Drivers of Start-Up Delays in Global Randomized Clinical Trials

Improving eSource Site Start-Up Practices

Background

eSource software that copies patient electronic health record data into a clinical trial electronic case report form holds promise for increasing data quality while reducing data collection, monitoring and source document verification costs. Integrating eSource into multicenter clinical trial start-up procedures could facilitate the use of eSource technologies in clinical trials.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative integrative analysis to identify eSource site start-up key steps, challenges that might occur in executing those steps, and potential solutions to those challenges. We then conducted a value analysis to determine the challenges and solutions with the greatest impacts for eSource implementation teams.

Results

There were 16 workshop participants: 10 pharmaceutical sponsor, 3 academic site, and 1 eSource vendor representatives. Participants identified 36 Site Start-Up Key Steps, 11 Site Start-Up Challenges, and 14 Site Start-Up Solutions for eSource-enabled studies. Participants also identified 77 potential impacts of the Challenges upon the Site Start-Up Key Steps and 70 ways in which the Solutions might impact Site Start-Up Challenges. The most important Challenges were: (1) not being able to identify a site eSource champion and (2) not agreeing on an eSource approach. The most important Solutions were: (1) vendors accepting electronic data in the FHIR standard, (2) creating standard content for eSource-related legal documents, and (3) creating a common eSource site readiness checklist.

Conclusions

Site start-up for eSource-enabled multi-center clinical trials is a complex socio-technical problem. This study's Start-Up Solutions provide a basic infrastructure for scalable eSource implementation.

Evaluating the impact of delayed study startup on accrual in cancer studies

Background : Drug development in cancer medicine depends on high-quality clinical trials, but these require large investments of time to design, operationalize, and complete; for oncology drugs, this can take 8-10 years. Long timelines are expensive and delay innovative therapies from reaching patients. Delays often arise from study startup, a process that can take 6 months or more. We assessed how study-specific factors affected the study startup duration and the resulting overall success of the study. Method: Data from The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC) were used to analyze studies initiated from 2018 to 2022. Accrual percentage was computed based on the number of enrolled participants and the desired enrollment goal. Accrual success was determined by comparing the percentage of enrollments to predetermined threshold values (50%, 70%, or 90%). Results : Studies that achieve or surpass the 70% activation threshold typically exhibit a median activation time of 140.5 days. In contrast, studies that fall short of the accrual goal tend to have a median activation time of 187 days, demonstrating the shorter median activation times associated with successful studies. Wilcoxon rank-sum test conducted for the study phase (W=13607, p-value=0.001) indicates that late-phase projects took longer to activate compared to early-stage projects. We also conducted the study with 50% and 90% accrual thresholds; our findings remained consistent. Conclusions: Longer activation times are linked to reduced project success, and early-phase studies tend to have higher success than late-phase studies. Therefore, by reducing impediments to the approval process, we can facilitate quicker approvals, increasing the success of studies regardless of phase.

Operational complexities in international clinical trials: a systematic review of challenges and proposed solutions

OBJECTIVE

International trials can be challenging to operationalise due to incompatibilities between country-specific policies and infrastructures. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the operational complexities of conducting international trials and identify potential solutions for overcoming them.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase and Health Management Information Consortium were searched from 2006 to 30 January 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All studies reporting operational challenges (eg, site selection, trial management, intervention management, data management) of conducting international trials were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Search results were independently screened by at least two reviewers and data were extracted into a proforma.

RESULTS

38 studies (35 RCTs, 2 reports and 1 qualitative study) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The median sample size was 1202 (IQR 332-4056) and median number of sites was 40 (IQR 13-78). 88.6% of studies had an academic sponsor and 80% were funded through government sources. Operational complexities were particularly reported during trial set-up due to lack of harmonisation in regulatory approvals and in relation to sponsorship structure, with associated budgetary impacts. Additional challenges included site selection, staff training, lengthy contract negotiations, site monitoring, communication, trial oversight, recruitment, data management, drug procurement and distribution, pharmacy involvement and biospecimen processing and transport.

CONCLUSIONS

International collaborative trials are valuable in cases where recruitment may be difficult, diversifying participation and applicability. However, multiple operational and regulatory challenges are encountered when implementing a trial in multiple countries. Careful planning and communication between trials units and investigators, with an emphasis on establishing adequately resourced cross-border sponsorship structures and regulatory approvals, may help to overcome these barriers and realise the benefits of the approach. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf-registrations-yvtjb-v1.

