Phase 2 Clinical Trial Protocol Template: Structure, Required Sections, and What Regulators Actually Check

Introduction

Phase 2 is the major attrition point in clinical development. Data from Citeline covering 10 years of phase transitions between 2014 and 2023 show that only 28% of programs that enter Phase 2 successfully advance to Phase 3 ^[1]. That number has been falling steadily over the past decade. Poorly designed protocols contribute to preventable delay and compromised decision quality. A 2024 Tufts CSDD benchmark study across 16 companies and 950 protocols found that 77% of amendments were deemed unavoidable, primarily driven by regulatory agency requests and changes in study strategy ^[2]. An earlier Tufts CSDD study estimated that approximately one-third of amendments were avoidable ^[16]. A protocol that enters Phase 2 without a precisely defined endpoint, a justified dose, or a pre-specified adaptive decision rule generates data that may not support a Phase 3 design, potentially forcing either a second Phase 2 study or an underpowered Phase 3 program.

A well-constructed Phase 2 protocol template does not guarantee success. But a poorly constructed one can materially increase the risk of delay. According to the 2024 Tufts CSDD publication, the total average time to implement a protocol amendment has nearly tripled over the past decade, with the process from identifying the need for an amendment to receiving the final ethics committee approval now taking an average of 260 days ^[2]. For a Phase 2 trial, that kind of disruption can shift a program's timeline by a year or more.

This article walks through the required sections of a Phase 2 clinical trial protocol, the regulatory standards that govern content and structure, and where Phase 2-specific design decisions diverge from other phases.

Why Phase 2 Protocol Design Carries Outsized Risk

Phase 2 occupies an unusual position in the drug development continuum. The IND application is already in effect. Basic safety has been characterized in Phase 1. But Phase 2 is where the program must answer harder questions: Does the drug work in patients? What dose should be carried forward? Is the chosen primary endpoint sensitive enough to detect the effect the team expects?

ICH guideline E8(R1) describes Phase 2 trials as exploratory studies designed to investigate safety and efficacy in a selected population of patients, with additional goals of refining effective dose ranges and regimens, narrowing the target population definition, and generating a more complete safety profile ^[3]. The ICH explicitly frames Phase 2 as the phase where the sponsor shapes everything that comes after.

The consequence of that framing is that a flawed Phase 2 protocol does not just harm the current trial. It produces data that cannot support a Phase 3 design. Sponsors then face a choice between running a second Phase 2 study or proceeding to Phase 3 with an uncertain foundation.

Phase 2 protocols also generate a substantial amendment burden. The 2011 Tufts CSDD study found that more than 40% of protocols were amended before first subject enrollment ^[16]. The 2024 study found that the most common causes were changes in clinical trial strategy and regulatory agency requests ^[2]; protocol design flaws and recruitment difficulties have also historically been reported as amendment drivers ^[16]. Substantial amendments may require revised consent and re-consent for currently enrolled participants, depending on IRB/IEC determination and the nature of the change, under ICH E6(R3) ^[5] and 21 CFR Part 50 ^[18].

The Regulatory Framework Governing Phase 2 Protocol Content

FDA: 21 CFR 312.23

The foundational regulatory standard for IND protocol content in the United States is 21 CFR 312.23. The regulation explicitly distinguishes Phase 2 requirements from Phase 1. While Phase 1 protocols may be less detailed and more flexible, Phase 2 protocols must include a clear statement of objectives and purpose, the criteria for patient selection and exclusion, the study design (including whether blinding and control groups are used), and the procedures for monitoring subject safety ^[4]. Phase 2 protocols should also describe the planned statistical approach, with detailed statistical expectations shaped by ICH E9(R1) ^[9] and regulatory convention beyond the CFR content floor.

ICH E6(R3): Quality by Design and Risk Proportionality

ICH E6(R3) was finalized at Step 4 on January 6, 2025. The EMA adopted it effective July 23, 2025. FDA published its final guidance in the Federal Register on September 9, 2025 (Docket No. FDA-2023-D-1955) ^[5]. The guideline restructured Good Clinical Practice around two principles that directly affect protocol construction: quality by design and risk-proportionate oversight. The practical implication for Phase 2 protocols is that the quality management approach, including identification of factors critical to trial quality and the oversight plan, should be embedded in the protocol itself rather than treated as a post-drafting consideration. Annex 1 of E6(R3), which covers interventional clinical trials, introduced substantially more explicit data governance requirements under Section 4 than those in the prior E6(R2) framework ^[5].

ICH M11 CeSHarP: The New Structural Standard

The most operationally significant change to protocol structure arrived with ICH M11 Clinical Electronic Structured Harmonised Protocol (CeSHarP). The guideline was adopted by the ICH Assembly on November 19, 2025. FDA published its final guidance in the Federal Register on May 22, 2026 ^[7]. The EMA M11 Template was adopted by CHMP on December 11, 2025 and came into effect on June 11, 2026 ^[6].

M11 is not a mandate for specific software, but it defines the content structure and formatting, including standardized headers, common text elements, and data fields that enable electronic exchange of clinical protocol information across sponsors, investigators, ethics committees, and regulators in all ICH regions ^[6]. For Phase 2 protocol writers, M11 matters for two reasons. First, the template is designed to work across all phases and therapeutic areas, meaning Phase 2 sponsors who structure their protocols in alignment with M11 will produce documents that are easier to submit, review, and amend. Second, M11's design philosophy places the synopsis, schema, and Schedule of Activities near the front of the document, prioritizing the operational information that site staff need to execute the trial ^[6]. That structural choice reflects an important recognition: many protocol failures are execution failures, and execution failures often begin with documents that bury critical information. M11 defines how a protocol is structured and exchanged; it does not substitute for the scientific and operational rigor of the underlying design decisions.

ICH E8(R1) and the Estimands Framework

ICH E8(R1) introduced the quality by design approach to clinical study planning and specifies that Phase 2 exploratory studies should focus on answering questions about dose and patient population that will anchor Phase 3 design ^[3]. ICH E8(R1) should be read alongside ICH E9(R1) ^[9], which provides the estimand framework that governs how treatment effects are defined and measured. An estimand is a precise definition of the treatment effect a trial is designed to estimate, specifying the target population, the treatment condition, the outcome variable, how intercurrent events will be handled, and the population-level summary measure ^[9]. For Phase 2 protocols, the estimand should be defined in the protocol, not only in the statistical analysis plan.

Phase 2 Protocol Template: Section-by-Section Reference

The table below provides a structured reference view. Detailed discussion of each section follows.

Minimum Viable Protocol Checklist for Phase 2

Before finalizing a Phase 2 protocol for IND submission or ethics review, each of the following should be explicitly addressed in the document:

Copy-Ready Phase 2 Protocol Skeleton

The section sequence below is M11-aligned and meets 21 CFR 312.23 content requirements. It is a simplified working scaffold; the full M11 template contains additional subfields, data governance elements, and electronic exchange specifications not reproduced here. Each section header maps to the template table above. The depth required in each section scales with the study risk, therapeutic area, design complexity, and jurisdiction. A Phase 2a proof-of-concept study in a single region requires less elaboration in some sections than a multi-regional Phase 2b dose-ranging trial; sponsors should calibrate accordingly. This skeleton is provided for orientation purposes only and does not constitute legal or regulatory advice; sponsors are responsible for confirming applicable requirements with qualified legal, regulatory, and medical writing counsel for each study and jurisdiction.

0.  Title Page
    Protocol title | Protocol number | Sponsor | IND number
    Version [X.X] | Date [YYYY-MM-DD]

1.  Synopsis
    Objectives | Design | Population | Interventions
    Primary endpoint | Key secondary endpoints | Sample size | Phase

2.  Study Schema (visual diagram)

3.  Background and Rationale
    3.1 Disease background and unmet need
    3.2 Investigational product: mechanism and pre-clinical summary
    3.3 Prior human experience and Phase 1 results
    3.4 Dose rationale

4.  Objectives and Endpoints
    4.1 Primary objective and endpoint
    4.2 Secondary objectives and endpoints
    4.3 Exploratory objectives and endpoints
    4.4 Estimand (population | treatment condition | variable |
        intercurrent event handling | summary measure)

5.  Study Design
    5.1 Overall design and rationale
    5.2 Blinding and randomization
    5.3 Control condition
    5.4 Adaptive design rules (if applicable; must be fully pre-specified)
    5.5 Interim analysis and futility stopping criteria

