Benchmarking Site Activation and Patient Enrollment.

Clinical trial conduct poses numerous challenges, many pertaining to patient recruitment. The primary objectives of this study were to update benchmarks on site activation and patient enrollment gathered in previous Tufts CSDD studies and examine current usage of recruitment and retention tactics. The data collection focused on site activation and patient enrollment metrics used for studies. Analyses were conducted comparing results from 2012, 2019 and 2023. The results indicate that actual enrollments exceeded planned enrollments for a majority of studies and timelines were shorter than expected. In addition, differences were found for enrollment achievement by global region and site type. Further investigation into studies conducted during a later time frame and post-pandemic could be compared with current benchmarks to examine differences.

Benchmarking Patient Recruitment and Retention Practices.

Patient recruitment and retention continue to present challenges in conducting clinical trials. The objectives of the study were to benchmark patient recruitment and retention practices across recent global clinical trials from a working group of biopharmaceutical companies and to re-visit the results from an earlier study published 7 years ago. The data collection focused on patient and site enrollment metrics and recruitment and retention tactics used for studies. Analyses were conducted comparing the results from 2012 and 2019. The results indicated that more studies met or exceeded planned enrollment than the previous research and global differences were observed in the present study for site activation rates and target to actual enrollment rates. Since an updated set of recruitment and retention tactics were evaluated in the present study, no comparisons were made to previous data. Researchers suggest further study that would examine usage and effectiveness of specific recruitment and retention tactics across global studies.

Assessing Biopharmaceutical Company Experience with Patient-centric Initiatives.

PURPOSE: A growing number of biopharmaceutical companies have been implementing patient-centric initiatives (PCIs). The Drug Information Association (DIA) and the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) collaborated on a study to gather data on the usage and impact of these PCIs to characterize company experience and impact. METHODS: DIA and Tufts CSDD collaborated with 17 organizations to define PCIs used in clinical research and development and to quantify their use, and to define metrics in use to document impact and return on engagement (ROE) for these PCIs. The study used a mixed methods approach that consisted of an online survey, in-depth interviews, and literature review. FINDINGS: Twenty-two unique companies responded to an on-line survey on the use of 23 PCIs identified by the study working group. PCIs most frequently implemented included patient organization landscape analysis, support of patient advocacy groups, use of patient advisory boards, and use of home nursing networks. Seven additional PCIs were found through a literature search and included in the group of PCIs for which impact measures were assessed. A total of 121 cases of use of the 30 PCIs and associated impact measures and impact data were gathered through literature review, in-depth interviews with the study companies, and in-depth interviews with organizations identified in the literature as having experience with patient engagement in clinical research as well as with patients who had participated in clinical trials. Analysis of the 121 case studies resulted in a list of 666 measures of impact (metrics) in use for 13 of the PCIs. Assessment of overall ROE for these PCIs found that PCIs such as support of patient advocacy groups and use of patient advisory boards indicated the greatest ROE, whereas costlier, more complex PCIs such as digital medicine and gaming indicated relatively low ROE. IMPLICATIONS: Activity around PCIs among the companies studied was widespread, with initiatives more frequently planned and piloted than implemented at the time of this study. Measures of impact have been identified and can be used to assess ROE, providing insights to facilitate the adoption of PCIs of highest impact for patients and biopharmaceutical research organizations.

A Study on the Application and Use of Artificial Intelligence to Support Drug Development.