Global Equity in Clinical Trials: An ASCO Policy Statement

ASCO is a global professional society representing more than 50,000 physicians, other health care professionals, and advocates in over 100 countries specializing in cancer treatment, diagnosis, prevention, and advocacy. ASCO strives, through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality of patient care, to create a world where cancer is prevented or cured, and every survivor is healthy. In this pursuit, health equity remains the guiding institutional principle that applies to all its activities across the cancer care continuum. This ASCO policy statement emphasizes the urgent need for global equity in clinical trials, aiming to enhance access and representation in cancer research as it not only improves cancer outcomes but also upholds principles of fairness and justice in health care.

How many sites should an orthopedic trauma prospective multicenter trial have? A marginal analysis of the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium completed trials

BACKGROUND

Multicenter trials in orthopedic trauma are costly, yet crucial to advance the science behind clinical care. The number of sites is a key cost determinant. Each site has a fixed overhead cost, so more sites cost more to the study. However, more sites can reduce total costs by shortening the study duration. We propose to determine the optimal number of sites based on known costs and predictable site enrollment.

METHODS

This retrospective marginal analysis utilized administrative and financial data from 12 trials completed by the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium. The studies varied in size, design, and clinical focus. Enrollment across the studies ranged from 1054 to 33 patients. Design ranged from an observational study with light data collection to a placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Initial modeling identified the optimal number of sites for each study and sensitivity analyses determined the sensitivity of the model to variation in fixed overhead costs.

RESULTS

No study was optimized in terms of the number of participating sites. Excess sites ranged from 2 to 39. Excess costs associated with extra sites ranged from $17K to $330K with a median excess cost of $96K. Excess costs were, on average, 7% of the total study budget. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that studies with higher overhead costs require more sites to complete the study as quickly as possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support that this model may be used by clinical researchers to achieve future study goals in a more cost-effective manner.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Please see Table 1 for individual trial registration numbers and dates of registration.

Critical path activities in clinical trial setup and conduct: How to avoid bottlenecks and accelerate clinical trials

Most clinical trials are delayed due to scientific and/or operational challenges. Any effort to minimize delays can generate value for patients and sponsors. This article reviews critical path process steps commonly identified by practitioners, such as during protocol development, site contracting, or patient recruitment. Commonly considered measures, such as adding more trial sites or countries, were contrasted with less frequented measures, such as evidence-based feasibility or real-world evidence analysis, to help validate assumptions before clinical trial initiation. In a broad analysis, we integrated a literature review with a practitioner survey into a framework to help decision makers on the most critical process steps when setting up or conducting clinical trials in order to bring critical treatments to patients faster.

Quantitative assessment of the impact of standard agreement templates on multisite clinical trial start up time

Contracting delays remain a challenge to the successful initiation of multisite clinical research in the US. The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Contracts Processing Study showed average contract negotiation duration of > 100 days for industry-sponsored or investigator-initiated contracts. Such delays create enormous costs to sponsors and to patients waiting to use new evidence-based treatments. With support from the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the Accelerated Clinical Trial Agreement (ACTA) was developed by 25 major academic institutions and medical centers engaged in clinical research in collaboration with the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership and with input from pharmaceutical companies. The ACTA also informed the development of subsequent agreements, including the Federal Demonstration Partnership Clinical Trial Subaward Agreement (FDP-CTSA); both ACTA and the FDP-CTSA are largely non-negotiable agreements that represent pre-negotiated compromises in contract terms agreed upon by industry and/or medical center stakeholders. When the involved parties agree to use the CTSA-developed and supported standard agreement templates as a starting point for negotiations, there can be significant time savings for trials. Use of the ACTA resulted in an average savings of 48 days and use of the FDP-CTSA saved an average of 57 days of negotiation duration.

Leveraging retooled clinical research infrastructure for Clinical Research Management System implementation at a large Academic Medical Center

Quality clinical research is essential for health care progress and is the mission of academic health centers. Yet ensuring quality depends on an institution's ability to measure, control, and respond to metrics of trial performance. Uninformed clinical research provides little benefit to health care, drains institutional resources, and may waste participants' time and commitment. Opportunities for ensuring high-quality research are multifactorial, including training, evaluation, and retention of research workforces; operational efficiencies; and standardizing policies and procedures. Duke University School of Medicine has committed to improving the quality and informativeness of our clinical research enterprise through investments in infrastructure with significant focus on optimizing research management system integration as a foundational element for quality management. To address prior technology limitations, Duke has optimized Advarra's OnCore for this purpose by seamlessly integrating with the IRB system, electronic health record, and general ledger. Our goal was to create a standardized clinical research experience to manage research from inception to closeout. Key drivers of implementation include transparency of research process data and generating metrics aligned with institutional goals. Since implementation, Duke has leveraged OnCore data to measure, track, and report metrics resulting in improvements in clinical research conduct and quality.

