Archive for the ‘"Clinical research"’ Category
Posted by Andrew Smith on October 14, 2009
This is the Table of Contents of Clinical Research focus 20(10) issue for October 2009. Members of The Institute of Clinical Research can view the full text of each article by clicking the link and logging in with their username and password.
Global competition
Andrew Smith
Given that multinational (often ‘massively multinational’) trials are now the default position for anything beyond the earliest phase of clinical research, it is somewhat surprising that they still polarise opinion. To some, they are the only way to complete large studies even remotely on deadline and within budget. To others they are damaging to local professionals and research infrastructure and of limited clinical relevance to a medicine’s target patient population. In this extended editorial, Andrew Smith takes a look at the evolving bigger picture of globalising clinical research and suggests how we might find a new balance point to deliver global performance combined with local relevance.
Andrew Smith
There are many layers of perception and received opinion characterising the UK’s performance, with a basic view that we are not performing as well as we might in comparison to other countries (generally in terms of being slower and/or more expensive) and are losing business as a consequence. However, much of the evidence for this is anecdotal, and where metrics do exist they are often specific to an organisation, therapeutic area or part of the process (eg, final protocol to first patient visit). A one-day conference was held in September to discuss initial results of a 2-year study that looked across the entire research process, encompassing both commercial and non-commercial research in all therapeutic areas. Andrew reports…
Feature
Emily Scott
Conducting a clinical study takes a considerable amount of planning, resource, and commitment. But, after the last subject is out, the database has been cleaned, and the planned analyses have been done, what happens to the data that were collected? For interventional studies conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (GCP), data collected in a clinical study should be submitted to the authorities in a Clinical Study Report (CSR). Emily Scott provides an introduction to CSRs, how they should be constructed and how other study personnel should be involved.
Prof. development
Nicky Perry MICR
The ICR Research Nurse Special Interest Group (SIG) held their second forum on June 18th at the ICR office. Sixty research nurses attended. The agenda for the day was set following the training needs analysis conducted via questionnaire, which was sent out last year. The result of this survey highlighted that nurses wanted to know more about study management, especially how to cost a clinical study.
Iain Searle MICR CSci, Merryn Collard RICR & Jane Nathan RICR
ICR’s Trainers’ Forum generally holds three meetings each year, designed to address topical issues and challenges for those involved in training functions across health, pharmaceutical and life science industries and services. This event was prompted by the rapid development of remote delivery methods within our sector, with a wide range of solutions being implemented across the industry. The days’ agenda had been developed by the Steering Committee, which has a mission to support the interests and further development of trainers within ICR by providing topical meetings, with expert speakers from within and beyond the pharmaceutical industry.
Trial technology
Elena Skryabina
In the latest in our series of introductions to key topics, Elena Skryabina examines the use of infusion pumps for intravenous drug delivery in clinical trials. She demonstrates the amount of control that is possible in a single Phase I unit but also the care that should be taken in larger studies, where differing pumps at different sites can impact on the precision of study drug delivery.
Book review
Allan Gaw, reviewed by Andrew Smith
The rationale for this excellent little book is summed up by Mark Twain, quoted in the introduction: “The past does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Learning about the history of clinical trials helps us to understand why the present is the way it is, and this book provides insights into ways of thinking and working that many of us would otherwise simply take as given. It is written in a clear, readable style, with interpretation as well as factual account, highlighting the aspects of each topic that have had the most significant impact on the way clinical research is done today.
Regular update
Janette Benaddi MICR CSci
Like most organisations, the Institute has experienced a difficult operating environment this year, caused by the global recession. However, the Board of Directors and Senior Management Team (SMT) took early, proactive steps at the beginning of the year to manage us through the recession. These included a thorough overhaul of our operating costs and we are starting to see the benefits of these actions. Janette thanks you, our members, for your continuing support. We have received many communications from you supporting ICR over recent months, as we have gone through the change management process. The staff are extremely encouraged by this.
