Science, Society & Economics: Shaping the Future of Clinical Research: ICR 31st Anniversary Conference & Exhibition

It’s that time of year again: here at the ICR office, we are making the final preparations for our Annual Conference, which is just a few weeks away on April 19^th and 20^th. The conference is ICR’s flagship event, and a high point of the year for clinical research professionals. Delegates, speakers and exhibitors come to learn about and discuss the issues facing professionals in their work designing, managing and conducting clinical trials.

The past couple of years have been challenging for us all, in terms of time and budget to invest in our professional development and networking. We’ve listened to your feedback about previous ICR conferences, and have built on the changes we introduced last year to give you the best event possible, with a programme of relevant and informative sessions for all the diverse roles making up the ICR membership. The 2010 ICR conference makes it easier for you to reconnect with your profession, and create new opportunities for yourself and your company.

After several years in the centre of England, we are bringing the conference to London for the first time in its history. This recognises the fact that more than half our members live within a couple of hours of the city. The Hilton Metropole, a few minutes away from Paddington station, is within easy reach of national and international transport services, whether you’re coming by car, train or plane.

For the first time in nearly a decade, the conference will be held in the hotel where most of the delegates, speakers etc. are also staying. This meant that we were able to offer delegates who booked their places early preferential rates on their hotel reservations. You also have the benefit of being able to carry on discussing issues after the conference formally closes, at our networking drinks reception on the Monday evening, in the bar or over dinner, or even over a shared breakfast before the second day of the conference opens.

Another important change is that we’ve frozen delegate prices to remain at their 2009 levels, to help members in these challenging economic times. This makes the ICR conference even better value for money than other multi-stream conferences.

If you can only go to one conference…

This year, we have a varied selection of relevant, knowledgeable and experienced speakers to discuss the important issues facing us all. All of the topics to be discussed at this year’s conference will impact on the way you work now and in the future, either directly on indirectly. Whatever your role in clinical development, and whatever point you’re at in your career, it’s vital that you stay up-to-date with the latest developments and make your voice heard in the discussions about their implementation, impact and implications.

The overarching theme of the conference is that clinical research is influenced by both internal and external factors, with economics and politics often having as great an impact on the way we work to develop new treatments as developments in medical science and operating procedures. The interfaces between these areas will provide the clinical research community with its greatest challenges, and its greatest opportunities, over the coming years.

Plenary sessions: Personalised healthcare & Health economics

Plenary sessions on key topics will close each day’s proceedings.

In the first of these, speakers from AstraZeneca and Roche will look at personalised healthcare, certainly an indicator for the way many future medicines will be developed and studied. The technological, scientific and clinical advancements in pharmaceuticals R&D over the past decade has ensured that the concept of personalised healthcare is now rapidly becoming the practice of personalised healthcare, particularly in infectious disease and oncology. This important field has implications reaching into patient recruitment and informed consent, pricing and economics, biomarkers and companion diagnostics etc.

The second plenary session will close the conference with a detailed look at the economic evaluation of healthcare technologies, which is increasingly used to inform social choices about access to innovative treatments. This is a field where the UK leads much of global thinking. Professors Richard Lilford and Karl Claxton, both of whom are close to the development of these ideas and their practical application, will discuss which health technologies should be approved or covered for use, what price ought to be paid for such technologies and how much and what type of evidence is required to support coverage or approval. The changing health-economic landscape will have an increasing impact on which clinical development programmes take priority, how individual clinical trials are structured, and how additional kinds of information need to be collected and analysed.

Parallel sessions: From patient recruitment to research governance

There are too many exciting topics being covered in the 12 parallel sessions to discuss them all in detail, but here is a selection of sessions that are proving popular with early-registering delegates:

Dr Clare Morgan of the NIHR Clinical Research Network Coordinating Centre will review what the NIHR CRN is doing to improve reliability, including improving confidence around quality study feasibility assessment, access to a wider pool of committed investigators with dedicated, trained resource to support study delivery and proactive study performance management.

Gaynor Anders and Prof. Theo Raynor urge us to “think outside the box” about patient recruitment. Real progress is being made on several fronts of the challenge to meet the study participation needs of research programs. However, there is still a huge gap between those needs and the collective willingness and ability of patients to enrol in studies.

Mark Lewis MICR and Christine McGrath MICR will explore the challenges and tactics involved in applying policy-level initiatives in practice at individual Trusts, to enhance and streamline UK clinical research. They will also discuss how to improve the performance of individual R&D departments (in terms of quality, speed, added value etc.).

Another key update will come from Janet Wisely of NRES, who will discuss the latest developments in ethics review. She will look at the ongoing development of the IRAS application system, the 2009 pilot scheme in proportionate review, and the use of ethics advisers to help committees work more effectively by ensuring that proposals are well presented, with scientific referees’ reports if necessary.

