[Clinical research coordinators: a crucial resource.] / Coordinatori di ricerca clinica: una risorsa indispensabile.

The increasing complexity that characterizes the world of clinical trials, both in terms of procedures and bureaucracy, has made it necessary to create dedicated infrastructures composed of experienced and qualified personnel, who constantly work to ensure high ethical and qualitative standards. A key role in these infrastructures is played by the clinical research coordinator, a key figure able to manage the workflow required, placing himself as a reference for the coordination of the various activities and professional figures involved. The literature has widely demonstrated how the presence of this professional figure is a valid contribution both from a documentary and administrative point of view as well as a crucial resource for what concerns the indicators of ethics and quality of research. Despite that, there is no yet an institutional recognition of the professional figure, neither a specific economical agreement within the National Health System. The lack of institutional recognition is causing a worrying phenomenon of migration of qualified personnel towards contract research organizations and pharmaceutical companies. That could be detrimental to the competitiveness of Italian clinical research and hinder the possibility of offering innovative experiments therapies to patients, with serious ethical consequences.

Effect of Contract Research Organization Bureaucracy in Clinical Trial Management: A Model From Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Contract research organization (CRO) support is largely included in clinical trial management, although its effect in terms of time savings and benefit has not yet been quantified. We performed a retrospective multicenter analysis of lung cancer trials to explore differences in term of trial activation timelines and accrual for studies with and without CRO involvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results regarding study timelines from feasibility data to first patient enrollment were collected from 7 Italian thoracic oncology departments. The final accruals (screened/enrolled patients) are reported. We considered CRO/sponsor-administered and CRO-free trials according to who was responsible for the management of the crucial setup phases. RESULTS: Of 113 trials, 62 (54.9%) were CRO-administered, 34 (30.1%) were sponsor-administered, and 17 (15.0%) were CRO-free. The median time from feasibility invitation to documentation obtainment was 151 days in the CRO-administered trials versus 128 in the sponsor-administered and 120 in the CRO-free trials. The time from document submission to contract signature was 142 days in the CRO-administered versus 128 in the sponsor-administered and 132 in the CRO-free trials. The time from global accrual opening to first patient enrollment was 247 days for the CRO-administered versus 194 in the sponsor-administered and 151 in the CRO-free trials. No significant differences were observed in terms of the median overall timeline: 21 months in the CRO-administered, 15 in the sponsor-administered, and 18 months in the CRO-free studies (P = .29). CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant differences were identified, the results of our analysis support the idea that bureaucratic procedures might require more time in CRO-administered trials than in sponsor-administered and CRO-free studies. This bureaucratic delay could negatively affect Italian patients' screening and enrollment compared with other countries.