Compiled by Andrew Smith
Our regular look at the lighter side of clinical research, including some ideas for blockbuster movies involving clinical research, examples of “frontier science” in literary classics (and the new Dan Brown), and “Ten things that suggest global clinical research is starting to pick up again…”.
Posted in "Clinical research", CRfocus, Pharmaceutical development | Tagged: "Clinical research", clinical trials, CRfocus, Magazine contents, medicine, Table of contents (TOC) | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Smith on August 20, 2009
The UK pharmaceutical industry is one of the most significant industries to make money for ‘UK plc’ and re-invest it back into UK-based R&D, within their own organisations, in universities and throughout the NHS. As many have said, the UK ‘punches above its weight’ in our sector. Despite this, we often feel unloved, in terms of both media and public opinion and increasing constraints on revenue (eg, prescribing decisions being led by NICE guidance while reimbursement rates have been cut under the successor to the PPRS). However, the counter-balance to this top-line constraint has come in the form of various initiatives to make more of a contribution in terms of investment in education and training, infrastructure and organisational processes. As a globalised industry has far less binding ties to doing its R&D in the UK than it did 30 years ago, this policy makes a great deal of sense. Over the past decade or so, these initiatives have come under the banners of PICTf, UKCRC and, now, the Office of Life Sciences (OLS) Blueprint, which was published over the summer.
The Blueprint set out 12 key action points, which have been agreed across government, industry, the higher education sector and the NHS. This expands to 10 pages of specific policy measures, complete with timelines and budgets. The Blueprint has been widely welcomed by industry and commentators alike, and certainly, every policy measure should have a positive effect.
The measure that has received the most coverage is the Innovation Pass, ring-fenced funding for time-limited use across the NHS without appraisal by NICE (although NICE will define the criteria for medicines that can take this short-cut). This will be piloted in 2010/11 with a budget of £25m. While initially portrayed by the media as bypassing NICE, this could be a valuable experiment in ‘live appraisal’ mirroring the ‘live licensing’ model proposed by PricewaterhouseCoopers in their Pharma 2020 reports.
The policy that will be of most interest to us in the clinical research sector is the “package of measures to improve the UK environment for clinical trials”. This includes ensuring the UK “fully exploits its potential to be a world leader in heath informatics” (ie, making electronic patient records finally happen!), underlining the duty for SHAs to promote R&D, adding metrics on patient in clinical trials to Trusts’ Quality Accounts, and creating a national framework for local management of research (ie, transforming NHS R&D departments). Significantly, the last three points are essentially reworking areas covered by PICTf nearly a decade ago…
The questions that need to be asked about all these measures, though, are “Will they be implemented as planned?”, “Will they result in improvements in the productivity of UK R&D and uptake of resulting products?” and “Are they sufficiently different from previous initiatives to justify the top-line reduction in reimbursement for medicines?” The many intelligent and powerful people close to this project evidently think so. Far be it from me to disagree, but the fact that this is the third major initiative in less than a decade suggests that its predecessors did not maintain momentum in their improvements (or, more cynically, that pharma are getting increasingly itchy feet in the light of increasing competitiveness overseas).
To sound another small note of scepticism, the UK is less than 12 months from a general election, with a change of government far more possible than at any time since 1997. Although many measures in the Blueprint can be implemented almost immediately, many will take time to demonstrate success, and none will be immune from reversal under a new government.
So, I would like to raise two cheers for the OLS Blueprint: it talks a good game and will certainly have some success, but will it be enough to steady ship of UK competitiveness or just the latest in a series of defences against an insuperable drift to merely “punching our weight”? We will see…
Posted in "Clinical research", Editorials, Pharmaceutical development, pprs | Tagged: "Clinical research", clinical trials, Drug development, Health economics, pharma, Pharmaceutical development, Pharmaceutical Pricing Regulation Scheme (PPRS) | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Smith on July 28, 2009
ICH guideline E6 (ICH-GCP) is, along with the Declaration of Helsinki, arguably the most important document in clinical research. Although neither has any direct status in the legislation of most countries where clinical research is conducted, their principles (and in many cases more substantive details) set the tone for how pretty much everyone conducts clinical research. Since its adoption in 1996 (in Europe; 1997 in the USA and Japan), ICH GCP has been the ‘bible’ for CRAs, auditors and other clinical research professionals worldwide.
