Table of Contents: CRfocus 20(10) – October 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

Multinational Trials: A New Balance Point?

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.

Managing Clinical Research in the UK: Survey & Conference

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

My Clinical Study is Over; What Happens to the Data? An Introduction to the Clinical Study Report

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

Study Management for Research Nurses: ICR Research Nurse Forum

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.

Virtual Learning in the Real World: ICR Tainers’ Forum

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

Ten Things You Need to Know About Infusion Pumps for IV Delivery in Clinical Trials

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

“Trial by Fire: Lessons from the History of Clinical Trials”

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

Fit For the Future: Message from the Chair

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.

It’s Not All Work, Work, Work…

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…”.

OLS Blueprint: PICTf 3.0?

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…

Should ICH GCP be reviewed and revised?

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…

End of term reports?

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…)

• Life Sciences Blueprint – A Statement from the Office for Life Sciences (July 14th)
• The Case for Globalisation: Ethical and Business Considerations in Clinical Research (July 21st)
• Appraising the Value of Innovation and Other Benefits: A Short Study for NICE (July 22nd)

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…

EFGCP workshop on a single clinical trial application for pan-national studies

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.

A message from our sponsor…

The CRfocus blog is pleased to be sponsored by the Institute of Clinical Research 2009 Annual Conference & Exhibition.

ESSENTIAL UPDATES

AND LIVELY DEBATES

ICR understands the importance of maintaining your competitive edge in the current environment. Therefore, this year’s conference is packed with opportunities to hone your professional skills, stay abreast of the latest regulatory developments and keep up to date with the hottest innovations in the clinical research industry.

There will also be plenty of opportunity for you to make new contacts and network with influential figures from across the industry.

Programme highlights include:

• Essential regulatory updates, plus “GCP Question Time”
• Intensive half-day sessions on oncology, organ transplants & cardiovascular medicine
• Lively discussions on EDC, off-shoring and global contracts
• New Professional Development stream with certificates & CPD points
• Debates on controversial questions with the chance to vote

For details of how to register and to view the full conference programme click here