The Avoca Group, profile picture
Uploaded byThe Avoca Group
PDF, PPTX1,514 views

2014 Avoca Industry Report Executive Summary

The document discusses a 2014 report from Avoca Group on the use of "intelligent" or data-driven approaches in clinical development. It found that both sponsors and providers apply these approaches most frequently to region and site selection. Providers reported greater advancement than sponsors in applying intelligent approaches across various clinical trial activities over the past two years. Sponsors viewed providers as making the most significant contributions to intelligent approaches for site selection, region selection, monitoring, and patient recruitment.

Embed presentation

Download as PDF, PPTX
The 2014 Avoca Report “Intelligent” Approaches to Clinical Development Executive Summary September 2014
2 Contents Section Slides Background Information 3-7 General Perceptions of Outsourced Clinical Development 8-12 Application of “Intelligent” Approaches to Clinical Development 13-22 Summary of Findings and Takeaways 23-27
3 2014 Avoca Research Overview Introduction Each year The Avoca Group surveys industry executives and managers to understand trends in clinical development, with a particular focus on outsourcing dynamics and relationships between research sponsors and providers. One of the recurring themes that Avoca has heard via discussions and engagements with biopharmaceutical companies and providers over the past several years relates to the trend towards utilizing more “intelligent” approaches to clinical development to enhance R&D efficiency and effectiveness. Consequently, in this year’s industry review, Avoca chose to perform a comprehensive assessment of how “intelligent,” data-driven approaches are being utilized in outsourced clinical development today, from the perspective of both sponsor organizations as well as the service providers that support them. This report serves as an Executive Summary of key findings from the research.
4 2014 Avoca Research Overview Areas Explored ●Application of “Intelligent” Approaches: Frequency of use in key areas of interest; rate of advancement in these areas over the past two years ●Contributing Forces: Extent to which Sponsors and Providers positively or negatively contribute to the usage of “intelligent” approaches ●Satisfaction with “Intelligent” Approaches: Level of satisfaction with application in key areas of interest; variability in Provider application ●Engagement with CROs: Early engagement of partners in protocol and development planning ●Change Management Initiatives: Experience with technology, training, and other implementation and change management solutions
5 2014 Avoca Research Overview Definitions Respondents were provided with the following definition of “intelligent” clinical development at the beginning of the survey: For the purposes of this survey, “intelligent” clinical development approaches are defined as those that make use of operational (e.g. performance) and/or clinical data, along with appropriate analytical techniques, in order to optimize aspects of clinical development such as protocol design, Investigator selection, patient recruitment approaches, resource allocation (e.g. risk-based monitoring), etc. For example: –“Intelligent” approaches to overall protocol design might include adaptive study designs, i.e. those adjusted during the course of a study based on biomarker or clinical study data gathered during the study. –“Intelligent” approaches to procedural or eligibility aspects of protocols might include examination of data from previous studies to identify procedures/criteria associated with high levels of protocol violations, cost, screen failures, etc. compared to the value of the data received. –“Intelligent” approaches to selecting sites, regions, providers, or patient recruitment approaches might use performance databases to identify suitability for particular types of studies. –“Intelligent” approaches to project management/oversight might include data-based identification of areas/periods of low/high risk, in order to allocate oversight resources accordingly.
6 Respondent Demographics: Sponsors 127 respondents from 83 companies; ~45% in Top 20 (by revenue) 67% 28% 3% Pharma Biotech Device Other Company Type 27% 54% 17% Executive Management Middle Management Project Management Other Role / Level Achillion Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb Ipsen Biopharm Purdue Pharma Actelion Cambryn Biologics Italfarmaco Recordati Aeras Cangene Janssen R&D Roche Afferent Pharmaceuticals Celator Pharmaceuticals Johnson & Johnson Sanofi Alexion Pharmaceuticals Celgene Kowa Research Europe Seattle Genetics Allergan Cerexa Kythera Biopharmaceuticals Shire Almirall Collegium Pharmaceutical Life Science Leader Soricimed Biopharma Amgen Covidien Lundbeck Stallergenes Arges Pharma Cubist Merck Sunovion Array BioPharma Dompé Mitsubishi Pharma Europe Synta Astellas Eli Lilly MSD Tekmira Astex Pharmaceuticals Endo NanoScan Imaging Teva Pharmaceuticals AstraZeneca EnVivo Pharmaceuticals Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics UCB Biosciences Bavarian Nordic Exco InTouch Noven Pharmaceuticals VentiRx Pharmaceuticals Baxter Exelixis Ono Pharma Vernalis Bayer Genentech (member of Roche Group) Orexigen Vertex Pharmaceuticals Biogen Idec Genzyme (a Sanofi company) Orion Vifor Pharma Biological E. Grünenthal Otsuka (OPDC) Wockhardt Bioniche Animal Health Haemonetics Pearl Therapeutics Xenon Boehringer Ingelheim Helsinn Therapeutics PF Lab Zymogenetics (a BMS company) Boston Scientific HPC Pfizer Companies Represented
7 Respondent Demographics: Providers 105 respondents from 64 companies; ~64% in Top 20 (by revenue) 67% 33% CRO Other/Niche 62% 29% 7% Executive Management Middle Management Project Management Other Acurian ERT NHS RH Bouchard & Associates Advanced Clinical ExecuPharm Novella Clinical Schulman Associates IRB Almac Experis OBiS Sciformix BMS (Imaging Company) Fisher Clinical Services OmniComm Systems Spaulding Clinical Services CBIO/NUDFAC-UFPE Higginbotham Group ORION Clinical Services SynteractHCR Cerafor Limited Hugin Mugin Research PAREXEL Telerx CFS Clinical ICON PICR TFS Trial Form Support Chilten IMS Health PlanetConnect Theorem Clinical Research ClinAudits INC Research Popsi Cube Therapeutics, Inc. ConcepTrial inSeption Group PPD TKL Research Consumer Product Testing Company Interlab PRA TranScrip Partners Covance Intrinsic Imaging ProTrials Research UL EduNeering CRF Health inVentiv Health PSI Vantage BioTrials Cromsource IRB Services QPS Holdings Veeva Datatrial Micron Quanticate Viracor-IBT Eperis Clinical Moffitt Cancer Center Quintiles Virtuoso Companies Represented Company Type Role / Level
General Perceptions of Outsourced Clinical Development