Other sessions consider practical issues, such as the role of research nurses in the informed consent process, the changing clinical data requirements for medical devices, managing remote teams and the move towards risk-based inspections.

Full abstracts and speaker profiles for all conference sessions are available at www.icr-global.org/community/conferences/31st-annual-conference-exhibition.

Annual General Meeting: May 19^th

The ICR Annual General Meeting has traditionally been an important part of the Annual Conference. However, as announced last month and clarified elsewhere in this issue, we have decided that this year’s AGM deserves more time and attention than it can easily be given alongside the conference. Instead, the AGM will be held at the ICR office in Bourne End, on May 19^th, starting at 5pm. Further details will be published to members in due course.

More targeted exhibition

In addition to attending conference sessions and networking with your peers throughout the industry, many delegates also come to the conference to find out more about potential new suppliers, and the exhibition has always been an important addition to the ICR conference. This year’s exhibition is already sold out, and we are pleased to have the support of so many companies from throughout the clinical research sector.

However, after listening to your feedback over previous years about the balance of exhibiting companies and the sometimes overly intrusive attitudes of a few individual stand personnel, we have decided to reduce the size of the overall exhibition, and particularly the proportion of recruitment agencies that have been invited to exhibit. Along with our Exhibitors’ Code of Conduct, this means that you will be able to walk through the exhibition aisles without concerns, and decide without pressure which companies you’d like to talk to.

Make the most of your membership

As I write this piece, in March, many of you have already registered to attend the conference, and it is becoming obvious that several of the sessions will be well attended. If you are struggling to find the time (or the budget) to come to the full meeting, we are offering single-day conference passes at reduced rates.

As we hope you’ll agree, this year’s Annual Conference will have something for everyone: plenty to learn, plenty of business benefit, but also plenty for us all to enjoy. We are also offering special reduced rates for professionals working in academia or the public sector, and to full-time students. To reserve your place, simply fax back the form on the back of the conference flyer enclosed with this issue of CRfocus, or register online via the ICR website (www.icr-global.org/community).

Blogging from EFGCP conference on personalised medicine

On January 26th and 27th I will be blogging from the EFGCP Annual Conference, which this year has the theme “Aspects of Personalised Medicine for Society – a Challenge Yet to be Met”. From the main page about the conference:

For the past 50 years the development of new medicines has been highly successful. As a result, many diseases have been well treated – sometimes cured or at least their symptoms relieved. Success could be measured by the number of patients thus treated. However, such success had to be leavened by the frequency of side effects and it had to be recognised that potential success for an individual patient could be nullified by the unacceptability of such side effects. So attempts were made both to increase the efficacy of new medicines and to improve their tolerability; and, in parallel, it was realised that efficacy and tolerability of any given medicine varied between individual patients. The traditional tools for finding the right dose for most patients were randomized controlled clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance studies; but, recently, the recognition that the individual genetic profiles of patients could be identified in terms of their susceptibility to treatment with medicines as well as their susceptibility to the side effects of such medicines has enabled a paradigm shift towards the success of a new medicine. Knowledge about the individual genome has clearly opened up huge scientific opportunities, but accompanied by a significant need to identify, discuss and attempt to solve aspects of personalized medicine related to society as a whole. This conference will tackle the complex issues involved, including the ethics of providing confidential information arising from knowledge of the individual genome, associated economic factors, access to tailor-made treatment and how this should be prioritised. By means of a series of presentations by those experienced in handling these issues, and six interactive workshops, the EFGCP Annual Conference 2010 will aim to identify the challenges of personalized medicine in the context of society as a whole yet to be met. The various roles of all the stakeholders, from the bench-based scientist to the patient, will all be discussed in the interests of identifying the best possible treatments for the society of the future.

Further information about the conference, including how to register, can be found here. I will be posting almost-live from the conference to this site, and will also publish a more formal report in a future issue of Clinical Research focus (hopefully the March issue).

Table of Contents: CRfocus 20(11) – November 2009

This is the Table of Contents of Clinical Research focus 20(11) issue for November 2009. Members of ICR can click the links below to log in and read the full text of each article.

Features

Challenges of Inter-Organisation Projects: What Factors Lead Towards Success?

Matthew Theobald

Working with partner companies to define, execute and deliver a clinical research project can be a challenge at the best of times. So what is it that sets successful projects apart from those that struggle to get started or lose focus during their execution? Recent ‘project fractures research’ into this topic reveals that the root causes of project failure (or significant variance) don’t lie in the project management methodologies or structure. The root causes actually lie in the people factors, such as how they engage in projects. Matthew Theobald presents some useful insights into how projects fail, and suggests how they might be planned and managed better.

