Operational Protocol Models in the Drug Development Process
- 3 Downloads
Abstract
Why do clinical trials that appear to be straightforward yield lower data quality and have longer timelines and higher costs than expected? Why do clinical development programs have difficulty combining studies when creating an integrated regulatory submission? Although the way these problems manifest themselves varies greatly, evidence continually points to the clinical trial protocol(s) as the root cause of operational errors, missed milestones, sponsor-site miscommunications, and incorrect data. Therefore, an up-front investment in analyzing the design features of a protocol for operational clarity and completeness could result in a substantial return from improved trial execution and regulatory reporting.
A protocol design methodology, based on an innovative concept called the ‘operational protocol model’, has been developed to address operational problems. The operational protocol model replaces the current unstructured protocol document with a highly structured formal protocol model. A wide range of automated computer-based protocol quality analysis programs can utilize the operational protocol model to provide insight into protocol design from various perspectives. The operational protocol model is independent of the scientific, clinical, or statistical details of a study. Therefore, the operational protocol modeling methodology can be applied to markedly different protocol designs in widely differing clinical domains.
Based on an empirical analysis of operational errors across a wide range of therapeutic areas, we have defined the following five key goals of a successful protocol design: coherency, completeness, consistency, comparability, and collaboration. The use of an operational protocol model can ensure that every clinical trial protocol designed within the operational protocol model meets all five protocol design quality goals.
Keywords
Protocol Author Protocol Design Therapeutic Area Operational Protocol Protocol ModelPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Kahn MG, Broverman CA, Wu N, Manlapaz-Espirtu L. A model-based method for improving protocol quality. Appl Clin Trials 2002; 11(4): 35–44Google Scholar
- 2.Kahn MG. Computable protocol models for interactive trial design. Drug Inf J 2002; 36(3): 487–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.McMahon C, Browne J. CAD/CAM: from principles to practice. Reading (MA): Addison-Wesley, 1993Google Scholar
- 4.Machover C, editor. The CAD/CAM handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996Google Scholar
- 5.Galluppi G, Rogge M, Roskos L, et al. Integration of pharmacokinetic and pharmaodynamic studies in the discovery, development, and review of protein therapeutic agents: a conference report. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69(6): 387–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Holford NH, Kimko HC, Monteleone JP, et al. Simulation of clinical trials. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2000; 40: 209–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Glass HE. Managing clinical investigator costs with benchmarking. Appl Clin Trials 1994; 3(5): 34–42Google Scholar
- 8.Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium [online]. Available from http://www.cdisc.org [Accessed 2003 Mar 17]
- 9.Health Level Seven [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hl7.org [Accessed 2003 Mar 17]
- 10.Kush R. Data standards for clinical development: progress update. Appl Clin Trials 2002; 11(4): 35–44Google Scholar
- 11.Harold ER, Mean WS. XML in a nutshell. 2nd ed. Sebastopol (CA): O’Reilly & Associates, 2002Google Scholar
- 12.Mangano S. XSLT cookbook. Sebastopol (CA): O’Reilly & Associates, 2002Google Scholar
- 13.Mathieu MP, editor. Parexel’s Pharmaceutical Research and Development (R&D) statistical sourcebook 2002/2003. Waltham (MA): Parexel International Corporation, 2002Google Scholar