• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Clinical Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Resolving the conflict between feasibility and relevance

Resolving the conflict between feasibility and relevance

May 15, 2017
CenterWatch Staff

Multi-disciplinary teams tasked with the design of phase III clinical trials face a series of challenges. These include: determining the number of subjects required for statistically meaningful results, the time to complete the trial, budget and regulatory hurdles and guideline implications of the trial design.

The first three issues are at least approachable with quantitative methods. However, in trial design, there is an inherent conflict between the pragmatic objective of supporting the broadest possible indication and the scientific reality that in the clinical world, it is difficult to acknowledge, let alone quantitate subgroups of individuals who will have favorable or unfavorable treatment responses.

The development of inclusion/exclusion criteria for a trial is the operational battleground for this conflict. Adoption of liberal inclusion criteria that may enroll a substantial number of potential non-responders might ultimately result in a broad indication, but that approach also increases the numbers of subjects, decreases the overall impact of treatment and increases the likelihood of an unsuccessful trial. More restrictive inclusion criteria can do the opposite.

In TOPCAT, a recent spironolactone-heart failure trial, inclusion required either a heart failure hospitalization or an elevated BNP level. Eastern European investigators enrolled many subjects on the basis of a hospitalization who later proved to have no or mild heart failure. The intervention benefited patients in North and South America, but failed in Eastern Europe. The overall trial also failed.

Sponsors, CROs and site teams must look carefully at inclusion criteria; hitting a smaller target beats missing a big one.

 

Guest Contributor Roger M. Mills, M.D. is a graduate of Amherst College and the University of Pennsylvania medical school. After completing his medical residency, he served in the U.S. Navy before beginning a 30-year career in academic clinical cardiology. He joined Scios Inc., a Johnson & Johnson operating company, in 2005, and later moved to J&J’s Janssen Research and Development, LLC. He retired after a 10 year career with J&J.

This article was reprinted from Volume 24, Issue 05, of The CenterWatch Monthly, an industry leading publication providing hard-hitting, authoritative business and financial coverage of the clinical research space. The Action Items section features short columns  focusing on actionable or how-to advice from clinical trial professionals. To submit an Action Item, please contact editorial@centerwatch.com. Subscribe >>

Upcoming Events

  • 12Apr

    The Participant Playbook Webinar Series, Part 3 — Rethinking the Development of Participant-Centric Clinical Trial Technology

  • 25Apr

    Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for Drugs, Devices and Clinical Trials

  • 26Apr

    FDA’s New Laws and Regulations: What Drug and Biologics Manufacturers Need to Know

  • 27Apr

    Califf’s FDA, 2023 and Beyond: Key Developments, Insights and Analysis

  • 17May

    2023 WCG Avoca Quality Consortium Summit

  • 21May

    WCG MAGI Clinical Research Conference – 2023 East

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Five Ws

    Consider the Five ‘W’s to Understand Potential Participants

  • QandA-360x240.png

    Perspectives from Smaller-Sized CROs: Q&A with Cheryle Evans

  • White House

    Trial Stakeholders Advise White House on Emergency Research Infrastructure

  • SurveywBlueBackground-360x240.png

    Stress Levels Continue to Climb in Healthcare Workforce, Survey Finds

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Data

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing