pp 1-27 | Cite as

The Future of Clinical Trial Design: The Transition from Hard Endpoints to Value-Based Endpoints

  • Matthijs D. Kruizinga
  • Frederik E. Stuurman
  • Geert J. Groeneveld
  • Adam F. CohenEmail author
Part of the Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology book series


Clinical trials have been conducted since 500 BC. Currently, the methodological gold standard is the randomized controlled clinical trial, introduced by Austin Bradford Hill. This standard has produced enormous amounts of high-quality evidence, resulting in evidence-based clinical guidelines for physicians. However, the current trial paradigm needs to evolve because of the ongoing decrease of the incidence of hard endpoints and spiraling trial costs. While new trial designs, such as adaptive clinical trials, may lead to an increase in efficiency and decrease in costs, we propose a shift towards value-based trial design: a paradigm that mirrors value-based thinking in business and health care. Value-based clinical trials will use technology to focus more on symptoms and endpoints that patients care about, will incorporate fewer research centers, and will measure a state or consequence of disease at home or at work. Furthermore, they will measure the subjective experience of subjects in relation to other objective measurements. Ideally, the endpoints are suitable for individual assessment of the effect of an intervention. The value-based clinical trial of the future will have a low burden for participants, allowing for the inclusion of neglected populations such as children and the elderly, will be data-rich due to a high frequency of measurements, and can be conducted with technology that is already available.


Clinical trial Endpoint Future Technology Value-based Wearable 


  1. AmpStrip cancelled: fitness plans end as Indiegogo refunds begin (2015). Accessed 8 Apr 2019
  2. ASCEND (2018) Effects of aspirin for primary prevention in persons with diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 379(16):1529–1539Google Scholar
  3. Automated Device for Asthma Monitoring and Management (ADAMM) (2017). Accessed 8 Apr 2019
  4. Baer L, Ivanova A (2013) When should the sequential parallel comparison design be used in clinical trials? Clin Investig 3(9):823–833Google Scholar
  5. Bakos Y, Marotta-Wurgler F, Trossen DR (2009) Does anyone read the fine print? Testing a law and economics approach to standard form contracts. Work Pap 09-04, NET Institute, Revis Aug 2009Google Scholar
  6. Bardakjian T, Gonzalez-Alegre P (2018) Towards precision medicine. Handb Clin Neurol 147:93–102Google Scholar
  7. Bista SR, Haywood A, Norris R, Good P, Tapuni A, Lobb M et al (2015) Saliva versus plasma for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of fentanyl in patients with cancer. Clin Ther 37(11):2468–2475. Scholar
  8. Bodytrak – Smart Biometric Sensor Technology (2019). Accessed 8 Apr 2019
  9. Bonafide CP, Jamison DT, Foglia EE (2017) The emerging market of smartphone-integrated infant physiologic monitors. JAMA 317(4):353–354Google Scholar
  10. Bonafide CP, Localio AR, Ferro DF, Orenstein EW, Jamison DT, Lavanchy C et al (2018) Accuracy of pulse oximetry-based home baby monitors. JAMA 320(7):717–719. Scholar
  11. Broughton S, Hussein HR, Bossley CJ, Ruiz G, Gupta A, Brathwaite N (2017) A meta-analysis of montelukast for recurrent wheeze in preschool children. Eur J Pediatr 176(7):963–969Google Scholar
  12. Bush A (2015) Montelukast in paediatric asthma: where we are now and what still needs to be done? Paediatr Respir Rev 16(2):97–100. Scholar
  13. Casiglia E, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, Dolan E, Malyutina S, Li Y, Ohkubo T et al (2016) The cardiovascular risk of white-coat hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 68(19):2033–2043Google Scholar
  14. Chaput J, Gray CE, Poitras VJ, Carson V, Gruber R, Olds T et al (2016) Systematic review of the relationships between sleep and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41(6 Suppl 3):S266–S282Google Scholar