6.  Study Population
    6.1 Inclusion criteria
    6.2 Exclusion criteria
    6.3 Rationale for key eligibility restrictions

7.  Schedule of Activities (tabular matrix)

8.  Investigational Product
    8.1 Formulation, dose, route, frequency per arm
    8.2 Storage and handling
    8.3 Accountability and dispensing

9.  Statistical Considerations
    9.1 Sample size and power assumptions
    9.2 Primary analysis population
    9.3 Primary and secondary analyses
    9.4 Missing data approach
    9.5 Dose-response model (Phase 2b)

10. Safety Monitoring
    10.1 Adverse event collection and grading criteria
    10.2 SAE reporting timelines
    10.3 DMC/DSMB structure and stopping rules

11. Informed Consent Procedures

12. Ethical and Regulatory Considerations
    12.1 IRB/IEC requirements
    12.2 Applicable regulations and guidelines
    12.3 Data privacy framework (HIPAA / GDPR as applicable)

Appendix A: Investigator's Brochure (or reference)
Appendix B: Laboratory reference ranges

Core Sections in Detail

Title Page and Protocol Identification

The title page carries the full protocol title (typically including randomization status, blinding, phase, therapeutic area, and intervention name), a unique protocol number, the sponsor name and address, the IND number or application reference, the protocol version number, and the date. Version control on the title page is not optional; it is the first line of defense against sites operating on outdated documents.

Synopsis and Study Schema

ICH M11 places the synopsis and schema early in the document. The synopsis is a structured summary covering objectives, design, population, interventions, primary and secondary endpoints, and statistical approach. The schema is a visual representation of the trial design, typically showing treatment arms, time points, key assessments, and dosing information. For Phase 2 studies that involve multiple dose arms or a Phase 2a/2b adaptive structure, the schema is often the clearest way to communicate design intent.

Background and Rationale

The background section establishes the scientific case for the study. It covers the disease being studied, the mechanism of the investigational product, the results of pre-clinical and Phase 1 studies that support the chosen dose range and patient population, and the unmet medical need. The rationale section should explicitly connect the Phase 1 findings to the Phase 2 design decisions. If the chosen dose is based on a population pharmacokinetic model, that model should be cited. Review teams may examine whether the dose justification is internally consistent with the Phase 1 data in the IND.

Objectives and Endpoints

FDA regulations under 21 CFR 312.23 require that Phase 2 IND protocols clearly state objectives and purposes ^[4]. In practice, Phase 2 protocols include primary, secondary, and exploratory objectives, each paired with corresponding endpoints.

The distinction between Phase 2a and Phase 2b matters here. Many Phase 2a trials are proof-of-concept studies, using a continuous biomarker or early efficacy signal as the primary endpoint to establish that the drug produces the intended biological effect in patients, though design varies by therapeutic area and development context. Phase 2b dose-ranging studies are typically larger and may enroll several hundred patients across multiple arms, focusing on identifying the optimal dose or dose range for Phase 3 by balancing efficacy outcomes against adverse event rates ^[10]. For Phase 2b protocols, the statistical framework for the dose-response model should be described in the protocol and aligned with the separate statistical analysis plan.

All endpoints must be defined with sufficient precision that an independent adjudicator could apply the definition consistently. This is particularly important for patient-reported outcomes and composite endpoints, which are increasingly common in Phase 2 oncology and central nervous system trials.

Estimand example for a Phase 2b pain trial: The primary estimand might specify: population (adults with moderate-to-severe chronic lower back pain meeting specific PROMIS criteria), treatment condition (assigned dose level vs. placebo as randomized), variable (change from baseline in weekly average pain intensity at Week 12 on an 11-point numeric rating scale), intercurrent event handling (treatment discontinuation addressed using a hypothetical strategy: what would the outcome be if all participants continued treatment as assigned), and population-level summary measure (difference in means between each active dose arm and placebo). Defining this in the protocol requires explicit decisions about dose arm comparisons and multiplicity, both of which must be pre-specified.

Study Design

The study design section specifies randomization (or its absence), blinding, the control condition (placebo, active comparator, or dose-comparison), the number and duration of treatment periods, and adaptive design elements if present. Phase 2 frequently employs adaptive designs, particularly Simon two-stage designs in oncology or model-based dose-finding approaches in non-oncology settings. If the design includes a pre-planned interim analysis for futility or dose selection, the criteria and timing for that analysis must be described in the protocol.