Since 1996…
The world of clinical research has moved on quite some way in the past 13 years, and even more so when you consider the period of several years that was taken for the drafting, consulting, reviewing and negotiating prior to the guideline’s finalisation. Other guidelines (most notably the Declaration of Helsinki) have been updated several times in the past decades, and have a timeline for regular review every few years.
So, following a remark made by a speaker at the ICR Annual Conference earlier this year, we wondered whether ICH E6 should be reviewed and potentially revised. We put a poll on the front page of the ICR website, and were rather surprised by the result: over 80% thought that it should be reviewed (although from an admittedly small sample). We are currently undertaking a qualitative survey, asking what elements of the guideline should be updated and/or what should be added that did not exist in 1996. We hope to publish this in September’s issue of CRfocus magazine. If you would like to share your thoughts on this, and contribute to our article, please send your comments to andrew.smith@crfocus.org no later than August 10th 2009.
Of course, this is to an extent a purely academic exercise: many of the assorted national legislations, EU Directive etc. are subtly different, and the feasibility of renegotiating such a complex document with so many stakeholders (not least the more recently research-active countries that are outside the formal ICH process) is highly questionable. Indeed, some contend that the national legal arrangements have become so much more formal and sophisticated than they were in the 1990s that any thought of change to a founding guideline like ICH GCP is futile.
Still, it is useful to consider what aspects of contemporary clinical research are poorly served by the current fragmented global network of regulation and guidelines, and how different ICH GCP would look if it were being created in 2009. I’m interested to hear what you think…
Posted in "Clinical research", CRfocus, Drug development, GCP, Pharmaceutical development, Quick thoughts | Tagged: "Clinical research", Drug development, GCP, Good clinical practice, ICH-GCP | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Smith on July 23, 2009
You can tell it’s summer! In the latter part of July, large parts of the clinical research establishment evidently winds down for a summer recess. In the past few days, three substantial and (to a greater or lesser extent) significant reports have thudded onto my desk (metaphorically, of course – I read them as PDFs…)
I would like to be able to give a detailed analysis of each of these documents, discussing which of their many recommendations seem to be the most feasible and/or helpful. However, arriving so close together (and as we’re getting the August issue of CRfocus to print) I have only had time to skim them so far, so the best I can do is suggest that you take a look at them yourself.
As one early aside, it might be worth considering the OLS Blueprint (an action plan to re-energise and optimise the UK’s innovative pharmaceutical industry) in the context of PICTf, which was a series of reports, workstreams and metrics that ran in the first half of this decade. Much of what has made UK clinical research what it is today had its source in the PICTf work programmes, so it remains to be seen how much of the Blueprint builds on those developments, and how much re-addresses topics that PICTf initiatives didn’t quite manage to resolve. Also, with a UK General Election less than a year away, and a change of government certainly not beyond the realms of possibility, it might be interesting to wonder how many of the report’s 12 key action points would withstand a shift from Labour to Conservative.
Perhaps more likely to maintain its relevance should the Conservatives win power next year is the report by Professor Sir Iain Kennedy’s report on how NICE might better handle the valuing of innovation in its analysis of the economic impact of new health technologies. Although it sticks with the basic ICER/QALY framework, it makes some strong recommendations on what further research is needed and on a pilot scheme for innovation might be rewarded. This chimes with the “Innovation Pass” idea in the OLS Blueprint, which was initially portrayed in the media as something of a snub to NICE, but is perhaps more an anomoly of publication timings.
