Skip to main content
Log in

Measuring the Incidence, Causes, and Repercussions of Protocol Amendments

  • Regulatory Affairs
  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drug development companies frequently amend finalized clinical trial protocols. Yet the incidence, causes, and impact of protocol amendments have never been quantified. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) conducted a study, in collaboration with 17 large and midsized pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, examining more than 3,400 clinical trial protocols across development phases and therapeutic areas. Data on protocol characteristics, the number of amendments, the nature and incidence of changes per amendment, the causes of amendments, and the time and cost to implement amendments were among those analyzed. Tufts CSDD found that more than 40% of protocols were amended prior to the first subject/first visit, and one third of amendments were avoidable. Each amended protocol had an average of 2.3 amendments resulting in 4 months of incremental time to implement. Protocol amendments translate into significant unplanned expense and delays for research sponsors and unexpected burden for investigative sites. These findings underscore the substantial impact of protocol amendments on drug development efficiency and present an opportunity to realize substantial cycle time and cost savings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Getz K. The heavy burden of protocol design. Appl Clin Trials. 2008; 17(5):38–40.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Getz K, Wenger J, Campo R, Seguine E, Kaitin K. Assessing the impact of protocol design change on clinical trial performance. Am J Ther. 2008; 15:449–456.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wise P. Drury M. Pharmaceutical trials in general practice: the first 100 protocols. Br Med J. 1996; 313:1245–1248.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Losch C. Neuhauser M. The statistical analysis of a clinical trial when a protocol amendment changed the inclusion criteria. BMC Med Res Meth. 2008;8(16): 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Getz K. The downstream impact of protocol design complexity. Drug Devel Touch Brief. 2009; 93–95.

  6. European Commission communication. Off J Eur Union. 2010;c 82(March 30):1–19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth A. Getz MBA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Getz, K.A., Zuckerman, R., Cropp, A.B. et al. Measuring the Incidence, Causes, and Repercussions of Protocol Amendments. Ther Innov Regul Sci 45, 265–275 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151104500307

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151104500307

Key Words

Navigation