Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Show Minimal Rise
Few topics occasion the lamentations of clinical trial professionals more than the topic of patient inclusion/exclusion criteria in clinical protocols.
Few topics occasion the lamentations of clinical trial professionals more than the topic of patient inclusion/exclusion criteria in clinical protocols. Presentations and publications have pointed to dramatic increases in the number of these criteria. The data sources for these claims have often been proprietary databases, sometimes associated with commercial firms offering products and services to identify and reduce the number of criteria. ClinicalTrials.gov represents an important public data source to establish base line numbers of inclusion/exclusion criteria. A review of these publically available data shows that there is a small increase in the number of commercially funded Phase III inclusion/exclusion criteria, but nowhere as dramatic as is sometimes portrayed in industry press and industry conferences.
ClinicalTrials.gov is a federal database, mandated since 2007 for all organizations conducting studies under FDA auspices. Over time the number of mandated variables has increased. Missing data for any of the variables is often close to zero, and rarely exceeds 3%. Although companies almost always enter fairly extensive information, there is no way of knowing for certain that all inclusion/exclusion criteria have been included. For example companies may simply just stop entering criteria after a self-determined number. However, this seems unlikely since the criteria counts followed a near perfect negative binomial distribution.
Every year there is a statistically significant 0.41 increase in inclusion/exclusion criteria counts in commercially funded Phase III studies. Although the increase is not large, the mere size of the database itself helps to make that even mild changes statistically significant. Two MedDRA therapeutic areas, renal and urinary disorders as well as gastrointestinal disorders, differ statistically significantly from the overall trend, evincing slight declines in the total number of criteria.
Average Number of Inclusion/Exclusion
Criteria per Study by Year
Source: Department of Health Policy and Public Policy, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, PA
Behind the Buzz: Why Clinical Research Leaders Flock to SCOPE Summit
February 7th 2025In this episode, we meet with Micah Lieberman, Executive Conference Director for SCOPE Summit (Summit for Clinical Ops Executives) at Cambridge Innovation Institute. We will dive deep into the critical role of collaboration within the clinical research ecosystem. How do we bring together diverse stakeholders—sponsors, CROs, clinical trial tech innovators, suppliers, patients, sites, advocacy organizations, investors, and non-profits—to share best practices in trial design, program planning, innovation, and clinical operations? We’ll explore why it’s vital for thought leaders to step beyond their own organizations and learn from others, exchanging ideas that drive advancements in clinical research. Additionally, we’ll discuss the pivotal role of scientific conferences like SCOPE Summit in fostering these essential connections and collaborations, helping shape the future of clinical trials. Join us as we uncover how collective wisdom and cross-industry partnerships are transforming the landscape of clinical research.
Reaching Diverse Patient Populations With Personalized Treatment Methods
January 20th 2025Daejin Abidoye, head of solid tumors, oncology development, AbbVie, discusses a number of topics around diversity in clinical research including industry’s greatest challenges in reaching diverse patient populations, personalized treatment methods, recruitment strategies, and more.