If these two reports are quite UK-specific, the middle one is definitely global in scope. Commissioned by the ACRO (the US trade body for CROs, representing the head offices of many of the world’s major contract research organisations) the report aims to demonstrate that clinical research in the “pharmerging” countries is of a comparable standard of safety and ethics of the traditional countries (ie, USA, western Europe etc.) and speed, scale and reduced cost present a compelling case for embracing the shift of larger clinical trials to these new regions rather than railing against it. From my initial reading of the report, this seems something of a tautology: because the studies are commissioned by western sponsors, often conducted by local affiliates of western CROs and designed to collect data to support western registration with the FDA, EMEA etc. is it really surprising that the standards achieved are broadly similar. Still, it’s important for the rest of society to recognise this if they hadn’t already (much of our industry realised this some years ago).
For all three reports, there is then the question of momentum. By the time the world starts getting back to speed in September, we might have had time to ponder some of their more complex recommendations, but others might have forgotten about them entirely! So, let’s make the effort and read them now…
Posted in "Clinical research", Pharmaceutical development, Quick thoughts | Tagged: "Clinical research", clinical trials, Drug development, Health economics, Outsourcing, Pharmaceutical development | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Smith on July 7, 2009
I’ve just worked out how long it’s been since I posted something here that hadn’t already been published elsewhere (ie, reportage or fresh comment rather than the Table of Contents of the current issue of Clinical Research focus). Things have been a bit manic here in the CRfocus office, with CRfocus and other ICR tasks (mostly related to our website and our 2010 conference) taking priority over blog-only posts. Hopefully, as the summer holiday season gets into full swing, I’ll be able to blog a bit more…
Ironically, today’s the day when I really would have preferred to reporting from Brussels on the EFGCP’s latest workshop, building on the ICREL workshop in December 2008 to discuss possible routes towards a single clinical trial application for multinational clinical studies. This could be of huge benefit to the efficiency of setting up large-scale clinical trials in Europe, and some of the contenders (eg, the “Voluntary Harmonisation Procedure” currently being piloted by the Clinical Trials Facilitation Group (CTFG) of the Heads of Medical Agencies) are very exciting indeed.
Unfortunately, my schedule is such that I couldn’t make it there without some incredibly long-winded travel plans that would have doubtless resulted in substandard reporting anyway…
I’m very supportive of this event, and this project overall. While I’m not able to report on it first-hand, I’m hoping to publish a brief report from someone else who is there today, and possibly arrange an interview or two with key participants over the coming weeks. This is too important a project not to do everything we can to engage everyone in the process.
Posted in "Clinical research", Pharmaceutical development, Quick thoughts | Tagged: "Clinical research", EU Clinical Trials Directive, ICREL, pharma, Pharmaceutical development | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Smith on July 6, 2009
CRfocus 20(07) – July 2009
This is the Table of Contents of Clinical Research focus 20(07) for July 200. Members of ICR can click the links below and log-in to read the full text of these articles
Outsourcing
Andy Parrett
The contract management role in clinical development outsourcing is still a relatively young profession. The nature of the role can vary significantly between pharmaceutical companies. Andy Parrett, Chair of the Pharmaceutical Contract Management Group (PCMG) suggests that the most exciting developments in the role are occurring in today’s small to mid-sized companies, and looks at how the processes surrounding outsourcing and its successful management are being developed.
Features
Andrew Smith
An information day was held by the EMEA at the end of April, bringing together representatives of national Competent Authorities (CAs), pharma companies, CROs and non-profit stakeholder groups. The purpose of the day was to communicate the features and development timelines of the next few versions of the EudraCT database of clinical trials in the European Economic Area (EEA), which went live in mid-June. Andrew reports, based on blog postings made on the day of the meeting.
Adam Jacobs FICR CSci
CDISC (the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium) is a relatively new player in the world of clinical research, having been founded in 1997, but it is rapidly gaining in importance, and is here to stay. To keep up with some of the latest developments in the CDISC world, Adam reports from the European CDISC Interchange, held in Budapest in April 2009.