FDA guidance on adaptive designs notes that adaptations not described in the protocol before unblinding raise concerns about the integrity of the primary analysis; the guidance recommends that adaptation rules be prospectively specified and fully documented before the study begins ^[14]. This is a recommendation in non-binding FDA guidance, not an absolute regulatory prohibition, but departures from prospective specification require a compelling scientific justification.

Study Population: Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria are where Phase 2 protocols most frequently go wrong. Tufts CSDD analysis of Phase 2 and Phase 3 protocols has documented a continuing upward trend in the average number of eligibility criteria, endpoints, and protocol pages across successive study periods ^[11]. The consequences are tangible: research on NCI-affiliated clinical trials found that eligibility criteria content growth was independently associated with accrual failure (OR: 1.09 per decile of criteria complexity, 95% CI [1.03-1.15]) ^[12].

The eligibility criteria section should include:

• Inclusion criteria: clinical, demographic, laboratory, and disease-specific characteristics required for participation
• Exclusion criteria: prior and concomitant treatments, comorbidities, laboratory thresholds, and safety-specific restrictions
• Rationale for non-standard exclusions: regulatory agencies and IRBs may request justification for exclusion criteria that are not supported by the safety profile of the investigational product or that disproportionately exclude underrepresented populations

Overly restrictive exclusion criteria in Phase 2 carry a compound risk: they reduce the pool of eligible patients (slowing enrollment) and produce a study population that does not reflect the eventual approved population (reducing the external validity of the data). Research examining urothelial cancer clinical trials conducted between 2012 and 2022 found that many restrictive criteria introduced in Phase 1 persisted through Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials without re-examination ^[13]. Site feasibility assessment, which evaluates whether a site's existing patient population can actually meet the protocol's eligibility criteria at adequate enrollment rates, is a related upstream step that sponsors can use to test criteria stringency before finalizing the protocol (see KScout).

Schedule of Activities (SoA)

The Schedule of Activities is one of the most operationally consequential sections of a Phase 2 protocol. It is presented as a table or matrix mapping study visits to procedures, assessments, and data collection activities. ICH M11 places the SoA prominently in the document structure because it is the primary reference that site coordinators use during trial execution ^[6]. A SoA that is unclear, internally inconsistent, or misaligned with the objectives and endpoints section is frequently implicated in protocol deviations.

A practical SoA quality check before finalizing:

• Does every procedure in the SoA map to a primary or secondary endpoint, or to a specified safety objective?
• Are visit windows defined with clear start and end day ranges, not just nominal visit numbers?
• Do any two consecutive visits have overlapping windows that could create ambiguity about which visit a procedure belongs to?
• Are laboratory assessments matched to the grading criteria cited in the safety section?
• Has the SoA been reviewed by a site coordinator, not just by the sponsor team?

Each additional procedure added to a Phase 2 SoA increases participant burden, raises the probability of missing data, and may contribute to dropout. A 2025 peer-reviewed collaborative study by Tufts CSDD and 15 TransCelerate BioPharma member companies, analyzing 105 Phase 2 and Phase 3 protocols, found that nearly one-third of procedures and data collected across those phases are non-core or non-essential, and that those procedures account for 25-30% of workload burden for participants and investigative sites ^[8]. That evidence makes the case for restricting the SoA to genuinely decision-relevant procedures.

Statistical Considerations

The statistical section of a Phase 2 protocol must include: the primary analysis population definition (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, or modified intention-to-treat), the primary endpoint analysis method, the sample size calculation with assumptions and the power justification, the approach to handling missing data, and a description of any planned interim analyses. For Phase 2 dose-ranging studies, the statistical model for dose-response (e.g., Emax model, MCP-Mod) should be described here.

ICH E9(R1) requires that the estimand be aligned with the statistical analysis methods ^[9]. A Phase 2 protocol cannot simply state that the primary endpoint will be "analyzed by ANCOVA." The analysis must be tied back to a precisely defined estimand, including specification of how intercurrent events such as treatment discontinuation, rescue medication use, and death will be handled in the primary analysis.