Clinical trial facilitators: A novel approach to support the execution of clinical research at the study site level

In the summer of 2020, multiple efforts were undertaken to establish safe and effective vaccines to combat the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). In the United States (U.S.), Operation Warp Speed (OWS) was the program designated to coordinate such efforts. OWS was a partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the private sector, that aimed to help accelerate control of the COVID-19 pandemic by advancing development, manufacturing, and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) was identified as a potential collaborator in several large-scale OWS Phase III clinical trial efforts designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of various vaccines that were in development. Given the global importance of these trials, it was recognized that there would be a need for a coordinated, centralized effort within VA to ensure that its medical centers (sites) would be ready and able to efficiently initiate, recruit, and enroll into these trials.

The manuscript outlines the partnership and start-up activities led by two key divisions of the VA's Office of Research and Development's clinical research enterprise. These efforts focused on site and enterprise-level requirements for multiple trials, with one trial serving as the most prominently featured of these studies within the VA. As a result, several best practices arose that included designating clinical trial facilitators to study sites to support study initiation activities and successful study enrollment at these locations in an efficient and timely fashion.

Mechanisms to expedite pediatric clinical trial site activation: The DOSE trial experience

BACKGROUND

Timely trial start-up is a key determinant of trial success; however, delays during start-up are common and costly. Moreover, data on start-up metrics in pediatric clinical trials are sparse. To expedite trial start-up, the Trial Innovation Network piloted three novel mechanisms in the trial titled Dexmedetomidine Opioid Sparing Effect in Mechanically Ventilated Children (DOSE), a multi-site, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in the pediatric intensive care setting.

METHODS

The three novel start-up mechanisms included: 1) competitive activation; 2) use of trial start-up experts, called site navigators; and 3) supplemental funds earned for achieving pre-determined milestones. After sites were activated, they received a web-based survey to report perceptions of the DOSE start-up process. In addition to perceptions, metrics analyzed included milestones met, time to start-up, and subsequent enrollment of subjects.

RESULTS

Twenty sites were selected for participation, with 19 sites being fully activated. Across activated sites, the median (quartile 1, quartile 3) time from receipt of regulatory documents to site activation was 82 days (68, 113). Sites reported that of the three novel mechanisms, the most motivating factor for expeditious activation was additional funding available for achieving start-up milestones, followed by site navigator assistance and then competitive site activation.

CONCLUSION

Study start-up is a critical time for the success of clinical trials, and innovative methods to minimize delays during start-up are needed. Milestone-based funds and site navigators were preferred mechanisms by sites participating in the DOSE study and may have contributed to the expeditious start-up timeline achieved.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov #: NCT03938857.

Value drivers of development stage biopharma companies

OBJECTIVE

Scholars previously estimated research and development (R&D) costs of the internal drug development process. However, little is known about the costs and value arising from externally acquired therapeutics. This study identifies and estimates the magnitude of factors associated with Biopharma acquisition value.

METHODS

SDC Thomson Reuter and S&P Capital IQ were screened for majority acquisitions of US and EU Biopharma companies developing new molecular entities for prescription use (SIC code: 2834) from 2005 to 2020. Financial acquisition data were complemented with variables characterizing the target's product portfolio extracted from clinicaltrials.gov, Drugs@FDA database, US SEC filings, and transaction announcements. A multivariate regression assesses the association of firm value with extracted variables.

RESULTS

311 acquisitions of companies developing prescription drugs were identified over the study period. Acquirers paid 37% (p < 0.05) more for companies with biologics and gene therapeutics than small-molecule lead drugs. Multi-indication products were acquired for a 12% premium per additional indication (p < 0.01). No significant valuation difference between companies developing orphan and non-orphan designated lead products was observed (18%, p = 0.223). Acquisition value positively correlated with the total number of further products, headquarter location in the US, underlying market conditions, and acquirer market capitalization (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Internal and external drug development consumes many financial and human resources, yet it is important for entrepreneurs, regulators, and payers to understand their precise magnitude and value drivers. This information permits the design of targeted pricing and industrial policies that incentivize the development of novel drugs in areas with high unmet needs.