9 4% 44% 12% 67% 41% 55% 52% 71% 21% 35% 23% 4% 15% 10% 20% 17% The work that has been done for you by Clinical Service Providers (including but not limited to CROs)? The value that you have received for the money spent on your Clinical Service Providers (including but not limited to CROs)? The quality delivered by your Clinical Service Providers (including but not limited to CROs)? The quality that your company has delivered for its sponsors in the last 3 years? Your relationships with the sponsors with which you work? SPONSORS PROVIDERS N 126 123 126 102 101 Very Satisfied Generally Satisfied Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied Generally Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Respondents from Sponsor organizations generally reported lower levels of satisfaction than Providers in the respective areas evaluated. The difference in perceptions of quality has grown more pronounced, as Provider satisfaction (44% “very satisfied” in 2014 vs. 27% in 2013) has increased much more than Sponsor satisfaction (4% vs. 2%).* Quality Q: Overall, how satisfied are you with… Satisfaction Levels * Refer to Avoca’s 2013 Industry Report for data comparisons.
10 9% 9% 19% 32% 43% 51% 25% 5% 4% 4% Sponsors Providers We are optimally efficient We could theoretically improve our efficiency by 1-10% We could theoretically improve our efficiency by 11-25% We could theoretically improve our efficiency by 26-50% We could theoretically improve our efficiency by >50% Q Sponsors: In terms of the internal resources required to manage outsourced projects effectively, how much room for improvement do you think your company currently has? Q Providers: In terms of the resources required to manage clinical trial effectively , how much room for improvement do you think your company currently has? Potential Improvement in Managing Outsourced Projects N 126 104 A greater proportion of respondents from Sponsor organizations perceive room for improvement in the efficiency with which outsourced projects are managed relative to Provider respondents. Nearly 30% of Sponsors surveyed said efficiency could be improved by more than 25%, while less than 10% of Providers reported the same. Project Management Efficiency
11 Early Engagement in Clinical Trials Q Sponsors: For outsourced clinical trials, how often do you engage CROs early in the clinical trial execution process, in order to leverage their experience? Q Providers: How often do sponsors engage your company early in the clinical trial execution process, in order to leverage your company’s experience? More than 60% of Sponsor respondents reported that they engage their CRO providers early in the process for most of the clinical trials they execute, whereas less than 40% of Provider respondents indicated that they are typically engaged early. Early Engagement of CROs in the Clinical Trial Process N=88 19% 43% 31% 5% 4% 35% 44% 14% Most of the time Always Sometimes Seldom Never SPONSORS PROVIDERS N=71
12 Q Sponsors: For outsourced clinical trials, how often do you collaborate with your CROs on protocol design? Q Providers: How often do sponsors collaborate with your company on protocol design? Q Sponsors: To what extent do you feel that collaboration with CROs on protocol design improves quality? Q Providers: To what extent do you feel that your company’s collaboration with sponsors on protocol design improves quality? Collaboration on Protocol Design Both Sponsor and Provider respondents had mixed views regarding the frequency of collaboration on protocol design, but there is a clear gap in terms of the extent to which Providers believe collaboration improves protocol design quality relative to the perceptions of Sponsors. 7% 17% 66% 15% 16% 55% 25% 29% 53% 22% 3% 25% 19% 5% 6% 24% 12% N=85 Always Most of the time Sometimes Seldom Sponsors Providers Sponsors Providers N=68 N=78 N=64 Frequency of Collaboration with CROs on Protocol Design Never Extent to Which Collaboration with CROs Improves Protocol Design Quality Greatly Somewhat Little None Reduces Quality
Application of “Intelligent” Approaches to Clinical Development
14 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Region selection Site selection Cost benchmarking/management Provider selection Project management/oversight Protocol procedures/eligibility criteria Data collection tools Overall protocol designs Patient/volunteer recruitment Monitoring Sponsors Providers Q Sponsors: Approximately what percentage of clinical trials [conducted in-house] have employed “intelligent” (data-driven) approaches to each of the below activities? Q Providers: For approximately what percentage of clinical trials has your company employed “intelligent” (data- driven) approaches to each of the below activities? Most respondents from both Sponsor and Provider companies reported using “intelligent” approaches to region selection and site selection for a majority of trials they conduct. Usage of these approaches for other clinical trial activities varied. Utilization of “Intelligent” Approaches by Clinical Trial Activity % reporting that a majority of trials conducted by their organization employ “intelligent” approaches Use of “Intelligent” Approaches Sponsor N (range) = 60-87 Provider N (range) = 49-62
15 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Region selection Site selection Data collection tools Monitoring Provider selection Protocol procedures/eligibility criteria Project management/oversight Cost benchmarking/management Overall protocol designs Patient/volunteer recruitment Sponsors Providers Q: Overall, how would you rate your company’s advancement in the use of “intelligent” approaches to each of the below areas over the last 2 years? A greater proportion of Provider respondents reported making at least moderate advances over the past two years in each of the clinical trial activities evaluated than Sponsor respondents. The largest gaps were associated with region selection, data collection tools and monitoring. Advancement in the Use of “Intelligent” Approaches by Clinical Trial Activity % reporting moderate or great advancements in the past 2 years Advancement of “Intelligent” Approaches Sponsor N (range) = 63-84 Provider N (range) = 50-65
16 19% 14% 21% 22% 7% 15% 7% 7% 50% 43% 37% 35% 37% 29% 31% 26% 21% 26% 27% 35% 32% 36% 36% 41% 40% 52% 46% 39% 6% 7% 6% 13% 15% 20% 20% 26% 26% 4% 6% 9% Site selection Region selection Monitoring Patient/volunteer recruitment Project management/oversight Data collection tools Provider selection Protocol procedures/eligibility criteria Overall protocol designs Cost benchmarking/management Essential contribution Significant contribution Little contribution No contribution Negative contribution N 70 69 73 72 67 68 55 66 57 57 Q Sponsors: In your opinion, to what extent do your company's clinical service providers either contribute to, or detract from, your company's use of "intelligent" (data-driven) clinical development approaches for each area listed below? Provider Contribution to “Intelligent” Approaches by Activity From the perspective of Sponsors A majority of Sponsors surveyed indicated that Providers are making significant or essential contributions to the use of “intelligent” approaches in four key areas: site selection, region selection, monitoring, and patient/volunteer recruitment. Sponsors perceive the smallest contributions in the area of cost benchmarking/management. Provider Contributions
17 N 48 47 42 50 43 53 39 46 39 Sponsor Contributions Q Providers: In your opinion, to what extent do your company’s sponsor customers either contribute to, or detract from, your company’s use of “intelligent” (data-driven) clinical development approaches for each area listed below? Sponsor Contribution to “Intelligent” Approaches by Activity From the perspective of Providers Providers were most likely to report that Sponsors are making significant or essential contributions to protocol procedures/eligibility criteria, overall protocol design and region selection. Looking across all areas evaluated, Provider perceptions of Sponsor contributions were less pronounced than Sponsor perceptions of Provider contributions. 17% 26% 7% 10% 7% 6% 11% 10% 35% 19% 36% 26% 26% 25% 26% 15% 15% 40% 40% 40% 42% 44% 49% 56% 39% 51% 6% 13% 10% 14% 14% 13% 10% 26% 21% 7% 8% 9% 8% 5% 9% Protocol procedures/eligibility criteria Overall protocol designs Region selection Monitoring Site selection Project management/oversight Provider selection Cost benchmarking/management Patient/volunteer recruitment Essential contribution Significant contribution Little contribution No contribution Negative contribution
18 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Relationships with patient organizations Relationships with other providers Relationships with regulatory authorities Ability to analyze data/create models Relationships with sites Understanding of relevant regulations Understanding of general approaches Availability of data Technology tools Sponsors Providers Q Sponsors: What have your providers contributed most to your company’s adoption of “intelligent” (data-driven) approaches? Q Providers: What have your sponsor customers contributed most to your company’s use of “intelligent” (data-driven) approaches? A relatively large percentage of Providers acknowledged that Sponsors have contributed to their adoption of “intelligent” approaches to clinical development by helping them understand general approaches and by making data available. For Sponsors, contributions of Providers were primarily around technology and data. Contributions to the Adoption of “Intelligent” Approaches % reporting that the other party has contributed to their company’s usage in each area Contributors to Adoption Sponsor N = 127 Provider N = 64
19 Contributing Forces: Open-End Themes Q: Please describe the major contributors / impediments to your company’s advancement in the use of these approaches. ●Internal pressures: Pressures to increase efficiency and quality while reducing cost generally promote the use of “intelligent” approaches within companies. ●External pressures: Providers often reported that data-driven approaches had advanced quickly within their companies because of pressures from clients, as well as competitive pressure in general. Sponsors indicated that as examples of the use of such approaches become more prevalent in the industry, their companies/managers experience pressure to implement similar approaches. ●Availability of data: Use of data-driven approaches is promoted by the availability and, importantly, the aggregation of relevant data, and impeded by its absence. ●Availability of analytical models and experience: Likewise, the use of data-driven approaches is promoted by the availability of appropriate analytical models and experience, and impeded by its absence. Many respondents mentioned that access to expertise and experience in this area was the factor that most limited their companies’ use of such approaches. ●Understanding of regulatory perspective: Concerns about regulatory perspectives on innovative, data-driven approaches often impact companies’ willingness to “risk” their use. ●Technology: Technology solutions for facilitating the aggregation, analysis, and interpretation of data, particularly in a dynamic fashion, are not available to all companies. ●Resource availability: The use of data-driven approaches can require increased resources during the early planning and start-up stages of projects, when resources may already be limited, particularly in smaller companies. ●Effective change management: Like any other novel approach, the use of data-driven approaches is promoted by the availability and utilization of effective approaches to change management (e.g., training, messaging, etc.) and impeded by lack thereof.
20 Q: Has your company implemented any specific change management initiatives to help accelerate/improve the adoption of "intelligent" approaches to clinical trial design and execution? Q: Has your company employed any specific new technologies , consultants , etc., to facilitate the use of “intelligent” approaches to clinical trial design and execution? Drivers of Increased Usage A slightly greater percentage of Provider than Sponsor respondents reported having implemented change management initiatives to accelerate the adoption of “intelligent” approaches to clinical development, and a much greater percentage of Providers reported using new technologies in that capacity. Implementation of Change Management Initiatives 55% 63% 54% 74% Sponsors Providers Sponsors Providers N = 69 52 65 54 Use of New Technologies or Other Resources Methods of Facilitating Use of “Intelligent” Approaches to Clinical Development % of respondents answering “yes”
21 Impact of Strategic Alliances POSITIVE ●“Strategic alliances allow for easier access to/use of data from previous studies conducted within the partnership.” ●“CRO strategic partners are selected on the basis of their ability to provide this.” ●“Increases trust, and hence the willingness to use innovative approaches.” ●“More involvement of vendors in early stages of programs, hence more opportunity to discuss proactive data-driven approaches.” ●“Cost/resource benefits of strategic partnerships have allowed more resources to be directed toward development of innovative approaches.” ●“Use of partner’s technology and data.” ●“Ability to align processes around such approaches.” NEUTRAL / NEGATIVE ●“We have strategic alliances with CROs but the impetus for use of intelligent approaches still comes from internal staff.” ●“The lack of competition has made the provider lazy with no incentive to develop or apply more intelligent or effective services.” ●“Constrains alliance partners from freely partnering to leverage unique data systems and tools.” Q: What impact, if any, has the establishment of strategic alliances had on the implementation of "intelligent," data-driven approaches to clinical trial execution? Sample Verbatim
