RESUMEN
Medicine development is a lengthy endeavour. Increasing regulatory stringency and trial complexity might lead to reduced efficiency, dwindled output, and elevated costs. However, alternative models are possible. We compared the operational differences between pharmaceutical industry sponsored trials, product development partnership trials, and investigator-initiated trials to identify key drivers of inefficiency in clinical research. We conducted an exploratory mixed-methods study with stakeholders, including clinical trial sponsors, contract research organisations, and investigators. The qualitative component included 40 semi-structured interviews, document reviews of 12 studies and observations through work shadowing in research institutions in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Switzerland. The findings were triangulated with an online survey polling clinical research professionals. The operational differences were grouped under five categories: (i) trial start-up differences including governance and management structure; (ii) study complexity; (iii) site structural and organisational differences; (iv) study conduct, quality approaches, and standard operating procedures; and (v) site capacity strengthening and collaboration. Early involvement of sites in the planning and tailored quality approaches were considered critical for clinical operations performance. Differences between the types of trials reviewed pertained to planning, operational complexities, quality approaches, and support to the sites. Integration of quality-by-design components has the potential to alleviate unnecessary process burden.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Digital health has gained traction in research and development, and clinical decision support systems. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of decentralised clinical trials (DCTs) as a mitigation and efficiency improvement strategy. We assessed the opportunities and challenges of a digital transformation in clinical research in sub-Saharan Africa from different stakeholders' perspectives. METHODS: A qualitative study, including 40 in-depth semi structured interviews, was conducted with investigators of three leading research institutions in sub-Saharan Africa and Switzerland, contract research organisations and sponsors managing clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa. A thematic approach was used for the analysis. RESULTS: Interviewees perceived DCTs as an opportunity for trial efficiency improvement, quality improvement and reducing the burden of people participating in clinical trials. However, to gain and maintain an optimal quality of clinical trials, a transition period is necessary to tackle contextual challenges before DCTs are being implemented. The main challenges are categorised into four themes: (1) usability and practicability of the technology; (2) paradigm shift and trial data quality; (3) ethical and regulatory hurdles and (4) contextual factors (site-specific research environment and sociocultural aspects). CONCLUSION: The transformation from a site to a patient-centric model with an increased responsibility of participants should be context adapted. The transformation requires substantial investment, training of the various stakeholders and an efficient communication. Additionally, commitment of sponsors, investigators, ethics and regulatory authorities and the buy-in of the communities are essential for this change.
