrolled in each clinical trial. Oncology clinical trials have the highest relative mean number of protocol deviations affecting more than 40% of patients enrolled in each trial. The number of endpoints, the number of procedures per visit, and the number of countries were modestly positively associated with and predictive of, the incidence of deviations per protocol. A strong positive relationship was shown between the number of investigative sites and the number of protocol deviations. CONCLUSION: The results of this initial study provide useful measures that sponsor companies can use to benchmark their own protocol deviation experience, identify factors most associated with protocol deviations, and determine whether remediation is warranted.

Protocol Design Variables Highly Correlated with, and Predictive of, Clinical Trial Performance.

Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) collected data on trial design elements and clinical trial performance outcomes from 187 protocols provided by 20 companies. 10 design variables were tested for correlations with 11 performance variables, and regression models of each performance variable were tested. Results: Many significant correlations were found (p < .01, p < .05). The number of countries and the number of sites were each positively correlated with amendment frequency, longer screening and study duration as well as study participant dropout rates. The number of internal reviews prior to protocol finalization was also positively correlated with these same performance outcomes. In regression modeling, scientific and operational design characteristics were significant predictors of cycle time, enrollment and retention outcomes, and amendment frequency, even when controlling for phase and therapeutic area. These predictors included the number of endpoints, eligibility criteria, procedures per visit, number of countries, and investigative sites. The results of this analysis suggest practical considerations for optimizing protocol performance.

Evaluating the Feasibility and Validity of a New Tool to Assess Organizational Preparedness and Capabilities to Support Patient Engagement in Drug Development.

Interest in patient-centric initiatives to engage patients as partners in clinical research and inform drug development strategy, planning and execution has increased exponentially during the past decade. Adoption, use, organizational approach and infrastructure supporting patient-centric initiatives, however, varies widely from company to company. The Drug Information Association (DIA) in collaboration with the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) at the Tufts University School of Medicine developed and validated an assessment tool that companies can use to evaluate their organization's patient engagement preparedness and capabilities within the context of industry-wide practices. This paper discusses the development of the tool, the assessment experience, and implications for further refinement of the assessment process. Specifically, the team conducted an extensive literature review, compiled and analyzed case studies and gathered input from a working group of 18 biopharmaceutical companies. To validate the assessment tool and demonstrate its feasibility, the DIA-CSDD Tufts team conducted a pilot implementation involving onsite and virtual in-depth interviews among 14 biopharmaceutical companies. A subsequent paper will report on the findings from the 14 companies assessed.