22 Satisfaction with Application Q Sponsors: For each of your in-house teams and your clinical service providers, please rate your levels of satisfaction with their application of “intelligent” (data- driven) approaches on your projects, in each of the below areas. Q Providers: Please rate your levels of satisfaction with your company’s application of “intelligent” (data-driven) approaches, in each of the areas below. Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning “very dissatisfied” and 5 meaning “very satisfied.” On average, Sponsor ratings of satisfaction with internal application of “intelligent” approaches was higher than satisfaction with Providers in nearly every area evaluated. Furthermore, a gap was observed across all areas with respect to how Sponsors view Provider performance and how Providers assessed their own performance. Satisfaction with Application of “Intelligent” Approaches by Respondent Type Sponsor Ratings Provider Satisfaction Perception Gap Mean Ratings. 1 = Very Dissatisfied 5 = Very Satisfied In-House Teams Service Providers Self Rating Overall protocol designs 3.4 2.9 3.8 -0.9 Site selection 3.3 3.1 3.9 -0.8 Protocol procedures / eligibility criteria 3.4 3.0 3.7 -0.7 Cost benchmarking/management 3.3 2.5 3.2 -0.7 Patient/volunteer recruitment 3.2 3.1 3.6 -0.5 Provider selection 3.4 2.9 3.4 -0.5 Region selection 3.4 3.3 3.7 -0.4 Project management/oversight 3.4 3.0 3.4 -0.4 Data collection tools 3.4 3.3 3.7 -0.4 Monitoring 3.1 3.1 3.5 -0.4 N (range) = 49-65 34-54 37-54
Summary of Findings and Takeaways
24 Summary of Findings ●Respondents from Sponsor organizations generally reported lower levels of satisfaction than Providers in the respective areas evaluated. The difference in perceptions of quality has grown more pronounced, as Provider satisfaction (44% “very satisfied” in 2014 vs. 27% in 2013) has increased much more than Sponsor satisfaction (4% in 2014 vs. 2% in 2013). ●A greater proportion of respondents from Sponsor organizations perceive room for improvement in the efficiency with which outsourced projects are managed relative to Provider respondents. Nearly 30% of Sponsors surveyed said efficiency could be improved by more than 25%, while less than 10% of Providers reported the same. ●More than 60% of Sponsor respondents reported that they engage their CRO providers early in the process for most of the clinical trials they execute, whereas less than 40% of Provider respondents indicated that they are typically engaged early in the process. ●Both Sponsor and Provider respondents had mixed views regarding the frequency of collaboration on protocol design, but a much greater percentage of Providers than Sponsors reported believing that collaboration greatly improves protocol design quality.
25 Summary of Findings ●Most respondents from both Sponsor and Provider companies reported using “intelligent” approaches to region selection and site selection for a majority of trials they conduct, and close to half reported using these approaches for cost management and project management. Usage of “intelligent” approaches for other clinical trial activities varied. ●A greater proportion of Provider respondents reported making at least moderate advances over the past two years in each of the clinical trial activities evaluated than Sponsor respondents. The largest gaps were associated with region selection, data collection tools and monitoring. ●A majority of Sponsors surveyed indicated that Providers are making significant or essential contributions to the use of “intelligent” approaches in four key areas: site selection, region selection, monitoring, and patient/volunteer recruitment. Sponsors perceive the smallest contributions in the area of cost benchmarking/management. ●Providers were most likely to report that Sponsors are making significant or essential contributions to protocol procedures/eligibility criteria, overall protocol design and region selection. Looking across all areas evaluated, Provider perceptions of Sponsor contributions were less pronounced than Sponsor perceptions of Provider contributions.
26 Summary of Findings ●A relatively large percentage of Providers acknowledged that Sponsors have contributed to their adoption of “intelligent” approaches to clinical development by helping them understand general approaches and by making data available. For Sponsors, contributions of Providers were primarily around technology and data availability. ●A slightly greater percentage of Provider than Sponsor respondents reported having implemented change management initiatives to accelerate the adoption of “intelligent” approaches to clinical development, and a much greater percentage of Providers reported using new technologies in that capacity. ●On average, Sponsor ratings of satisfaction with internal application of “intelligent” approaches was higher than satisfaction with Providers in nearly every area evaluated. Furthermore, a gap was observed across all areas with respect to how Sponsors view Provider performance and how Providers assessed their own performance.
27 Key Takeaways ●There remains a gap in perceptions among Sponsors and Providers in various areas, including overall quality that is being delivered, the impact of collaborating on protocol design, and satisfaction associated with the application of data-driven approaches to clinical development. Both parties could benefit from investing additional time at the beginning of a relationship (or at the program level) using a formal, structured approach to clarify roles and expectations, and document: ╸How quality will be assessed and measured. ╸The extent to which Providers will have input on protocol design and other early program activities. ╸The tools and capabilities each party offers to support data-driven approaches to various program activities and how to optimize usage. ●While significant advancements have been made in the movement towards more “intelligent” approaches to clinical development, additional progress and consistency is needed to realize the full potential of these new approaches. Both Sponsors and Providers should develop tailored strategies to guide investment in this area with very clear priorities regarding capabilities needed in-house vs. those best fulfilled via relationships with external providers. Strategies must be designed to evolve with changing marketplace dynamics (technological, economic, regulatory, etc.).
Contact Avoca at: (609) 252-9020 www.theavocagroup.com info@theavocagroup.com 179 Nassau Street Suite 3A Princeton, NJ 08542

