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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

study start-up site identification site selection technology cycle time performance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

CTTI recommendations: efficient and effective clinical trial recruitment planning. https://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/projects/recruitment. Accessed November 29, 2017.

Abbott

Califf

Morrison

. Cycle time metrics for multisite clinical trials in the United States. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013;47:152–160.

Lamberti

Mathias

Myles

Howe

Getz

. Evaluating the impact of patient recruitment and retention practices. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2012;46:573–580.

Getz

Kim

Stergiopoulos

. Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data. Am J Ther. 2015;22:117–124.

Financial and operating benchmarks for investigative sites: 2016 CenterWatch-ACRP collaborative survey. https://www.acrpnet.org/resources/financial-operating-benchmarks-investigative-sites. Accessed August 24, 2017.

Lamberti

Brothers

Manak

Getz

. Benchmarking the study initiation process. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013;47:101–109.

Lamberti

Chakravarthy

Getz

. New benchmarks for trial initiation activities. Appl Clin Trials. 2017;25:28–32.

Schimanksi

Kieronski

. Streamline and improve study start-up. Appl Clin Trials. 2013;22:22–27.

Temkar

. Accelerating study start up: the key to avoiding trial delays. Clin Res. February 1, 2017. https://www.acrpnet.org/2017/01/26/contract-negotiations-greatest-cause-clinical-trial-delays-new-report-shows/. Accessed November 29, 2017.

10.

Morgan

. The need for speed in clinical study start up. Clinical Leader. http://www.clinicalleader.com/doc/the-need-for-speed-in-study-startup-0001. Accessed August 27, 2017.

11.

Sears

Cascade

. Using public and private data for clinical operations. Appl Clin Trials. 2017;25:22–26.

12.

Sullivan

. Defining “quality that matters” in clinical trial study start up activities. Monitor. 2011;25:22–26.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.33 MB