  15. Chow S (2014) Adaptive clinical trial design. Annu Rev Med 65:405–415Google Scholar
  16. (2019) U.S. National Library of Medicine. Accessed 12 Mar 2019
  17. Cohen AF, van Gerven JMA, Burggraaf J, Moerland M, Groeneveld GJ (2014) The use of biomarkers in human pharmacology (phase I) studies. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 55(1):55–74Google Scholar
  18. Colbert E, Zhou W, Dunn J, Rego S, Schüssler-Fiorenza Rose SM, McLaughlin T et al (2017) Digital health: tracking physiomes and activity using wearable biosensors reveals useful health-related information. PLoS Biol 15(1):e2001402Google Scholar
  19. Coons SJ, Eremenco S, Lundy JJ, O’Donohoe P, O’Gorman H, Malizia W (2015) Capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data electronically: the past, present, and promise of ePRO measurement in clinical trials. Patient 8(4):301–309. Scholar
  20. Coughlin SS (1990) Recall bias in epidemiologic studies. J Clin Epidemiol 43(1):87–91Google Scholar
  21. Cummings J, Ward TH, Dive C (2010) Fit-for-purpose biomarker method validation in anticancer drug development. Drug Discov Today 15(19–20):816–825. Scholar
  22. Cyrcadia iTBra™ (2019). Accessed 8 Apr 2019
  23. Doll R (2009) Sir Austin Bradford Hill and the progress of medical science. BMJ 305(6868):1521–1526Google Scholar
  24. Donaldson I (2015) Ambroise Paré’s accounts of new methods for treating gunshot wounds and burns. J R Soc Med 108(11):457–461Google Scholar
  25. Dunn J, Runge R, Snyder M (2018) Wearables and the medical revolution. Per Med 15(5):429–448Google Scholar
  26. Feltner DE, Morgan P, Drummond KS, Wegner CD, Arrowsmith J, Street SDA et al (2011) Can the flow of medicines be improved? Fundamental pharmacokinetic and pharmacological principles toward improving phase II survival. Drug Discov Today 17(9–10):419–424. Scholar
  27. Fokkert MJ, Van Dijk PR, Edens MA, Abbes S, De Jong D, Slingerland RJ et al (2017) Performance of the freestyle libre flash glucose monitoring system in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 5(1):1–8Google Scholar
  28. Fried EI (2017) The 52 symptoms of major depression: lack of content overlap among seven common depression scales. J Affect Disord 208:191–197. Scholar
  29. Gehan EA, Freireich EJ (1974) Non-randomized controls in cancer clinical trials. N Engl J Med 290(4):198–203Google Scholar
  30. Hashim NW, Wilkes M, Salomon R, Meggs J, France DJ (2017) Evaluation of voice acoustics as predictors of clinical depression scores. J Voice 31(2):256.e1–256.e6. Scholar
  31. Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J (2014) Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol 32(1):40–51Google Scholar
  32. Izmailova ES, Wagner JA, Perakslis ED (2018) Wearable devices in clinical trials: hype and hypothesis. Clin Pharmacol Ther 104(1):42–52Google Scholar
  33. Jager NGL, Rosing H, Schellens JHM, Beijnen JH (2014) Procedures and practices for the validation of bioanalytical methods using dried blood spots: a review. Bioanalysis 6(18):2481–2514Google Scholar
  34. Janssen I, Leblanc AG (2010) Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 7:40Google Scholar
  35. Jönsson B (2015) Bringing in health technology assessment and cost-effectiveness considerations at an early stage of drug development. Mol Oncol 9(5):1025–1033. Scholar
  36. Joseph PD, Craig JC, Caldwell PHY (2015) Clinical trials in children. Br J Clin Pharmacol 79(3):357–369Google Scholar
  37. K’Watch Glucose (2019). Accessed 8 Apr 2019
  38. Kamiŝalić A, Fister I, Turkanović M, Karakatiĉ S (2018) Sensors and functionalities of non-invasive wrist-wearable devices: a review. Sensors 18(6):E1714Google Scholar
  39. Khan NA, Spencer HJ, Abda E, Aggarwal A, Alten R, Ancuta C et al (2012) Determinants of discordance in patients’ and physicians’ rating of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity. Arthritis Care Res 64(2):206–214Google Scholar
  40. Lee J, Bedra M, Finkelstein J (2014) A critical review of consumer health devices for stress self-management. Stud Health Technol Inform 202:221–224Google Scholar