More Related Content

PDF
Oct 7th Executive Meeting Agenda
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca Quality Consortium Associate Membership Overview
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
The Avoca Quality Consortium Welcomes Takeda Pharmaceuticals
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca 2014 DIA Presentation
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
The Avoca Quality Consortium Summit 2014 Executive Summary
byThe Avoca Group
 
PPTX
Avoca Quality Consortium Overview
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
The Avoca Group 15th Anniversary Timeline
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
October Consortium Member Meeting Recap
byThe Avoca Group
 
Oct 7th Executive Meeting Agenda
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca Quality Consortium Associate Membership Overview
byThe Avoca Group
 
The Avoca Quality Consortium Welcomes Takeda Pharmaceuticals
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca 2014 DIA Presentation
byThe Avoca Group
 
The Avoca Quality Consortium Summit 2014 Executive Summary
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca Quality Consortium Overview
byThe Avoca Group
 
The Avoca Group 15th Anniversary Timeline
byThe Avoca Group
 
October Consortium Member Meeting Recap
byThe Avoca Group
 

What's hot

PDF
Avoca Investigative Site Survey Programs
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Summit 2013 Executive Summary
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
WebeX Presentation - Quality Consortium
byThe Avoca Group
 
PPTX
EHR Certification Requirements For Medical Practices
byMichael Patrick
 
PPTX
PICI’s Best Practices for Building Oncology Studies in an EDC
byVeeva Systems
 
PPTX
EHR Certification for Medical Practices
byMichael Duffy
 
PDF
ValGenesis Case Study With Scinopharm -Paperless Validation Software Solution
byValGenesis
 
PPT
070215 Plenary Ray
bymaniclub
 
PPTX
Navicor Capabilities
byThe Navicor Group
 
PDF
SUMMIT 2013 Bio Booklet
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca Quality Consortium Summit 2013 Bio Booklet
byThe Avoca Group
 
PPTX
A study platform to generate brand specific influenza vaccine effectiveness: ...
byDRIVE research
 
PPT
Innovative Policies: Using ACO Principles and Financial Incentives to Improve...
byAHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange
 
PDF
CommCare Workshop_Javetski and Wacksmon_4.22.13
byCORE Group
 
PPT
Quality Management Systems in Radiotherapy based on ISO 9001 standard
byVal Antoff
 
PDF
GRM 2011: A quality management framework for integrated plant breeding
byCGIAR Generation Challenge Programme
 
PDF
1 of 5 Welcome Note by Roohi B. Obaid
byObaid Ali / Roohi B. Obaid
 
PPTX
mHealth Israel_Growth Opportunities in Clinical Trial Execution_Craig Lipset
byLevi Shapiro
 
PDF
The Hub – Solutions Distinctly for Nimble Biotechs Brochure
byCovance
 
PPTX
Tufts Research: EDC Trends, Insights, and Opportunities
byVeeva Systems
 
Avoca Investigative Site Survey Programs
byThe Avoca Group
 
Summit 2013 Executive Summary
byThe Avoca Group
 
WebeX Presentation - Quality Consortium
byThe Avoca Group
 
EHR Certification Requirements For Medical Practices
byMichael Patrick
 
PICI’s Best Practices for Building Oncology Studies in an EDC
byVeeva Systems
 
EHR Certification for Medical Practices
byMichael Duffy
 
ValGenesis Case Study With Scinopharm -Paperless Validation Software Solution
byValGenesis
 
070215 Plenary Ray
bymaniclub
 
Navicor Capabilities
byThe Navicor Group
 
SUMMIT 2013 Bio Booklet
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca Quality Consortium Summit 2013 Bio Booklet
byThe Avoca Group
 
A study platform to generate brand specific influenza vaccine effectiveness: ...
byDRIVE research
 
Innovative Policies: Using ACO Principles and Financial Incentives to Improve...
byAHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange
 
CommCare Workshop_Javetski and Wacksmon_4.22.13
byCORE Group
 
Quality Management Systems in Radiotherapy based on ISO 9001 standard
byVal Antoff
 
GRM 2011: A quality management framework for integrated plant breeding
byCGIAR Generation Challenge Programme
 
1 of 5 Welcome Note by Roohi B. Obaid
byObaid Ali / Roohi B. Obaid
 
mHealth Israel_Growth Opportunities in Clinical Trial Execution_Craig Lipset
byLevi Shapiro
 
The Hub – Solutions Distinctly for Nimble Biotechs Brochure
byCovance
 
Tufts Research: EDC Trends, Insights, and Opportunities
byVeeva Systems
 

Similar to 2014 Avoca Industry Report Executive Summary

PDF
Partnerships in Clinical Trials 2014
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
The 2013 Avoca Report
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
2013 Avoca Industry Survey Executive Summary
byThe Avoca Group
 
PPT
Future Challenges of Clinical Development; a View from the CRO - Hani Zaki
byTTC, llc
 
PPT
Future Challenges of Clinical Development; a View from the CRO - Hani Zaki
byTTC, llc
 
PDF
Avoca Presentation to Medical Devices Conferences
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Optimization and management observations and ideas for clinical studies
byrpochadt
 
PDF
Pharma IQ - Clinical Series 2011
byPharma IQ
 
PDF
Strategic Alliances Client Feedback Program
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
The Big Picture: Does One Size Fit All?
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
PCDD – A Roadmap
byUlrich Neumann, FRSA
 
PDF
PCDD – A Roadmap
byNassim Azzi, MBA
 
PDF
EXL Clinical Quality Oversight Forum
byThe Avoca Group
 
PPTX
Highlights from ExL Pharma's 4th Latin America Clinical Trials
byExL Pharma
 
PDF
SUMMIT 2013
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Madison Park Group Life Sciences Software Market Update H2 2018
byMadison Park Group
 
PDF
Data & Technology
byNassim Azzi, MBA
 
PPTX
OUTSOURCING S HERBERT 2JUN2015
bySteve Herbert
 
PDF
white-paper-innovation-clinical-trials
byUlrich Neumann, FRSA
 
PDF
The State of Clinical Outsourcing
byThe Avoca Group
 
Partnerships in Clinical Trials 2014
byThe Avoca Group
 
The 2013 Avoca Report
byThe Avoca Group
 
2013 Avoca Industry Survey Executive Summary
byThe Avoca Group
 
Future Challenges of Clinical Development; a View from the CRO - Hani Zaki
byTTC, llc
 
Future Challenges of Clinical Development; a View from the CRO - Hani Zaki
byTTC, llc
 
