From this author

Blog
Jul 29, 2020
Why Are We Still Throwing Protocols over the Wall to Site Staff?
Findings in the Tufts CSDD-Teckro study are important for the industry to discuss There was a time when telephone companies distributed fat paper directories each year. White pages for personal numbers, yellow pages for business listings. Typically, they were delivered during the day to our homes, when most of us were at work. This meant they were left in mailboxes, on doorsteps and in hallways. Generally, mine was thrown over my garden wall and then sat for hours withstanding the weather of the day. I imagine that the phone company presumed that I used the directory, but they had no way of knowing for sure. And they probably also expected that I used the most current directory, but they couldn’t know that actually I often used an older one. Consider the millions of trees used to publish a new directory each year, when in reality the producer didn’t know when, or even if, it was used. With smartphones, printed phone directories are all but extinct. Clinical trial sites are still stuck in that past It is disappointing – but not surprising – to see the results of the industry research we conducted in collaboration with Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD). Paper is still heavily used at sites, along with static PDFs accessed from desktop computers. You could say that essential study documents like protocols are still “thrown over the wall” to sites, just like my telephone directory would have been decades ago. Who, when and why they are accessed is largely unknown, except through a survey like this. Yet each year, the most frequent inspection of observations from the FDA are related to investigations that were not conducted according to the protocol. What can we expect if retrieval of information from current documents is not so easy for sites? Archaic means of information retrieval just don’t cut it in our everyday lives, certainly not when we can reach for a world of knowledge 24/7 with the phone in our pocket. So, how can we justify not applying this same approach to the information in clinical trials? Simplifying jobs to be done for research staff To be effective, technology must focus on helping clinical trial sites to be more productive through simplifying, reducing friction and making things easier. I know this sounds obvious – design clinical trial software from the perspective of research sites. But I would venture to say that a lot of the technology out there has been designed by people who have never visited a research site and don’t really understand in practical reality what sites really need. We’ve seen it with most software over the years. Technology handed down from on high that doesn’t suit the jobs done by site staff typically has low adoption rates, it often adds complexity and increases workloads. Sites will only truly embrace technology because they love it. They will only love it if it makes their job easier and helps them do their job better. You might argue that many study portals can be accessed on smartphones. Sure, but in reality, small screens and PDFs are enemies. It’s against our very digital nature to scroll through a document when we are so conditioned to ask a question and get an answer. Besides, when was the last time – if ever – you ran a search in a PDF on your smartphone? I’m not even sure how to do it. The reality is that sponsors and CROs continue to operate in an apparent “safe zone” – one biased towards risk mitigation rather than task optimization. Paper and online portals appear superficially “safe” from an audit perspective. And we’ve always done it this way. But at what cost? If the paper protocol is not stored where participants are seen, as reported in the Tufts CSDD study results, then what is the cost of not having the right answer right there, to answer a question on eligibility? As an investigator, how good is it to have a paper protocol in my office or an online portal when a patient phones me at 8pm while I’m at a ball game to ask me how to handle a possible toxicity? Giving a voice to research staff Sites need to be seen more as crucial stakeholders rather than servants of trials. It’s time that we shine a light on those technology solutions that work well for sponsors and CROs but complicate life in the field. Online portals are fine in theory; a secure repository for documents. Perfect – if you don’t actually need to access the documents in a hurry. And when it comes to communicating changes, then email is the obvious safe choice. We see from the study results that only a few respondents find out about protocol amendments from updates pushed out in the sponsor/CRO portal. This compares with the majority who say they receive updates via email. But we know all about the tsunami of emails we get daily, and in spite of best intentions how many emails are put in the “get to you later” category. A lot of time and effort is spent in protocol design and amendment. Protocols are getting steadily more complicated. Why then is access to the protocol so outdated and inconvenient? It really makes no sense. We need to stop thinking that throwing protocols over the wall to sites is good enough. It is not. We hope the results of this Tufts CSDD-Teckro research ignite a conversation about the information needs of site staff – many of whom are trying to conduct clinical research in addition to standard clinical care. And sadly, because it is so difficult, half will never do another trial after their first one. You can access the full Tufts report here and the companion Teckro analysis here.    
Blog
Nov 19, 2019
The Trouble with Clinical Trials: Getting Rid of Zombies
New medicines are becoming increasingly complex to develop. As a result, clinical development is taking 25% longer and the chance of a new medicinal product getting market approval is half of what it was a decade ago. Much of this is reflected in the way clinical trials are performed, with a 10% annual increase in the number and variety of procedures required. Thus, the burden on investigators and trial sites is steadily becoming heavier. In most aspects of our lives, the internet has enabled us to rapidly access information. In particular, smartphones allow us to search and retrieve almost any information that we need “on the fly.” We book our flights and hotels, make restaurant reservations and communicate with our families on our phones. Who uses, or even possesses, a telephone directory anymore? However, a zombie-like relic of the telephone directory still lives on in clinical trials. It’s called the protocol, which: Is almost always a weighty document of perhaps 150 densely printed pages. Must only be used in its currently approved version, so it may need to be changed half a dozen times during the life of a trial. Each amendment must be approved for every individual site. Usually lives on a shelf in an office, often remote from where it is most needed in the clinical area in which its trial is being conducted. Is slow to search for information, especially if not immediately to hand. If it does have an electronic existence, it is usually as a PDF document which is hard to search in a hurry. The protocol hasn’t changed in any significant way for 40 years. It is no surprise that about 35% of adverse findings of FDA inspections are related to non-compliance with the protocol. This is not a harmless zombie! There are many examples to illustrate why printed protocols have outlived their utility. For example, typical oncology sites outside of the major centers may run about a dozen different trials at one time. It is a big ask to expect an investigator to remember the detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria for each one when they sit in-clinic seeing their patients. Their time constraints mean that they have only a few minutes to consider whether any patient in particular might qualify for one of these trials. They are unlikely to rummage through a dozen protocols to check. They may refer to a “cheat sheet” with the criteria listed. Are they sure it’s from the current protocol version? It’s easier to procrastinate and move along to the next patient waiting in line outside their office. Another possible trial participant misses out. Another example illustrates how adverse effects don’t respect office hours. Consider the following scenario. Its 8 p.m. on a Friday. A study coordinator in an Immuno-oncology study is about to sit down to dinner in a restaurant. A study participant phones urgently to report sudden onset bloody diarrhea and is desperate to know what to do. The protocol copy is two miles away. How will the coordinator instruct the participant exactly according to protocol? Do we expect them to recall precisely what the protocol says, or will they set off to consult it? Or will they just try to remember and hope that they are correct? It is vital that the right advice is given if the safety of the participant and the integrity of the trial are to be preserved. To effectively deal with the many weaknesses of relying on printed protocols that live on office shelves, we need to bring the whole process into the 21st century. Just as we have with almost all ways that we seek and find information in every other aspect of our lives. Do you have any other examples of how today’s paper protocol hinders clinical trial success? I’d like to hear them – you can email me at connectwithbrendan@teckro.com.