Safety Monitoring and Adverse Event Reporting

Adverse event collection, grading criteria (typically CTCAE for oncology trials), causality assessment, and serious adverse event reporting timelines must be specified. The protocol must describe the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) or Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) structure, stopping rules for safety, and any interim safety reviews. ICH E6(R3) requires that the sponsor's risk-based monitoring plan, including identification of critical data and processes, be reflected in the study oversight framework ^[5].

Informed Consent Procedures

The protocol should describe the informed consent process, including when consent will be obtained relative to any study procedures, re-consent requirements if the protocol is amended, and procedures for participants who cannot provide consent independently. Revisions to the protocol that materially affect participants may trigger re-consent requirements, which is one reason that minimizing substantive amendments before first patient has direct operational consequences beyond timeline management.

Ethical Considerations and Regulatory Requirements

This section covers IRB and IEC submission requirements, applicable regulatory standards (citing the specific ICH guidelines, FDA regulations, and local regulations relevant to the study's geographic scope), and data privacy frameworks. For studies conducted in the European Union, the applicable legal basis under the EU Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR, EU 536/2014) should be stated. Protocol teams should confirm that all local and regional requirements are addressed in addition to ICH and FDA standards, since country-specific regulations may impose additional consent language, pharmacovigilance reporting timelines, or data residency requirements that the ICH framework does not cover.

Phase 2-Specific Design Decisions That Belong in the Protocol

Dose Selection Justification

21 CFR 312.23 requires that Phase 2 protocols describe the method for determining doses, the planned maximum dosage, and the duration of exposure ^[4]. At Phase 2, that description must build from Phase 1 pharmacokinetic and safety data. If the sponsor is testing multiple doses, the rationale for the dose range and spacing must be stated. If a minimum effective dose or maximum tolerated dose was established in Phase 1, the protocol should explain how Phase 2 doses relate to those benchmarks.

Adaptive Design Pre-Specification

If the Phase 2 study uses any pre-planned modifications to the study design, including interim dose selection, integrated Phase 2/3 design, or response-adaptive randomization, all adaptation rules should be fully pre-specified in the protocol before the study begins. FDA's adaptive design guidance recommends prospective specification and full documentation before the study starts ^[14].

Biomarker and Patient Stratification Strategy

Phase 2 represents the optimal opportunity to identify patient subgroups that derive differential benefit or harm from the investigational product. ICH E8(R1) recommends that clinical development programs evaluate biomarkers throughout development for their ability to target patients more likely to benefit ^[3]. If the Phase 2 protocol includes a biomarker-driven enrichment strategy or a pre-specified subgroup analysis by biomarker status, those analyses must be defined in the protocol with a corresponding multiplicity adjustment plan.

Futility Stopping Rules

For Phase 2a single-arm oncology trials and two-stage designs, the futility stopping rule is a protocol element, not a post-hoc decision. Simon two-stage designs specify the exact number of responses required to continue to the second stage and the maximum number of patients in each stage. These parameters determine the operating characteristics of the trial and must be stated in the protocol.

Regulatory and Documentation Considerations

Protocol Amendments and IND Submissions

Any substantial modification to a Phase 2 protocol after IND submission must be submitted to FDA as a protocol amendment under 21 CFR 312.30 before implementation. The amendment must include a reference to any technical information in the IND that supports the change, identified by name, reference number, volume, and page number ^[15]. For studies conducted in the EU under the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU No 536/2014), substantial modifications require prior authorization from both the ethics committee and the competent authority through the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) ^[17]. Strategies for minimizing protocol amendments before first patient first visit are covered in Kitsa's planned article on reducing amendment burden at the protocol design stage.

The practical implication is that protocol amendments are operationally costly. Substantial amendments that materially change participant risk or procedures may require re-consent for enrolled participants, depending on IRB/IEC determination and the nature of the change, under ICH E6(R3) ^[5] and 21 CFR Part 50 ^[18].

Cross-Document Consistency

A Phase 2 protocol does not exist in isolation. The endpoints defined in the protocol must match the data collection instruments in the case report form. The eligibility criteria in the protocol must align with the screening forms. The adverse event grading criteria must match the instructions in the monitoring plan. Inconsistencies between the protocol and its satellite documents may surface as observations in sponsor inspections and clinical quality assurance audits.

ICH E6(R3) introduced explicit data governance requirements under Section 4 of the finalized guideline ^[5]. These requirements address data integrity, access controls, and the traceability of changes to data. The protocol should specify the electronic data capture system and the data management responsibilities, or cross-reference a separate data management plan.

Sponsors building Phase 2 document sets that need to maintain consistency across protocol, ICF, and investigator's brochure may find KScribe relevant to this workflow.

AI and Automation Perspective

AI tools are being applied to protocol authoring and review across the industry. Their most defensible near-term utility at Phase 2 is concentrated in quality assurance tasks: checking cross-document consistency between the protocol and satellite documents such as the informed consent form and the investigator's brochure, flagging eligibility criteria that appear disproportionately restrictive relative to the target disease population, and identifying mismatches between the objectives section and the Schedule of Activities.

For AI tools used in GxP-regulated workflows, the regulatory expectations are specific. ICH E6(R3) specifies that computerized systems used in clinical trial conduct should meet documented qualification and validation standards appropriate to their intended use ^[5]. For AI tools applied to protocol authoring, the extent of validation requirements depends on how the output is used. A drafting aid whose output is reviewed and edited by a qualified human before any regulatory use sits in a different risk tier than a system whose output would be submitted to a regulatory authority without material modification. Organizations should assess each intended use individually and document their risk-based rationale.

AI tools that review protocols for completeness against a defined regulatory checklist (such as M11 section coverage) can offer consistent coverage at speed without requiring the same validation depth as a system producing submission-ready output directly. Whatever the tool, human expert review by a qualified medical writer and regulatory professional remains a requirement before any AI-assisted protocol content reaches a regulatory submission.

How Kitsa Fits Into This Problem

Kitsa's KScribe platform is designed to address the cross-document consistency challenge that sits at the center of Phase 2 protocol quality. When a protocol is drafted or revised, the informed consent form, investigator's brochure, and other satellite documents must reflect the same objectives, doses, eligibility criteria, and safety monitoring procedures. KScribe is built to produce and maintain those documents together, reducing the risk of version drift and the amendment burden that follows from it. For sponsors and CROs managing Phase 2 documents under the ICH M11 structured template standard, a system that treats the protocol as part of a document set rather than a standalone deliverable reduces a category of error that is both common and avoidable.

Key Takeaways

• Only 28% of Phase 2 programs advance to Phase 3, per Citeline data covering the decade from 2014 to 2023. Poorly designed protocols contribute to preventable delay, amendment burden, and degraded decision quality entering Phase 3. The 2024 Tufts CSDD benchmark study found that 77% of amendments were deemed unavoidable, with regulatory requests and changes in study strategy among the top cited reasons ^[2]; an earlier Tufts CSDD study estimated that approximately one-third of amendments were avoidable ^[16].
• ICH M11 CeSHarP defines the current structural standard for clinical trial protocols across all phases. The EMA template came into effect on June 11, 2026; FDA published its final guidance on May 22, 2026. Phase 2 sponsors should align new and revised protocols with M11's content requirements and section ordering.
• 21 CFR 312.23 requires that Phase 2 protocols include stated objectives, patient selection criteria, study design and controls, dose determination method, planned maximum dosage, duration of exposure, and safety monitoring procedures. Phase 2 protocols face higher content expectations than Phase 1. The detailed statistical expectations, including sample size, estimands, and analysis methodology, are shaped by ICH E9(R1) ^[9] and regulatory convention beyond the CFR.
• Per the 2011 Tufts CSDD study, more than 40% of protocols had been amended prior to first subject enrollment ^[16]. Each amendment now takes an average of 260 days to implement through final ethics approval ^[2]. Front-loading protocol quality can reduce this burden.
• Adaptive design elements, futility stopping rules, and biomarker stratification strategies should be prospectively specified in the protocol before the study begins. FDA guidance on adaptive designs recommends full pre-specification and documentation before the study starts.
• Cross-document consistency between the protocol, consent form, case report form, and monitoring plan may surface as an observation in sponsor inspections. ICH E6(R3)'s data governance requirements make this a compliance obligation, not only a quality consideration.
• AI tools applied to protocol authoring in GxP-regulated contexts are subject to validation requirements proportionate to their intended use under ICH E6(R3). Drafting assistance with human expert review is the current practical model.

FAQ

References

1. [1]Norstella / Citeline. "Why Are Clinical Development Success Rates Falling?" Citeline Insights, 2024. https://www.norstella.com/insight/why-are-clinical-development-success-rates-falling/
2. [2]Getz, K., Smith, Z., Botto, E., Murphy, E., Dauchy, A. "New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Practices, Trends and Their Impact on Clinical Trial Performance." Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 58(3):539-548, 2024. doi:10.1007/s43441-024-00622-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38438658/
3. [3]International Council for Harmonisation. "ICH Guideline E8(R1) on General Considerations for Clinical Studies." EMA/CHMP/ICH/544569/1998, 2021. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-e-8-general-considerations-clinical-trials-step-5_en.pdf
4. [4]U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. "21 CFR 312.23: IND Content and Format." Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-312/subpart-B/section-312.23
5. [5]U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "E6(R3) Good Clinical Practice: Guidance for Industry." September 2025. Federal Register Notice: Docket No. FDA-2023-D-1955, September 9, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/09/2025-17311/e6r3-good-clinical-practice-international-council-for-harmonisation-guidance-for-industry
6. [6]European Medicines Agency. "ICH M11 Clinical Electronic Structured Harmonised Protocol (CeSHarP) Template, Step 5." EMA/CHMP/ICH/778801/2022. Final adoption by CHMP: December 11, 2025; Date for coming into effect: June 11, 2026. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/template-form/ich-m11-clinical-electronic-structured-harmonised-protocol-cesharp-template-step-5_en.pdf
7. [7]U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "M11 Clinical Electronic Structured Harmonised Protocol (CeSHarP): Guidance for Industry." Federal Register Notice, Docket No. FDA-2022-D-3054, May 22, 2026. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/22/2026-10295/m11-clinical-electronic-structured-harmonised-protocol-cesharp-international-council-for
8. [8]Getz, K., Botto, E., Calduch Arques, A., Galuchie, L., Camargo Sanmiguel, N., Sheetz, N., Smith, Z. "Insights Informing Strategies for Optimizing the Collection of Clinical Trial Data." Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2025. doi:10.1007/s43441-025-00899-4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41462003/
9. [9]International Council for Harmonisation. "ICH E9(R1) Addendum on Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials." EMA/CHMP/ICH/436221/2017, 2019. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-e9-r1-addendum-estimands-sensitivity-analysis-clinical-trials-guidelines-design-conduct_en.pdf
10. [10]Ivanova, A., Xiao, C., Tymofyeyev, Y. "Two-Stage Designs for Phase 2 Dose-Finding Trials." Statistics in Medicine, 31(24):2872-2881, 2012. doi:10.1002/sim.5365. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22865626/
11. [11]Getz, K., Smith, Z., Kravet, M. "Protocol Design and Performance Benchmarks by Phase and by Oncology and Rare Disease Subgroups." Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, 57(1):49-56, 2023. doi:10.1007/s43441-022-00438-5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43441-022-00438-5
12. [12]Peterson, J.S., Plana, D., Bitterman, D.S., Johnson, S.B., Aerts, H.J.W.L., Kann, B.H. "Growth in Eligibility Criteria Content and Failure to Accrue Among National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Affiliated Clinical Trials." Cancer Medicine, 12:4715-4724, 2023. doi:10.1002/cam4.5276. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36398619/
13. [13]Mercier, B.D., Govindarajan, A., Castro, D.V., et al. "Eligibility Criteria in Advanced Urothelial Cancer Clinical Trials: An Assessment of Modernization and Inclusion." Cancer Medicine, 14(7):e70696, 2025. doi:10.1002/cam4.70696. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11947756/
14. [14]U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics: Guidance for Industry." FDA, 2019. https://www.fda.gov/media/78495/download
15. [15]U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. "21 CFR 312.30: Protocol Amendments." Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-312/subpart-B/section-312.30
16. [16]Getz, K.A., Zuckerman, R., Cropp, A.B., Hindle, A.L., Krauss, R., Kaitin, K.I. "Measuring the Incidence, Causes, and Repercussions of Protocol Amendments." Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 45(3):265-275, 2011. doi:10.1177/009286151104500307. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1177/009286151104500307
17. [17]European Parliament and Council of the European Union. "Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use." Official Journal of the European Union, L 158, May 27, 2014. Articles 15-24 govern substantial modifications. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014R0536
18. [18]U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. "21 CFR Part 50: Protection of Human Subjects." Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-50
19. [19]U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. "21 CFR Part 56: Institutional Review Boards." Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-56