Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Smith Z, Bilke R, Pretorius S, et al. Protocol design variables highly correlated with, and predictive of, clinical trial performance. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2022;56:333–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-021-00370-0.
Getz K, Campo R. New benchmarks characterizing growth in protocol design complexity. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018;52(1):22–8.
Rosenblatt M. The large pharmaceutical company perspective. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:52–60.
Getz K, Wenger J, Campo RA, et al. Assessing the impact of protocol design changes on clinical trial performance. Am J Ther. 2008;15(5):450–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0b013e31816b9027.
Getz K, Smith Z, Kravet M. Protocol design and performance benchmarks by phase and by oncology and rare disease subgroups. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2023;57(1):49–56.
Ibid.
Getz K, Stergiopoulos S, Marlborough M, et al. Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data. Am J Ther. 2015;22(2):117–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0b013e31826fc4aa.
Ibid.
Getz K. Improving protocol design feasibility to drive drug development economics and performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(5):5069–80.
Funding
Funding was provided by U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, Z., Getz, K. A Case Study Assessment on the Rationale for, and Relevance of, Non-Core Protocol Data. Ther Innov Regul Sci 58, 311–315 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-023-00595-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-023-00595-1