Jan Robinson MICR CSci
No-one questions the need for quality assurance of clinical trial activities but as someone at the receiving end have you ever been asked your opinion of the process? In your view, is audit a positive force for improvement? Are they the best means of advancing best practice or should we be taking a different approach? Jan invites you to take part in a short survey, to be reported in CRfocus and at the BARQA annual conference later this year.
Alex Dedman & Andrew Smith
The challenges of developing clinical trial protocols were the topic of the second annual symposium jointly hosted by the European Medical Writers’ Association (EMWA) and The Institute of Clinical Research (ICR) on 24 February 2009. Around 60 delegates discussed the difficulties associated with developing protocols that both meet sponsors’ scientific and regulatory requirements, and facilitate the practical conduct of the study. Alex and Andrew report for CRfocus and The Write Stuff, the EMWA members’ journal.
People
Edward Blair MICR
The EU Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) was established in 2007 and issued its first call for proposals in 2008. Funding for the successful proposal has been allocated and the work kicks off in June this year. So, the IMI is for real and is beginning to deliver, but how well known is it and why will it change the pharmaceuticals industry in ways that will benefit ICR members? To get a first-hand insight into the aspirations of the IMI, CRfocus talked to Dr Jackie Hunter of GlaxoSmithKline, who has seen the IMI develop from a twinkle in the eye of EFPIA into the operating entity that it is now.
Conference
We are pleased to include two more session reports from the ICR Annual Conference, which space prevented us from including in last month’s issue.
Fergus Sweeney & Gunnar Danielsson
Reporter: Judit Varkonyi-Sepp MICR CSci
Prof. James Neuberger & Mr Simon Bramhall
Reporter: Ali Zataar MICR CSci
Regular update
Janette Benaddi MICR Csci
The Institute of Clinical Research has a legal status of “a company limited by guarantee” and this means that it has to be managed by a Board of Directors. As members, you may wonder from time to time what the ICR Board of Directors do, who they are and how they add value to ICR members. Janette answers these questions, explains how the Board operates, and confesses her early (now-achieved) professional ambition to be a Board Director herself.
Posted in "Clinical research", CRfocus | Tagged: "Clinical research", CRfocus, EMWA, ICR, Magazine contents, medical writing, Outsourcing, Pharmaceutical development, protocol development, protocol writing, Table of contents (TOC) | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Smith on April 23, 2009
The title was a maxim drummed into me at the start of my career. I’ve said before, as have many others, that a recession is not something to be simply ‘ridden out’, but as far as possible to be invested through. When the economic upturn comes, the individuals, organisations and indeed countries that will be best placed to succeed will be those that have continued developing through the lean times. Others, who might have survived by pulling in their horns, will need to adapt suddenly to an environment that has changed commercially, socially, demographically and scientifically. Simply minimising costs will not be enough.
We’ve seen wave after wave of initiatives to improve the efficiency of processes and as a result we’ve become very good trimming a few percentage points off the cost of delivering a study. If what’s important is completing Study X within budget, then this is ‘a good thing’, and many feel that this is the case. The problem is that it’s tempting for organisations to focus too exclusively on cost minimisation. When you’re very good at using a hammer, everything looks like a nail. However, this neglects the bigger picture and the importance of creating additional value for companies, shareholders and society as a whole.
In the short term, quality is better at creating value than cost minimisation. Data obtained cheaply but that is not robust is of no value, with rework outweighing any cost savings. (Improving quality to eliminate rework is one way that techniques such as Six Sigma reduce costs.)
In the medium term, speed is better at creating value than cost minimisation. For a treatment that makes it to market, a few extra months of on-patent sales will be worth far more than thousands of pounds saved during Study X. For a treatment that isn’t going to succeed, being able to make that decision earlier eliminates the cost of Studies Y and Z.
In the long term, strategy is better at creating value than cost minimisation. By far the best way to create value is to get better at planning the development programme. Compounds entering development now will face different challenges to demonstrate safety and efficacy, scientific developments enabling more precise targeting of responders and non-responders, traditional markets seeking more detailed analysis of socio-economic impact to justify pricing, new markets increasing dramatically in importance and patients being more vocal in specifying what they want from a treatment. Many of these factors will influence or even contradict each other, making it vital to have a detailed and integrated understanding of the entire picture. While some of these strategic insights will come from the clinical/regulatory sphere we are all familiar with, others will involve experts in economics and marketing.