PURPOSE: The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) and the Drug Information Association (DIA) in collaboration with 8 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies conducted a study examining the adoption and effect of artificial intelligence (AI), such as machine learning, on drug development. The study was conducted to clarify and understand AI adoption across the industry and to gather detailed insights into the spectrum of activities included in the definition of AI. The study investigated and identified analytical platforms and innovations across pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies currently being used or planned for in the future. METHODS: A 2-part method was used that comprised in-depth interviews with AI industry experts and a global survey conducted across pharmaceutical and biotechnology organizations. Eleven in-depth interviews focused on use and implementation of AI across drug development. The survey assessed use of AI and included perceptions about current and future use. The survey also examined technology definitions, assessment of organizational and personal AI expertise, and use of partnerships. A total of 402 responses, including data from 217 unique organizations, were analyzed. FINDINGS: Although 7 in 10 respondents reported using AI in some capacity, a wide range of use was reported by AI type. Patient selection and recruitment for clinical studies was the most commonly reported AI activity, with 34 respondents currently using AI for this activity. In addition, identification of medicinal products data gathering was the top activity being piloted or in the planning stages, reported by 49 respondents. The study also revealed that the most significant challenges to AI implementation included staff skills (55%), data structure (52%), and budgets (49%). Nearly 60% of respondents noted planned increases in staff within 1-2 years to support AI use or implementation. IMPLICATIONS: Despite the challenges to AI implementation, the survey revealed that most organizations use AI in some capacity and that it is important to the success of an organization's workforce. Many organizations reported expectations for increasing staff as implementation of AI expands. Further research should examine the changing development landscape as the role of AI evolves.

Assessing Study Start-up Practices, Performance, and Perceptions Among Sponsors and Contract Research Organizations.

BACKGROUND: Site identification, site selection, and study start-up have become the focus of improvement by organizations conducting clinical trials. METHODS: To examine and measure the process from site identification through site activation, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) conducted a comprehensive survey among pharmaceutical organizations, biotech companies, and contract research organizations (CROs). Responses from over 400 unique companies were gathered and analyzed. RESULTS: The results indicate that the start-up process is on average 5 to 6 months in total duration, and cycle times across all activities, including site identification, site selection, and study start-up, are faster for repeat sites than for new sites. Comparisons between sponsor and CROs indicate that CROs completed all site-related activities 6 to 11 weeks faster than sponsors. Other areas impacting cycle times were examined, including centralized versus decentralized functions, investment in technology, and organizational strategies that improve cycle time efficiency and performance. CONCLUSION: Tufts CSDD will explore this area in future research to gather additional insights into other factors that may be associated with speed and efficiency.

The Use of Real-World Evidence and Data in Clinical Research and Postapproval Safety Studies.

BACKGROUND: The adoption and use of real-world evidence (RWE) is becoming increasingly important to drug development and patient safety. METHODS: The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) conducted a benchmark survey of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and contract research organizations in a number of areas that support real-world data (RWD) and evidence, including operations and performance areas. Data were gathered on organizational functions, staff, roles and responsibilities, and skill sets required. Also, current and future allocation of budgets and spending were examined as well as return on investment measures. A total of 30 unique companies responded to the survey. RESULTS: Nearly all respondents (29/30 companies) reported that their organizations had an RWE function and most companies indicated that their RWE functions were increasing in size (21 companies). From a postapproval regulatory and labeling perspective, there were two primary areas for company use of RWD to generate evidence: one for postapproval safety studies, including decreasing the severity of a label warning or to support risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) (12/22 companies; 55%), which allows for real-world patient population data to inform safety decisions; and the other for postmarketing studies (13/23 companies; 57%). Developing greater insight into therapeutic area needs, gaining market access, and greater understanding of drug effectiveness were the top measures identified for return on investment for use of RWE. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the use of RWE in regulatory decision making and increasing uses of real-world data by sponsors will fill the gaps that are critically needed for drug development and safety.

Mapping the Landscape of Patient-centric Activities Within Clinical Research.