Avoca Presentation to Medical Devices Conferences
byThe Avoca Group
 
Optimization and management observations and ideas for clinical studies
byrpochadt
 
Pharma IQ - Clinical Series 2011
byPharma IQ
 
Strategic Alliances Client Feedback Program
byThe Avoca Group
 
The Big Picture: Does One Size Fit All?
byThe Avoca Group
 
PCDD – A Roadmap
byUlrich Neumann, FRSA
 
PCDD – A Roadmap
byNassim Azzi, MBA
 
EXL Clinical Quality Oversight Forum
byThe Avoca Group
 
Highlights from ExL Pharma's 4th Latin America Clinical Trials
byExL Pharma
 
SUMMIT 2013
byThe Avoca Group
 
Madison Park Group Life Sciences Software Market Update H2 2018
byMadison Park Group
 
Data & Technology
byNassim Azzi, MBA
 
OUTSOURCING S HERBERT 2JUN2015
bySteve Herbert
 
white-paper-innovation-clinical-trials
byUlrich Neumann, FRSA
 
The State of Clinical Outsourcing
byThe Avoca Group
 

More from The Avoca Group

PDF
Clinical QbD Best Practices When Outsourcing
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Managing Risk in Outsourced Clinical Trials
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Institute of Clinical Research
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Partnerships in Clinical Trials Co-presentation with Alan Morgan
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca Award Decision Program Overview
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Training to Improve Relationships with Teams and Outsourced Partners
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca Approach to Client Feedback
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca's Training to Support Pharma
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca 'Team Builder's Plus' training to improve relationships with teams and ...
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca Quality Consortium 2014 Summit Bio Booklet
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca Quality Consortium Meeting Topics Day 2, May 7
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Avoca Quality Consortium Meeting Topics, Day 1 May 6
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
PATRICIA LEUCHTEN WINS BRONZE STEVIE® AWARD IN 2013 STEVIE AWARDS FOR WOMEN I...
byThe Avoca Group
 
PDF
Press Release Stevie Awards
byThe Avoca Group
 
Clinical QbD Best Practices When Outsourcing
byThe Avoca Group
 
Managing Risk in Outsourced Clinical Trials
byThe Avoca Group
 
Institute of Clinical Research
byThe Avoca Group
 
Partnerships in Clinical Trials Co-presentation with Alan Morgan
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca Award Decision Program Overview
byThe Avoca Group
 
Training to Improve Relationships with Teams and Outsourced Partners
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca Approach to Client Feedback
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca's Training to Support Pharma
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca 'Team Builder's Plus' training to improve relationships with teams and ...
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca Quality Consortium 2014 Summit Bio Booklet
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca Quality Consortium Meeting Topics Day 2, May 7
byThe Avoca Group
 
Avoca Quality Consortium Meeting Topics, Day 1 May 6
byThe Avoca Group
 
PATRICIA LEUCHTEN WINS BRONZE STEVIE® AWARD IN 2013 STEVIE AWARDS FOR WOMEN I...
byThe Avoca Group
 
Press Release Stevie Awards
byThe Avoca Group
 

Recently uploaded

PDF
Palliative Care vs. Curative Care | VITAS Healthcare
byVITASAuthor
 
PPTX
Outbound Medical Tourism from Bangladesh (2024–2025): A BHA Analysis of the B...
bybangladeshhealthalli
 
PPTX
Gallbladder Stones Treatment__ in Hyderabad, India.
byPACE Hospitals
 
PDF
Pregnancy Care - Comprehensive Care for a Healthy Mother & Baby
bycaresunshinewomens
 
PPTX
creat 60 slides from the pdf , for acadamic presentation for urology resident...
byhabtshhabsha
 
PPTX
Care Providence Leading Adult Day Care Services for Seniors in Atlanta.
byprovidencecare74
 
PPTX
1. Blood and its components.pptx anatomy
byPooja Rani
 
PDF
NSHM KNOWLEDGE CAMPUS, DURGAPUR By HRICK GHOSAL
byHrickGhosal2
 
PPTX
Product_Registration_Guidelines_CDSCO_USFDA.pptx
bysampharma12584
 
PPTX
Infection prevention and control for medical students
bybrhane014
 
PPTX
Presentation about pediatrics in mbbs seminar
bymbraghavendra2017
 
PPT
POSTMORTEM EXAMINATION IN ANIMALS DETAILED EXPLANATION
byNithyashree36507
 
PPTX
4. Immunity.pptx immun anatomy physiology
byPooja Rani
 
PDF
Sanitary Hygiene_808858bd-d537-48df-8934-c77ce81b9a97.pdf
byabhibro1103
 
PPTX
Importance of collaboration in patient care
byranasaeed1119801
 
PPTX
NanYang Polytechnic Certificates
by日本毕业证24小时在线购买横滨国立大学学历认证【Q微号:1954 292 140】YNU毕业证成绩单
 
DOCX
Pharmaceutical Quality Audits for Regulatory Compliance and Risk Management.docx
byGarcia Smith
 
PDF
Dr. Gerald Buchoff - Treating Cancer in Dogs
byDr. Gerald Buchoff
 
PPTX
Research design n public health research.pptx
byprakritisharma829
 
PDF
Arrhymias - Patho, clinical presentation, diagnosis.pdf
byAyesha Fatima
 
Palliative Care vs. Curative Care | VITAS Healthcare
byVITASAuthor
 
Outbound Medical Tourism from Bangladesh (2024–2025): A BHA Analysis of the B...
bybangladeshhealthalli
 
Gallbladder Stones Treatment__ in Hyderabad, India.
byPACE Hospitals
 
Pregnancy Care - Comprehensive Care for a Healthy Mother & Baby
bycaresunshinewomens
 
creat 60 slides from the pdf , for acadamic presentation for urology resident...
byhabtshhabsha
 
Care Providence Leading Adult Day Care Services for Seniors in Atlanta.
byprovidencecare74
 