An Unacceptable Conflict of Interest? The PharmaTimes Great Oxford Debate

Les Rose FICR

Arguably the world’s foremost debating chamber, the Oxford Union was the scene of this annual event, which always addresses contentious issues for the pharmaceutical industry. The Motion for this year’s debate was: “This house believes that there is an unacceptable conflict of interest when pharma conducts trials on its own drugs”. Les Rose was there, and presents the main arguments for and against the motion, and reveals the (not unexpected) result of the evening’s vote.

How Will Personalised Medicine Have an Impact on Clinical Trials?

Abel Ureta-Vidal

How can genomics have an impact on the management of your clinical trials? With the growing understanding of genetic code within personalised medicine, could this signal a change in the size and scope of clinical trials? What does this mean for the pharmaceutical industry and the patient? “Personalised medicine” is a current buzzword, but what does it actually mean? Some say it has the potential to affect the entire landscape of our healthcare system over the next ten to 20 years. Abel Ureta-Vidal explores the potential benefits, but also the risks and challenges.

A Marriage Made in Heaven or Grounds for Divorce: ICR Project Management Forum

Sarah Muller MICR

Christopher Colombus, Kevin and Perry, men from Mars and women from Venus were all mentioned at the ICR forum on ‘A Marriage Made in Heaven or Grounds for Divorce: Exploring the interface between Project Management, Data Management and Statistics.’ This forum took the form of a debate on the motion “The data management and statistics functions are well managed by project management”. Following the formal debate, there was plenty of time for discussion between the speakers and audience. Sarah reports…

People

Exploring an Innovative CRO Business Model: An Interview

Susan Ollier HonFICR CSci & Paul Thompson

Paul Thompson is Director of Business Development and Susan Ollier HonFICR CSci is Director of UK Operations at QED Clinical Services. Many readers of CRfocus will know Susan better as Chair of ICR until she reached the end of her term at this year’s AGM, but she also ran a consultancy which recently merged with QED Clinical Services. We discuss the company’s franchise business model, the importance of cultural fit and the importance of commercial and operational innovation in the CRO sector.

Prof. development

ASM Posters: 2009 Entries & 2010 Submissions

Andrew Smith

The Institute of Clinical Research is pleased to announce that its 31st Annual Conference and Exhibition, with an overall theme of “Science, Society and Economics: Shaping the Future of Clinical Research”, will once again include a poster session. In this brief introduction to the 2010 competition, we present some highlights from the 2009 competition and invite you to submit an abstract for a poster at this year’s event. You can submit your poster abstract for consideration using the online form at www.icr-global.org/community/conferences/31st-annual-conference-exhibition/poster-abstract-submission/. The deadline for poster abstract submissions is Friday 5th February 2010.

10 Things You Need to Know About… Being Resilient at Work

Helen Chapman

Resilience is the ability to stay balanced and to bounce back quickly from setbacks and adversity. Resilient people stay committed and increase their efforts when the going gets tough. Some people are born naturally more resilient than others, but anyone can improve their resilience through effective awareness and training. This article will give you ten simple ideas for becoming more resilient to the ever-changing world around you and reassure you that a key aspect of being resilient is knowing that although you may not be able to change the environment around you, you can change how you choose to let it affect you.

Regular update

The Challenges We Face: Varied but Interlinked: Message from the Chair

Janette Benaddi MICR CSci

It is impossible for anyone to replicate the direct experience of all our members, not having worked in every sector. However, as Janette explains, she tries to understand the major issues affecting you and encourage you to become more involved yourself as opportunities arise for influencing the shape of clinical research. It is always interesting to learn that the challenges we face are often similar despite our diverse therapeutic fields and specialisations.

It’s Not All Work, Work, Work…

Compiled by Andrew Smith

Our regular look at the lighter side of clinical research, including reality TV formats to raise the profile of clinical research, pharmaceutical brand names that never made it to market and “Ten things that shouldn’t be used as project performance metrics…”.

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…

Cartoon for September’s issue of CRfocus

For more clinical research humour visit http://www.icr-global.org/crfocus/clinical-research-jokes/

Dr Simpkins drew the short straw at the pre-inspection meeting.

Top 10 most viewed CRfocus articles in 2009

Following  a little ad hoc research this afternoon, here are the top 10 articles published in CRfocus that have been read most on www.crfocus.org.

1. Planning for Success in Patient Recruitment: An Interview with Missy Orr
2. The Impact of the Declaration of Helsinki
3. Contracts in Global Clinical Trials
4. Why You Should Care About the Innovative Medicines Initiative: An Interview with Jackie Hunter
5. Off-Shoring in Clinical Research
6. Factors Driving the Evolution of Digital Outreach for Patient Recruitment
7. How Many Biscuits?! Exposed: Alternate Site Feasibility Criteria (an old spoof article I wrote… strangely popular for some reason!)
8. Oncology Care in the Future
9. Evolution of the Biopharmaceutical Services Industry: A Continued Commitment to Expertise, Technology & Globalisation
10. International Inspections

Members of the Institute of Clinical Research can click on these links and log in to read the full text of each article.

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.