Questions to Ask about a Clinical Trial Protocol
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.
–Hippocrates (460-377 BC).
Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
–Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).
Everyone who is writing or reviewing a clinical trial protocol attempts to ensure that he or she considers all of the important aspects that should be included in a protocol. Every trial is very different in terms of the objectives, goals, details, and strategies involved; therefore, it is not possible to have a single approach or set of questions to use for assessing all protocols that will ensure the trial has considered every possible issue. The primary goal in posing a series of questions to use in reviewing or assessing your own or someone else’s protocol is to hopefully ensure that you have not overlooked important aspects that may require a protocol amendment while the trial is being conducted. Because it is extremely important not to overlook relevant details or issues, companies usually have teams of people discuss various aspects of each protocol, often at great length over a period of many weeks or even months, to determine what approach or wording to use. Some trials take many months of review and re-reviews to ensure that all aspects have been adequately addressed. Nonetheless, there is a core list of basic questions or issues that should be considered in most, if not all, clinical trials, and this chapter presents many of those core questions. There are literally dozens or even hundreds of questions that can be asked about most individual aspects of a trial, but if one limits oneself to considering the three to five most important questions on a specific topic, which ones will they be?
By identifying and then addressing these questions, as well as other questions that a company determines are of importance to its own investigational drugs or devices, it will help ensure that the protocol does not have serious flaws and that the company will not have to modify the protocol while it is being conducted. In other words, one can shorten the time for a product’s development by being assiduous in considering as many of these and other core questions prior to initiating a clinical trial.
The following questions deal with issues that go beyond the basic design and standard elements of a clinical trial that are found in standard textbooks (e.g., Guide to Clinical Trials). These do not represent a complete or even extensive list but are indicative of the types of broad questions that one can create and use for the purposes discussed if one is limited to three or so questions on any single category.
CATEGORIES OF QUESTIONS
Objectives
Overall trial design
Protocol components
Patient considerations
Review and approval by internal groups
Review and approval by external groups
Implementation
Conduct and collection of data
Monitoring
Analysis and interpretation of results
Troubleshooting and plans to prevent issues
Administrative and miscellaneous issues
I. Objectives
What is the primary objective(s) of the trial?
Is it NECESSARY to conduct this trial, or can it be eliminated or combined with another?
Is each objective expressed completely, or is it truncated?
Are too many primary OR secondary objectives being proposed?
II. Overall Trial Design
What is the best design to meet the objectives?
Is the design itself the best one for this trial? Why?
Have the authors considered other designs?
Does the design chosen control for major sources of bias?
What is being done to minimize the placebo response?
III. Protocol Components
A. Endpoints
Are the endpoints chosen the best ones to measure?
Can they be measured in reasonable time?
If they are surrogates, how valid are they, and how likely are they to be accepted by regulatory agencies?
Are they clinical, biochemical, or physiological?
Should there be coprimary endpoints?
B. Inclusion criteria
Are any of the inclusion criteria too restrictive?
If so, can they be relaxed?
Are there any inclusion criteria that can be eliminated?
Are the inclusion criteria going to create the most appropriate group of patients in terms of the ability to extrapolate the data?
Are the inclusion criteria realistic in terms of patient recruitment?
C. Patient population
Is the population to be studied the most relevant one to meet the company’s goals?
Does the study population have appropriate gender and minority representation?
Does the study population contain elderly patients? (Should it?)
D. Blinding
Is this issue adequately addressed?
Are all groups blinded that should be blind (i.e., those who interact with the primary investigator, patients, staff at the site, and sponsor)?
Does the protocol adequately deal with the question of blinding the drug container and packaging labels and how to unblind patients in cases of problems?
E. Patient recruitment
Do the authors have a well-planned recruitment strategy and plan?
Does the recruitment plan include enough elements to provide a high likelihood of success?
Does the recruitment plan have a fall-back contingency set of plans in case enrollment does not meet the enrollment goal?
Who is responsible for the overall success of this plan and for each of the component parts?
What is the budget for recruitment, and how is it allocated?
How will recruitment be measured and expressed, and how will the data be communicated to both sites and sponsor?
F. Patient retention
What steps have been taken to ensure that patients will complete the trial?
What are the major and minor issues that patients may have with staying in the trial?
How will each of these be addressed?
Do patients have information of whom to call for various reasons?
G. Concomitant therapy
Does the protocol deal appropriately and adequately with this issue?
Does the protocol list acceptable and unacceptable prescription drug therapy, over-the-counter drugs, and other nonprescription products and the terms under which each may be used?
H. Protocol amendments
What steps are being taken to ensure that no protocol amendments are to be needed?
Have the authors considered using external content reviewers to ensure that the content is as accurate as possible?
Have the authors considered using external vendors or methodology experts who can help ensure internal consistency within the protocol?
I. Number of procedures