将可持续性支柱纳入试验设计决策:一项国际调查的结果

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Pritibha Singh, Oleksandr Sverdlov, Robert A. Beckman, Andrea M. Burden
{"title":"将可持续性支柱纳入试验设计决策:一项国际调查的结果","authors":"Pritibha Singh,&nbsp;Oleksandr Sverdlov,&nbsp;Robert A. Beckman,&nbsp;Andrea M. Burden","doi":"10.1111/cts.70241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The pharmaceutical industry is increasingly shifting to decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) conducted at the patient's home, sometimes including trial material home delivery. The traditional clinical trial (CT) is conducted at the investigational site. Research suggests that centralized and decentralized trials have a large carbon footprint, with DCTs potentially providing patient-centric solutions. However, leaders must determine how to integrate environmental, economic, and social sustainability pillars into their portfolios and subsequent downstream trial-level decisions. An online survey was designed and deployed via Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule's (ETH, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) SurveySelect software to capture perceptions of priorities and tradeoffs when deciding between a DCT and a traditional CT for each pillar. The survey closed on 31st January 2023. A total of 447 participants responded. The findings revealed that the overall cohort prioritized greenhouse gas emissions (22.4%) for environmental impact, trial probability of success (15%) for economic considerations, and patient convenience (23.3%) for social criteria. Overall, the DCT setting was perceived as more sustainable in all pillars. Participants reported tradeoffs centered on patient engagement and bringing new medicines to the market. The results from this survey provide initial insights into international multistakeholder perceptions of the priorities and tradeoffs when choosing between a traditional CT and DCT. The synthesized perceptions inform three key recommendations: the need (1) for simulation studies to guide holistic decision-making across all pillars as empirical data accumulates, (2) to protect the environment, and (3) to protect the supply chain. As empirical data accumulates, these recommendations provide directionality for further research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50610,"journal":{"name":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"18 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cts.70241","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating Sustainability Pillars Into Trial Design Decision-Making: Results of an International Survey\",\"authors\":\"Pritibha Singh,&nbsp;Oleksandr Sverdlov,&nbsp;Robert A. Beckman,&nbsp;Andrea M. Burden\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cts.70241\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The pharmaceutical industry is increasingly shifting to decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) conducted at the patient's home, sometimes including trial material home delivery. The traditional clinical trial (CT) is conducted at the investigational site. Research suggests that centralized and decentralized trials have a large carbon footprint, with DCTs potentially providing patient-centric solutions. However, leaders must determine how to integrate environmental, economic, and social sustainability pillars into their portfolios and subsequent downstream trial-level decisions. An online survey was designed and deployed via Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule's (ETH, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) SurveySelect software to capture perceptions of priorities and tradeoffs when deciding between a DCT and a traditional CT for each pillar. The survey closed on 31st January 2023. A total of 447 participants responded. The findings revealed that the overall cohort prioritized greenhouse gas emissions (22.4%) for environmental impact, trial probability of success (15%) for economic considerations, and patient convenience (23.3%) for social criteria. Overall, the DCT setting was perceived as more sustainable in all pillars. Participants reported tradeoffs centered on patient engagement and bringing new medicines to the market. The results from this survey provide initial insights into international multistakeholder perceptions of the priorities and tradeoffs when choosing between a traditional CT and DCT. The synthesized perceptions inform three key recommendations: the need (1) for simulation studies to guide holistic decision-making across all pillars as empirical data accumulates, (2) to protect the environment, and (3) to protect the supply chain. As empirical data accumulates, these recommendations provide directionality for further research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"18 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cts.70241\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.70241\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cts-Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cts.70241","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

制药行业越来越多地转向在患者家中进行的分散临床试验(dct),有时包括试验材料在家交付。传统的临床试验(CT)在研究现场进行。研究表明,集中式和分散式试验的碳足迹很大,而dct可能提供以患者为中心的解决方案。然而,领导者必须确定如何将环境、经济和社会可持续性支柱整合到他们的投资组合和随后的下游试验级决策中。通过Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH,瑞士联邦理工学院)的SurveySelect软件设计和部署了一项在线调查,以了解在决定每个支柱使用DCT和传统CT时的优先级和权衡。该调查于2023年1月31日结束。共有447名参与者做出了回应。研究结果显示,整个队列优先考虑温室气体排放(22.4%)的环境影响,试验成功的概率(15%)的经济考虑,和患者便利(23.3%)的社会标准。总体而言,人们认为DCT在所有支柱方面都更具可持续性。参与者报告了以患者参与和将新药推向市场为中心的权衡。这项调查的结果初步揭示了国际上多利益相关者在选择传统CT和DCT时对优先事项和权衡的看法。综合的看法提供了三个关键建议:需要(1)模拟研究,以指导经验数据积累时所有支柱的整体决策,(2)保护环境,(3)保护供应链。随着实证数据的积累,这些建议为进一步的研究提供了方向性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Integrating Sustainability Pillars Into Trial Design Decision-Making: Results of an International Survey

The pharmaceutical industry is increasingly shifting to decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) conducted at the patient's home, sometimes including trial material home delivery. The traditional clinical trial (CT) is conducted at the investigational site. Research suggests that centralized and decentralized trials have a large carbon footprint, with DCTs potentially providing patient-centric solutions. However, leaders must determine how to integrate environmental, economic, and social sustainability pillars into their portfolios and subsequent downstream trial-level decisions. An online survey was designed and deployed via Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule's (ETH, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) SurveySelect software to capture perceptions of priorities and tradeoffs when deciding between a DCT and a traditional CT for each pillar. The survey closed on 31st January 2023. A total of 447 participants responded. The findings revealed that the overall cohort prioritized greenhouse gas emissions (22.4%) for environmental impact, trial probability of success (15%) for economic considerations, and patient convenience (23.3%) for social criteria. Overall, the DCT setting was perceived as more sustainable in all pillars. Participants reported tradeoffs centered on patient engagement and bringing new medicines to the market. The results from this survey provide initial insights into international multistakeholder perceptions of the priorities and tradeoffs when choosing between a traditional CT and DCT. The synthesized perceptions inform three key recommendations: the need (1) for simulation studies to guide holistic decision-making across all pillars as empirical data accumulates, (2) to protect the environment, and (3) to protect the supply chain. As empirical data accumulates, these recommendations provide directionality for further research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science
Cts-Clinical and Translational Science 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
234
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Science (CTS), an official journal of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, highlights original translational medicine research that helps bridge laboratory discoveries with the diagnosis and treatment of human disease. Translational medicine is a multi-faceted discipline with a focus on translational therapeutics. In a broad sense, translational medicine bridges across the discovery, development, regulation, and utilization spectrum. Research may appear as Full Articles, Brief Reports, Commentaries, Phase Forwards (clinical trials), Reviews, or Tutorials. CTS also includes invited didactic content that covers the connections between clinical pharmacology and translational medicine. Best-in-class methodologies and best practices are also welcomed as Tutorials. These additional features provide context for research articles and facilitate understanding for a wide array of individuals interested in clinical and translational science. CTS welcomes high quality, scientifically sound, original manuscripts focused on clinical pharmacology and translational science, including animal, in vitro, in silico, and clinical studies supporting the breadth of drug discovery, development, regulation and clinical use of both traditional drugs and innovative modalities.
×
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