1. Blood and its components.pptx anatomy
byPooja Rani
 
NSHM KNOWLEDGE CAMPUS, DURGAPUR By HRICK GHOSAL
byHrickGhosal2
 
Product_Registration_Guidelines_CDSCO_USFDA.pptx
bysampharma12584
 
Infection prevention and control for medical students
bybrhane014
 
Presentation about pediatrics in mbbs seminar
bymbraghavendra2017
 
POSTMORTEM EXAMINATION IN ANIMALS DETAILED EXPLANATION
byNithyashree36507
 
4. Immunity.pptx immun anatomy physiology
byPooja Rani
 
Sanitary Hygiene_808858bd-d537-48df-8934-c77ce81b9a97.pdf
byabhibro1103
 
Importance of collaboration in patient care
byranasaeed1119801
 
NanYang Polytechnic Certificates
by日本毕业证24小时在线购买横滨国立大学学历认证【Q微号:1954 292 140】YNU毕业证成绩单
 
Pharmaceutical Quality Audits for Regulatory Compliance and Risk Management.docx
byGarcia Smith
 
Dr. Gerald Buchoff - Treating Cancer in Dogs
byDr. Gerald Buchoff
 
Research design n public health research.pptx
byprakritisharma829
 
Arrhymias - Patho, clinical presentation, diagnosis.pdf
byAyesha Fatima
 

2014 Avoca Industry Report Executive Summary

  • 1.
    The 2014 AvocaReport “Intelligent” Approaches to Clinical Development Executive Summary September 2014
  • 2.
    2 Contents Section Slides Background Information 3-7 General Perceptions of Outsourced Clinical Development 8-12 Application of “Intelligent” Approaches to Clinical Development 13-22 Summary of Findings and Takeaways 23-27
  • 3.
    3 2014 AvocaResearch Overview Introduction Each year The Avoca Group surveys industry executives and managers to understand trends in clinical development, with a particular focus on outsourcing dynamics and relationships between research sponsors and providers. One of the recurring themes that Avoca has heard via discussions and engagements with biopharmaceutical companies and providers over the past several years relates to the trend towards utilizing more “intelligent” approaches to clinical development to enhance R&D efficiency and effectiveness. Consequently, in this year’s industry review, Avoca chose to perform a comprehensive assessment of how “intelligent,” data-driven approaches are being utilized in outsourced clinical development today, from the perspective of both sponsor organizations as well as the service providers that support them. This report serves as an Executive Summary of key findings from the research.
  • 4.
    4 2014 AvocaResearch Overview Areas Explored ●Application of “Intelligent” Approaches: Frequency of use in key areas of interest; rate of advancement in these areas over the past two years ●Contributing Forces: Extent to which Sponsors and Providers positively or negatively contribute to the usage of “intelligent” approaches ●Satisfaction with “Intelligent” Approaches: Level of satisfaction with application in key areas of interest; variability in Provider application ●Engagement with CROs: Early engagement of partners in protocol and development planning ●Change Management Initiatives: Experience with technology, training, and other implementation and change management solutions
  • 5.
    5 2014 AvocaResearch Overview Definitions Respondents were provided with the following definition of “intelligent” clinical development at the beginning of the survey: For the purposes of this survey, “intelligent” clinical development approaches are defined as those that make use of operational (e.g. performance) and/or clinical data, along with appropriate analytical techniques, in order to optimize aspects of clinical development such as protocol design, Investigator selection, patient recruitment approaches, resource allocation (e.g. risk-based monitoring), etc. For example: –“Intelligent” approaches to overall protocol design might include adaptive study designs, i.e. those adjusted during the course of a study based on biomarker or clinical study data gathered during the study. –“Intelligent” approaches to procedural or eligibility aspects of protocols might include examination of data from previous studies to identify procedures/criteria associated with high levels of protocol violations, cost, screen failures, etc. compared to the value of the data received. –“Intelligent” approaches to selecting sites, regions, providers, or patient recruitment approaches might use performance databases to identify suitability for particular types of studies. –“Intelligent” approaches to project management/oversight might include data-based identification of areas/periods of low/high risk, in order to allocate oversight resources accordingly.
  • 6.
    6 Respondent Demographics:Sponsors 127 respondents from 83 companies; ~45% in Top 20 (by revenue) 67% 28% 3% Pharma Biotech Device Other Company Type 27% 54% 17% Executive Management Middle Management Project Management Other Role / Level Achillion Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb Ipsen Biopharm Purdue Pharma Actelion Cambryn Biologics Italfarmaco Recordati Aeras Cangene Janssen R&D Roche Afferent Pharmaceuticals Celator Pharmaceuticals Johnson & Johnson Sanofi Alexion Pharmaceuticals Celgene Kowa Research Europe Seattle Genetics Allergan Cerexa Kythera Biopharmaceuticals Shire Almirall Collegium Pharmaceutical Life Science Leader Soricimed Biopharma Amgen Covidien Lundbeck Stallergenes Arges Pharma Cubist Merck Sunovion Array BioPharma Dompé Mitsubishi Pharma Europe Synta Astellas Eli Lilly MSD Tekmira Astex Pharmaceuticals Endo NanoScan Imaging Teva Pharmaceuticals AstraZeneca EnVivo Pharmaceuticals Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics UCB Biosciences Bavarian Nordic Exco InTouch Noven Pharmaceuticals VentiRx Pharmaceuticals Baxter Exelixis Ono Pharma Vernalis Bayer Genentech (member of Roche Group) Orexigen Vertex Pharmaceuticals Biogen Idec Genzyme (a Sanofi company) Orion Vifor Pharma Biological E. Grünenthal Otsuka (OPDC) Wockhardt Bioniche Animal Health Haemonetics Pearl Therapeutics Xenon Boehringer Ingelheim Helsinn Therapeutics PF Lab Zymogenetics (a BMS company) Boston Scientific HPC Pfizer Companies Represented
  • 7.