  41. Li T, Yu T, Hawkins BS, Dickersin K (2015) Design, analysis, and reporting of crossover trials for inclusion in a meta-analysis. PLoS One 10(8):1–12Google Scholar
  42. Lind J (1753) A treatise of the scurvy: in three parts, containing an inquiry into the nature, causes and cure, of that disease. Together with a critical and chronological view of what has been published on the subject. A Kincaid & A Donaldson, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  43. Lipska KJ, Yao X, Herrin J, McCoy RG, Ross JS, Steinman MA et al (2017) Trends in drug utilization, glycemic control, and rates of severe hypoglycemia, 2006-2013. Diabetes Care 40(4):468–475Google Scholar
  44. Lu TC, Fu C-M, Ma M, Fang CC, Turner AM (2016) Healthcare applications of smart watches. Appl Clin Inform 7(3):850–869. Scholar
  45. Macinnes M, Martin N, Fulton H, McLeod KA (2019) Comparison of a smartphone-based ECG recording system with a standard cardiac event monitor in the investigation of palpitations in children. Arch Dis Child 104(1):43–47Google Scholar
  46. Manta CJ, Ortiz J, Moulton BW, Sonnad SS (2016) From the patient perspective, consent forms fall short of providing information to guide decision making. J Patient Saf:1–6Google Scholar
  47. Martin L, Hutchens M, Hawkins C, Radnov A (2017) How much do clinical trials cost? Nat Rev Drug Discov 16(6):381–382Google Scholar
  48. Mohr D, Zhang M, Schueller SM (2017) Personal sensing: understanding mental health using ubiquitous sensors and machine learning. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 13:23–47Google Scholar
  49. Montgomery AA, Peters TJ, Little P (2003) Design, analysis and presentation of factorial randomised controlled trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:1–5Google Scholar
  50. Motio HW by Neogia and Kyomed (2017). Accessed 8 Apr 2019
  51. MRC Patulin Clinical Trials Committee (1944) Clinical trials of patulin in the common cold. Lancet 2:373–375Google Scholar
  52. Noyes AM, Thompson PD (2017) The effects of statins on exercise and physical activity. J Clin Lipidol 11(5):1134–1144Google Scholar
  53. Pallmann P, Bedding AW, Jaki T, Villar SS, Weir CJ, Wheeler GM et al (2018) Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them. BMC Med 16(1):1–15Google Scholar
  54. Parker BA, Capizzi JA, Grimaldi AS, Clarkson PM, Cole SM, Keadle J et al (2013) Effect of statins on skeletal muscle function. Circulation 127(1):96–103Google Scholar
  55. Perry S, Thamer M (1999) Medical innovation and the critical role of health technology assessment. JAMA 282(19):1869–1872. Scholar
  56. Perry B, Herrington W, Goldsack JC et al (2018) Use of mobile devices to measure outcomes in clinical research, 2010-2016: a systematic literature review. Digit Biomark 2(1):11–30. Scholar
  57. Pion-Massicotte J, Godbout R, Savard P, Roy JF (2019) Development and validation of an algorithm for the study of sleep using a biometric shirt in young healthy adults. J Sleep Res 28(2):e12667Google Scholar
  58. Porter M (2010) What is value in healthcare. NEJM 363:2477–2481Google Scholar
  59. Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv Bus Rev 84(12):78–92. Scholar
  60. Porter M, Hills G, Pfitzer M, Patscheke S, Hawkins E (2012) Measuring shared value: how to unlock value by linking social and business results., Boston, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  61. Pratap A, Doerr M, Suver C, Wilbanks J, Bot BM, Klein A et al (2016) The mPower study, Parkinson disease mobile data collected using ResearchKit. Sci Data 3:160011Google Scholar
  62. Pubmed – NCBI – Search for “Wearable” (2019). Accessed 13 Mar 2019
  63. Raistrick H, Scadding JG, Tytler WH, Wilson GS, Hart PDA (1948) Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Br Med J 30:770–782Google Scholar
  64. Ramos Hernández C, Núñez Fernández M, Pallares Sanmartín A, Mouronte Roibas C, Cerdeira Domínguez L, Botana Rial MI et al (2018) Validation of the portable air-smart spirometer. PLoS One 13(2):e0192789. Scholar
