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
Disruptive innovation. Sure, the te ...From eClinical to Patient-Centered ...
In a previous post, we asked “I ...SCOPE out the Latest on the Sunshin ...
http://youtu.be/GnmZEzBiPPA In t ...SCOPE out the Latest on the Sunshin ...
http://youtu.be/OWH7QGyVfz0 Medi ...Reduce Site Monitoring Costs with a ...
http://youtu.be/tVwFt5G9lG4 Medi ...
SCDM: Risk-Based Monitoring and the Implications to Data Management
I absolutely agree with this approach. I think Clinical Data Manager are the one with technical skills and behaviors to...
How Technology and Partnerships are Shaping the Evolving CRO Market (Part 1)
Awesome job guys!!
What a New Proof-of Concept Might Mean for Clinical Trials of the Future (Part 2)
These thoughts on RCT Phase I with continual patient data entry, often without site visits or supervision, may be Ok...
Health Care Innovation Takes Center Stage at Health 2.0
thanks for sharing.. it sounds really good in this article... this providing fund to EHR ..good to see...
Black Hat is Black Gold for Medidata
"With the right tools, a hacker can capture the login credentials of a user and gain “front-door” access to an...
CDISC and Industry Standards
Late Phase Development
Patients and Sites
Planning and Budgeting
Randomization and Trial Supply Management
Safety Data Capture
Study and Protocol Design