All clinical trials are challenging. But when the protocol is evaluating the safety and efficacy of rare disease treatment, the challenges are even greater. This applies to all aspects of the trial, especially the logistics around randomization and trial supply management (RTSM).
For example, while it’s true that in all clinical trials, every patient matters, this takes on new meaning in studies of rare diseases. As there are not many people living with the diagnosis, identifying, enrolling, and keeping patients engaged in clinical trials is critical. Trial sponsors can’t risk failed visits, which could lead to a patient dropping out because the drug wasn’t available for a dispensing visit.
And rare disease trials often require many investigative sites to recruit a small number of patients. Combine this with the reality that rare disease drugs are typically very expensive to produce, and it’s easy to understand the importance of reducing excessive drug wastage during development.
So, ensuring the right sites have the right amount of drug at the right time – without over-producing and shipping drugs to all sites – is critical to a rare disease development program’s success.
In this first series installment, Perceptive’s Malcolm Morrissey outlines these and other RTSM factors sponsors should consider and demonstrates how working with a reliable interactive response technology (IRT) provider with subject matter expertise, customizable designs, and dedicated study support can make a big difference in rare disease trials.
What is one of the first RTSM decisions sponsors must make when designing rare disease trials?
There are a lot of questions related to whether rare disease trials should be run the same as trials of other more common indications. Is it necessary to conduct a randomized study with a control group, or will an enrollment-only design suffice? Rare disease trial sponsors typically want to avoid the significant extra cost and recruitment time needed for a randomization study, which includes a control arm. The alternative is to run an enrollment-only study which removes the control and reduces the number of subjects needed but could impact the analysis which for some is a difficult decision to make.