Maximising value and minimising cost certainly aren’t exclusive. It could be argued, for example by CROs, that as long as someone is thinking about the bigger picture, then it’s okay to concentrate solely on containing costs. However, that’s could be short-sighted, because having efficient processes is of little long-term value if they can’t cope with the changing goals of future development programmes. In fact, with a broad view and portfolio of clients, being able to offer such strategic insights could be a deal-winner.
It might seem counter-intuitive, but when the overall level of business risk is high, the relative risk of trying to leap ahead through strategic innovation is actually lower than in ‘boom’ years. Some companies will fail, but some will fail anyway, and those that innovate and survive will secure their place at the forefront of the industry for a generation.
Posted in "Clinical research", Editorials | Tagged: "Clinical research", Adding value, Competitive advantage, Cost minimisation, Drug development, pharma, Pharmaceutical development, Quality, Recession, Speed, Strategic innovation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Smith on April 1, 2009
CRfocus 20(04) – April 2009
This is the Table of Contents of Clinical Research focus 20(04) for April 2009. Members of The Institute of Clinical Research can click on the links to read the full text of each article.
Weathering the storm
Andrew Smith
In the current economic climate, it’s easy to reach the conclusion that the recent high-profile mega-mergers (eg, Pfizer/Wyeth, Merck/Schering-Plough etc.) are simple industry consolidation. But, as we’ve pointed out in CRfocus previously, the link between the global economic turmoil and the changes in the pharmaceutical industry is perhaps less direct than one might think. Andrew explores…
Tim Ewbank
The past 12 months have seen economic turbulence on a scale no-one could have predicted. So how has this impacted on the pharma and biotech sectors? Harten Group’s seventh annual industry survey takes a look at the facts behind the headlines. Tim Ewbank presents some of the findings of this research.
Jonathan Hart-Smith
Following a recent survey at the beginning of 2009, jobseekers within the UK pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have a very positive outlook. Their positivity is a breath of fresh air in stark contract to the general mood for the economies of Western Europe and the USA. Jonathan Hart-Smith presents the findings of this survey.
Research integrity
Nigel Crossland FICR Csci
A for-cause audit is defined as an independent and objective examination of a clinical research study in order to confirm the circumstances of a reported incident of serious non-compliance. In this article, Nigel describes some of the principles and practicalities involved in ‘for-cause audits’ and shares some examples of their findings.
Andrew Smith
This year’s EFGCP Annual Conference, held in Prague at the end of January, aimed to provide a European perspective on integrity in the conduct and publication of clinical research. Andrew was there, and presents commentary on selected presentations, as previously reported on the CRfocus blog.
Book review
Reviewed by Debbie Early MICR
Prof. development
Judi Eaton
Judi reports on the latest ICR CTA workshop, aiming to give CTAs everywhere ‘Tools & Updates’ as part of the ‘Maximise Your Potential’ series. Topics included the draft CTA Handbook, a regulatory and ethics update and the ongoing development of the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS).
Regular updates
Janette Benaddi MICR Csci
In her first message as Chair of ICR, Janette pays tribute to her predecessor, Susan Ollier, and sets out her vision for the coming year. During difficult times, it is important that we continue to support you in your careers and ensure that we are meeting your expectations. Janette explains that we are going to embrace these challenging, changing times and continue to add value to the services we provide for members of ICR.
Andrew Smith
Our regular look at the lighter side of clinical research, including “Ten things we hope sales & marketing won’t say to clinical” and engaging with patients in a “hip hop stylee”…
Posted in "Clinical research", CRfocus | Tagged: clinical trials, conference, CRfocus, Drug development, Magazine contents, pharma, Pharmaceutical development, Recession, Table of contents (TOC) | Leave a Comment »