  65. Rebhan M, Murphy SA, Röst H, Spang R, Schuppert A, Fröhlich H et al (2018) From hype to reality: data science enabling personalized medicine. BMC Med 16(1):1–15Google Scholar
  66. Rittau AM, McLachlan AJ (2012) Investigating paracetamol pharmacokinetics using venous and capillary blood and saliva sampling. J Pharm Pharmacol 64(5):705–711Google Scholar
  67. Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA et al (1996) Effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med 335(14):1001–1009Google Scholar
  68. Samsung S (2019) Skin analyzes and improves your skin. Accessed 8 Apr 2019
  69. Scott RS, Lintott CJWM (1991) Simvastatin and side effects. N Z Med J 104(924):493–495Google Scholar
  70. Scott A, Liu M, Yong J (2018) Financial incentives to encourage value-based health care. Med Care Res Rev 75(1):3–32Google Scholar
  71. Simon R (2017) Critical review of umbrella, basket, and platform designs for oncology clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 102(6):934–941Google Scholar
  72. Smilowitz NR, Mahajan AM, Roe MT, Hellkamp AS, Chiswell K, Gulati M et al (2017) Mortality of myocardial infarction by sex, age, and obstructive coronary artery disease status in the ACTION Registry-GWTG (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get with the Guidelines). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 10(12):1–8Google Scholar
  73. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR (2002) Information in practice patient non-compliance with paper diaries. BMJ 324(73):1193–1194Google Scholar
  74. Story A, Aldridge RW, Smith CM, Garber E, Hall J, Ferenando G et al (2019) Smartphone-enabled video-observed versus directly observed treatment for tuberculosis: a multicentre, analyst-blinded, randomised, controlled superiority trial. Lancet 393(10177):1216–1224. Scholar
  75. The Bible – Book of Daniel (2017) Christian standard Bible, Chapter 1, Verse 1–17Google Scholar
  76. Thorlund K, Haggstrom J, Park JJ, Mills EJ (2018) Key design considerations for adaptive clinical trials: a primer for clinicians. BMJ 360:k698Google Scholar
  77. Tuijn S, Janssens F, Robben P, Van Den Bergh H (2012) Reducing interrater variability and improving health care: a meta-analytical review. J Eval Clin Pract 18(4):887–895Google Scholar
  78. UrgoTech (2019) URGONight brain training for sleep.
  79. van Diemen MPJ, Akram N, Webb A, Groeneveld GJ (2017) Validation of a pharmacological model for mitochondrial dysfunction in healthy subjects using simvastatin: a randomized placebo-controlled proof-of-pharmacology study. Eur J Pharmacol 815:290–297. Scholar
  80. Wang R, Blackburn G, Desai M, Phelan D, Gillinov L, Houghtaling P et al (2017) Accuracy of wrist-worn heart rate monitors. JAMA Cardiol 2(1):104–106Google Scholar
  81. Warren JB (2019) Translating the dose response into risk and benefit. Br J Clin Pharmacol:bcp.13949.
  82. Wilbanks J (2018) Design issues in e-consent. J Law Med Ethics 46(1):110–118Google Scholar
  83. Wislowska M, Gnjezda M-T, Griessenberger H, Hoedlmoser K, Heib DPJ, Schabus M (2017) Better than sham? A double-blind placebo-controlled neurofeedback study in primary insomnia. Brain 140(4):1041–1052Google Scholar
  84. Wong CHIH, Siah KWEI, Lo AW (2019) Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related. Biostatistics 20(2):273–286Google Scholar
  85. Zung WWK (1965) A self-rating depression scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 12(1):63–70. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthijs D. Kruizinga
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frederik E. Stuurman
    • 1
  • Geert J. Groeneveld
    • 1
    • 3
  • Adam F. Cohen
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Human Drug ResearchLeidenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Juliana Children’s Hospital, HAGA Teaching HospitalThe HagueThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Leiden University Medical CenterLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations