TREND 1: Addressing Trial Complexity
Understanding clinical trial complexity will become more of a focus in 2012 as sponsors seek new ways to manage costs and speed study execution. It’s imperative to understand the impact that a more complex study design has on the success of the trial, particularly on the critical metrics of recruitment and retention of sites and subjects alike. We’ve seen significant growth in the complexity of study design globally, which requires more effort on the part of sites participating, but due to restrained budgets, sites are not always offered competitive reimbursement.
Our data on over 250,000 actual study grants around the world shows us a troubling trend in some US regions. Reimbursement rates for participating sites in the Northeast and Pacific regions have increased, but not enough to offset the high level of work and expertise required by increasing complex studies. Budget-focused sponsors have not appropriately factored in the amount of work that must be performed on a patient, how long it takes, the level of expertise required by the doctors or site staff, as well as the amount of data collected and the required data monitoring. If sites aren’t offered proper compensation for their efforts, sponsors are going to have a hard time recruiting them, putting study timelines at risk.
During study acceptance and the budget negotiation process, a site takes into account many factors and may make a decision to accept what might be considered a lower compensation for a particular study, especially if the drug or device shows promise to their patients. However, in a highly competitive situation, sites will be more apt to work with sponsors who take the complexity of the study design into account with respect to both reimbursement and timelines.
Complexity has a big impact on patient recruitment as well. With social media, patients have access to more and more information about studies available to them. A savvy patient might opt for a study that requires less of their time and fewer onerous procedures, such as blood work for the needle-phobe. I’ve even heard of sponsors getting patient input during the protocol review process—as a way to understand patient tolerance, eliminate unnecessary procedures, predict enrollment and potentially decrease dropout rates. I predict that this particular idea will spread farther in 2012 and I’m eager to see the resulting changes to complex study designs.
More about Lori Shields
Comments in this post
Leave a reply
- Hearables, Wristables and Eyewearables!
- A Three-foot Long Baby… and Other Scary Data Errors in Clinical Trials
- How Wearables and Mobile Health Tech Are Reshaping Clinical Trials
- Providing Clarity on the Definitions of Source Data Verification (SDV) and Source Data Review (SDR)
- Are Wearables the Next Beepers?
Moore’s Law — the idea that spe ...Nov. 23 Media Roundup
There were several big headlines th ...Hearables, Wristables and Eyewearab ...
In Christian Stammel’s NYAS talk ...Are Wearables the Next Beepers?
If you think wearable devices are j ...Nov. 16 Media Roundup
If you think video games are therap ...
Mining Clinicaltrials.gov for mHealth Data
Hi, guys. Thanks for the great post. I wonder if calling these "Industry Sponsored Mobile Health Trials" is blending a...
A Three-foot Long Baby… and Other Scary Data Errors in Clinical Trials
Brilliant angle on the benefits of RBM!
An Easy Problem to Solve: Speeding Up Payments to Clinical Trial Sites
Speaking for over 2,600 sites SCRS robustly supports this movement! You say sponsors want to keep sites - pay...
Taking ePRO to New Places – Replacing Paper
CDISC and Industry Standards
Clinical Data Analytics
Clinical Study Design
Clinical Trial Budgeting
Clinical Trial Management
Clinical Trial Phases
Cloud Computing, SaaS and PaaS
ePRO and mHealth
FDA and Regulatory Affairs
Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Interoperability and eClinical
Randomization and Clinical Trial Supply
Security and Confidentiality
Site Engagement and Monitoring
Technology and Agile Development