Abstract
Background
Site identification, site selection, and study start-up have become the focus of improvement by organizations conducting clinical trials.
Methods
To examine and measure the process from site identification through site activation, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (CSDD) conducted a comprehensive survey among pharmaceutical organizations, biotech companies, and contract research organizations (CROs). Responses from over 400 unique companies were gathered and analyzed.
Results
The results indicate that the start-up process is on average 5 to 6 months in total duration, and cycle times across all activities, including site identification, site selection, and study start-up, are faster for repeat sites than for new sites. Comparisons between sponsor and CROs indicate that CROs completed all site-related activities 6 to 11 weeks faster than sponsors. Other areas impacting cycle times were examined, including centralized versus decentralized functions, investment in technology, and organizational strategies that improve cycle time efficiency and performance.
Conclusion
Tufts CSDD will explore this area in future research to gather additional insights into other factors that may be associated with speed and efficiency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
CTTI recommendations: efficient and effective clinical trial recruitment planning. https://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/projects/recruitment. Accessed November 29, 2017.
Abbott D, Califf R, Morrison B, et al. Cycle time metrics for multisite clinical trials in the United States. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013;47:152–160.
Lamberti M, Mathias A, Myles J, Howe D, Getz KA. Evaluating the impact of patient recruitment and retention practices. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2012;46:573–580.
Getz KA, Kim J, Stergiopoulos S, et al. Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data. Am J Ther. 2015;22:117–124.
Financial and operating benchmarks for investigative sites: 2016 CenterWatch-ACRP collaborative survey. https://www.acrpnet.org/resources/financial-operating-benchmarks-investigative-sites. Accessed August 24, 2017.
Lamberti M, Brothers C, Manak D, Getz KA. Benchmarking the study initiation process. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013;47:101–109.
Lamberti M, Chakravarthy R, Getz KA. New benchmarks for trial initiation activities. Appl Clin Trials. 2017;25:28–32.
Schimanksi C, Kieronski M. Streamline and improve study start-up. Appl Clin Trials. 2013;22:22–27.
Temkar P. Accelerating study start up: the key to avoiding trial delays. Clin Res. February 1, 2017. https://www.acrpnet.org/2017/01/26/contract-negotiations-greatest-cause-clinical-trial-delays-new-report-shows/. Accessed November 29, 2017.
Morgan C. The need for speed in clinical study start up. Clinical Leader. http://www.clinicalleader.com/doc/the-need-for-speed-in-study-startup-0001. Accessed August 27, 2017.
Sears C, Cascade E. Using public and private data for clinical operations. Appl Clin Trials. 2017;25:22–26.
Sullivan L. Defining “quality that matters” in clinical trial study start up activities. Monitor. 2011;25:22–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lamberti, M.J., Wilkinson, M., Harper, B. et al. Assessing Study Start-up Practices, Performance, and Perceptions Among Sponsors and Contract Research Organizations. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 572–578 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017751403
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017751403