PURPOSE: Although there has been more involvement by patients in the drug-development process, there are not a lot of published data that quantify patient-centric activities or that document these activities across a large scale. In order to examine the patient-centricity landscape and to quantify the adoption and implementation of these initiatives, the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development and the Drug Information Association collaborated on a research study. The study examined patient-centric activities implemented by pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and contract research organizations, as well as activities being piloted or in the planning stages. METHODS: A global industry survey was conducted across pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and contract research organizations, assessing 25 patient-centric activities within clinical research. Some of these initiatives involve the use of social media to engage with patients, or the use of social listening to monitor study activity. Initiatives being implemented, planned, or piloted in addition to those not being considered were evaluated by respondents. Twenty-two unique companies responded to the survey, representing a mix of large, mid-sized, and small organizations. FINDINGS: The most widely adopted patient-centric initiatives, including activities both implemented and piloted across organizations, were patient advisory boards (17/22 companies), professional panels (16), lay-language clinical trial results summaries (13), assessment of the patient-organization landscape (10), and the use of home nursing networks (9). IMPLICATIONS: The results of the study suggest that organizations have a varied approach to the adoption and implementation of patient-centric initiatives, with more activities occurring in the planning stages than are being piloted or implemented. Many factors affect implementation and adoption, including buy-in by senior management, organizational vision, resources, and level of investment.

An Examination of eClinical Technology Usage and CDISC Standards Adoption.

BACKGROUND: The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (Tufts CSDD) collaborated with the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) on a joint working group study with 10 participating companies including biopharmaceutical, CROs, and eClinical technology vendors. The objective of the study was to examine current and projected use of eClinical technology and standards across respondent organizations and in clinical studies and to gather perceptions and attitudes about technology and standards adoption. METHODS: The Tufts CSDD study examined the use of eClinical technology and CDISC standards through a comprehensive survey combined with analyses of clinical study data among biopharmaceutical companies and contract research organizations. RESULTS: The results suggest increasing use of specific eClinical technology solutions and standards. The barriers to adoption of eClinical trial tools are addressed as well as the benefits of standards adoption. Differences between respondent perceptions and actual study data are examined, and the survey results are compared with those from prior studies. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study indicate that increasing use of standards could translate into improvements in time, costs, and overall approval rates. The study also observed an uptake in the use of eClinical technologies that could potentially create efficiencies and streamline operational processes.

Taking the pulse of strategic outsourcing relationships.

PURPOSE: Articles in peer-reviewed journals and the trade press presuppose that strategic outsourcing relationships have been formed to replace preexisting collaborative approaches with contract research organizations. They do not consider that large, fragmented pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies may be supporting competing and conflicting relationship models simultaneously. A recent Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development study quantifies actual strategic outsourcing practices among drug development companies and sheds new light on why these relationships may be failing. METHODS: Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted an in-depth assessment of 43 Phase II and III clinical studies completed since 2012 to examine the outsourcing relationships used by 9 major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to support key functional areas. Descriptive statistics were assessed and t tests were performed to characterize outsourcing practices by function and to determine differences in study performance between transactional and strategic outsourcing relationships. FINDINGS: The results indicate that sponsor companies are using a variety of outsourcing relationship models to support their studies, mixing and matching the use of internal staff, and using traditional transactional and strategic outsourcing relationships simultaneously. Specifically, despite the fact that each sponsor company had entered into several strategic outsourcing relationships, in no instance did a single contract research organization manage all functional areas supporting an individual Phase II or III study. In addition, sponsor companies vary the types of outsourcing relationship models that they use on a study-by-study basis. IMPLICATIONS: The inability of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to consistently embrace and coordinate sourcing strategies is creating internal friction and inefficiency. As a result, the expected impact of strategic outsourcing relationships on drug development performance, quality, and cost remains elusive.

Benchmarking the Study Initiation Process.

The study start-up phase of a trial is an area that pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are focusing on in order to reduce delays and improve efficiency. To better understand and examine metrics within study start-up, the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, in collaboration with 11 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, examined a comprehensive set of metrics and analyzed study data from 105 global clinical trials. The results indicate that the early stages of the site initiation process are areas that accounted for the majority of cycle time. An examination of cycle time to the first patient in by therapeutic area also reveals variation. Variations in cycle time to the first patient occur by site type as well as by region. Academic institutions and government-funded sites were longest to the first patient in, while physician practices were fastest.