Redefining feasibility in clinical trials: Collaborative approaches for improved site selection

IF 1.4 Q4 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Beau Bruneau , Kristin Surdam , Amy Bland , Amy Krueger , Andrew Wise , Ani Cotarlan , Asher Leviton , Elena Jouravleva , Grace Fitzgerald , Heather N. Frost , Honora F. Cutler , Joshua Buddle , Luis G. Diaz , Michele Cohen , Nancy A. Sacco , Ryan Washington , Susan Mauermann , Victor Chen , Andrea Bastek
{"title":"Redefining feasibility in clinical trials: Collaborative approaches for improved site selection","authors":"Beau Bruneau ,&nbsp;Kristin Surdam ,&nbsp;Amy Bland ,&nbsp;Amy Krueger ,&nbsp;Andrew Wise ,&nbsp;Ani Cotarlan ,&nbsp;Asher Leviton ,&nbsp;Elena Jouravleva ,&nbsp;Grace Fitzgerald ,&nbsp;Heather N. Frost ,&nbsp;Honora F. Cutler ,&nbsp;Joshua Buddle ,&nbsp;Luis G. Diaz ,&nbsp;Michele Cohen ,&nbsp;Nancy A. Sacco ,&nbsp;Ryan Washington ,&nbsp;Susan Mauermann ,&nbsp;Victor Chen ,&nbsp;Andrea Bastek","doi":"10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>This Site Feasibility Task Force convened to assess the complex and burdensome process of site feasibility in clinical trials. The objective was to create mutual understanding of challenges and provide suggestions for improving collaboration among sponsors, contract research organizations (CROs), and sites.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The task force was composed of representatives from sponsors, CROs and sites (43 % Sites, 20 % Site Networks, 10 % Small/mid-size sponsors, 10 % Small/mid-size CROs, 10 % Large sponsors, 7 % Large CROs). The group collaborated to define the scope of the problem, identify challenges in the current process, and provide suggestions for improving the process.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The group found there is a need for better differentiation between the three main stages of feasibility, and the four sub-phases of Site Feasibility. The discussion brought to light emerging trends like early initiation of Site Feasibility and premature engagement of sites by CROs. To fully explain these challenges, the group analyzed the current practices and documented their downstream impact on clinical trial execution for all stakeholders. A list of best practices emerged naturally from this analysis. These findings are aggregated into short and actionable best practice guides.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The task force suggests practical changes for the feasibility process and raises awareness of emerging trends and their associated risks. This awareness can begin to drive change in the site feasibility process, although industry-wide transformation will require new levels of collaboration, data standardization and automation tools. The potential benefits of evolving this process are significant and meaningful for more efficient and successful clinical trials.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37937,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424000383/pdfft?md5=1a790ad586aa6b1ed7ed1bb2d0816420&pid=1-s2.0-S2451865424000383-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451865424000383","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

This Site Feasibility Task Force convened to assess the complex and burdensome process of site feasibility in clinical trials. The objective was to create mutual understanding of challenges and provide suggestions for improving collaboration among sponsors, contract research organizations (CROs), and sites.

Methods

The task force was composed of representatives from sponsors, CROs and sites (43 % Sites, 20 % Site Networks, 10 % Small/mid-size sponsors, 10 % Small/mid-size CROs, 10 % Large sponsors, 7 % Large CROs). The group collaborated to define the scope of the problem, identify challenges in the current process, and provide suggestions for improving the process.

Results

The group found there is a need for better differentiation between the three main stages of feasibility, and the four sub-phases of Site Feasibility. The discussion brought to light emerging trends like early initiation of Site Feasibility and premature engagement of sites by CROs. To fully explain these challenges, the group analyzed the current practices and documented their downstream impact on clinical trial execution for all stakeholders. A list of best practices emerged naturally from this analysis. These findings are aggregated into short and actionable best practice guides.

Conclusion

The task force suggests practical changes for the feasibility process and raises awareness of emerging trends and their associated risks. This awareness can begin to drive change in the site feasibility process, although industry-wide transformation will require new levels of collaboration, data standardization and automation tools. The potential benefits of evolving this process are significant and meaningful for more efficient and successful clinical trials.

重新定义临床试验的可行性:改进选址的合作方法
背景该研究机构可行性特别工作组旨在评估临床试验中复杂繁琐的研究机构可行性研究过程。方法该工作组由来自申办方、合同研究组织 (CRO) 和研究机构的代表组成(43 % 研究机构、20 % 研究机构网络、10 % 中小型申办方、10 % 中小型 CRO、10 % 大型申办方、7 % 大型 CRO)。小组合作界定了问题的范围,确定了当前流程中的挑战,并提出了改进流程的建议。结果小组发现,有必要更好地区分可行性的三个主要阶段和研究机构可行性的四个子阶段。讨论揭示了新出现的趋势,如提前启动研究机构可行性研究和 CRO 过早介入研究机构。为了充分解释这些挑战,小组分析了当前的做法,并记录了这些做法对所有利益相关者的临床试验执行产生的下游影响。通过分析,自然而然地产生了一份最佳实践清单。这些发现汇总成了简短、可操作的最佳实践指南。结论特别工作组为可行性研究过程提出了切实可行的改革建议,并提高了对新趋势及其相关风险的认识。这种意识可以开始推动场地可行性流程的变革,尽管整个行业的转型需要新水平的协作、数据标准化和自动化工具。发展这一流程的潜在好处是巨大的,对提高临床试验的效率和成功率意义重大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
146
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is an international peer reviewed open access journal that publishes articles pertaining to all aspects of clinical trials, including, but not limited to, design, conduct, analysis, regulation and ethics. Manuscripts submitted should appeal to a readership drawn from a wide range of disciplines including medicine, life science, pharmaceutical science, biostatistics, epidemiology, computer science, management science, behavioral science, and bioethics. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is unique in that it is outside the confines of disease specifications, and it strives to increase the transparency of medical research and reduce publication bias by publishing scientifically valid original research findings irrespective of their perceived importance, significance or impact. Both randomized and non-randomized trials are within the scope of the Journal. Some common topics include trial design rationale and methods, operational methodologies and challenges, and positive and negative trial results. In addition to original research, the Journal also welcomes other types of communications including, but are not limited to, methodology reviews, perspectives and discussions. Through timely dissemination of advances in clinical trials, the goal of Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications is to serve as a platform to enhance the communication and collaboration within the global clinical trials community that ultimately advances this field of research for the benefit of patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信