    7 Respondent Demographics:Providers 105 respondents from 64 companies; ~64% in Top 20 (by revenue) 67% 33% CRO Other/Niche 62% 29% 7% Executive Management Middle Management Project Management Other Acurian ERT NHS RH Bouchard & Associates Advanced Clinical ExecuPharm Novella Clinical Schulman Associates IRB Almac Experis OBiS Sciformix BMS (Imaging Company) Fisher Clinical Services OmniComm Systems Spaulding Clinical Services CBIO/NUDFAC-UFPE Higginbotham Group ORION Clinical Services SynteractHCR Cerafor Limited Hugin Mugin Research PAREXEL Telerx CFS Clinical ICON PICR TFS Trial Form Support Chilten IMS Health PlanetConnect Theorem Clinical Research ClinAudits INC Research Popsi Cube Therapeutics, Inc. ConcepTrial inSeption Group PPD TKL Research Consumer Product Testing Company Interlab PRA TranScrip Partners Covance Intrinsic Imaging ProTrials Research UL EduNeering CRF Health inVentiv Health PSI Vantage BioTrials Cromsource IRB Services QPS Holdings Veeva Datatrial Micron Quanticate Viracor-IBT Eperis Clinical Moffitt Cancer Center Quintiles Virtuoso Companies Represented Company Type Role / Level
  • 8.
    General Perceptions ofOutsourced Clinical Development
  • 9.
    9 4% 44% 12% 67% 41% 55% 52% 71% 21% 35% 23% 4% 15% 10% 20% 17% The work that has been done for you by Clinical Service Providers (including but not limited to CROs)? The value that you have received for the money spent on your Clinical Service Providers (including but not limited to CROs)? The quality delivered by your Clinical Service Providers (including but not limited to CROs)? The quality that your company has delivered for its sponsors in the last 3 years? Your relationships with the sponsors with which you work? SPONSORS PROVIDERS N 126 123 126 102 101 Very Satisfied Generally Satisfied Neither Satisfied Nor Dissatisfied Generally Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Respondents from Sponsor organizations generally reported lower levels of satisfaction than Providers in the respective areas evaluated. The difference in perceptions of quality has grown more pronounced, as Provider satisfaction (44% “very satisfied” in 2014 vs. 27% in 2013) has increased much more than Sponsor satisfaction (4% vs. 2%).* Quality Q: Overall, how satisfied are you with… Satisfaction Levels * Refer to Avoca’s 2013 Industry Report for data comparisons.
  • 10.
    10 9% 9% 19% 32% 43% 51% 25% 5% 4% 4% Sponsors Providers We are optimally efficient We could theoretically improve our efficiency by 1-10% We could theoretically improve our efficiency by 11-25% We could theoretically improve our efficiency by 26-50% We could theoretically improve our efficiency by >50% Q Sponsors: In terms of the internal resources required to manage outsourced projects effectively, how much room for improvement do you think your company currently has? Q Providers: In terms of the resources required to manage clinical trial effectively , how much room for improvement do you think your company currently has? Potential Improvement in Managing Outsourced Projects N 126 104 A greater proportion of respondents from Sponsor organizations perceive room for improvement in the efficiency with which outsourced projects are managed relative to Provider respondents. Nearly 30% of Sponsors surveyed said efficiency could be improved by more than 25%, while less than 10% of Providers reported the same. Project Management Efficiency
  • 11.
    11 Early Engagementin Clinical Trials Q Sponsors: For outsourced clinical trials, how often do you engage CROs early in the clinical trial execution process, in order to leverage their experience? Q Providers: How often do sponsors engage your company early in the clinical trial execution process, in order to leverage your company’s experience? More than 60% of Sponsor respondents reported that they engage their CRO providers early in the process for most of the clinical trials they execute, whereas less than 40% of Provider respondents indicated that they are typically engaged early. Early Engagement of CROs in the Clinical Trial Process N=88 19% 43% 31% 5% 4% 35% 44% 14% Most of the time Always Sometimes Seldom Never SPONSORS PROVIDERS N=71
  • 12.
    12 Q Sponsors:For outsourced clinical trials, how often do you collaborate with your CROs on protocol design? Q Providers: How often do sponsors collaborate with your company on protocol design? Q Sponsors: To what extent do you feel that collaboration with CROs on protocol design improves quality? Q Providers: To what extent do you feel that your company’s collaboration with sponsors on protocol design improves quality? Collaboration on Protocol Design Both Sponsor and Provider respondents had mixed views regarding the frequency of collaboration on protocol design, but there is a clear gap in terms of the extent to which Providers believe collaboration improves protocol design quality relative to the perceptions of Sponsors. 7% 17% 66% 15% 16% 55% 25% 29% 53% 22% 3% 25% 19% 5% 6% 24% 12% N=85 Always Most of the time Sometimes Seldom Sponsors Providers Sponsors Providers N=68 N=78 N=64 Frequency of Collaboration with CROs on Protocol Design Never Extent to Which Collaboration with CROs Improves Protocol Design Quality Greatly Somewhat Little None Reduces Quality
  • 13.
    Application of “Intelligent”Approaches to Clinical Development
  • 14.
    14 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Region selection Site selection Cost benchmarking/management Provider selection Project management/oversight Protocol procedures/eligibility criteria Data collection tools Overall protocol designs Patient/volunteer recruitment Monitoring Sponsors Providers Q Sponsors: Approximately what percentage of clinical trials [conducted in-house] have employed “intelligent” (data-driven) approaches to each of the below activities? Q Providers: For approximately what percentage of clinical trials has your company employed “intelligent” (data- driven) approaches to each of the below activities? Most respondents from both Sponsor and Provider companies reported using “intelligent” approaches to region selection and site selection for a majority of trials they conduct. Usage of these approaches for other clinical trial activities varied. Utilization of “Intelligent” Approaches by Clinical Trial Activity % reporting that a majority of trials conducted by their organization employ “intelligent” approaches Use of “Intelligent” Approaches Sponsor N (range) = 60-87 Provider N (range) = 49-62
  • 15.
    15 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Region selection Site selection Data collection tools Monitoring Provider selection Protocol procedures/eligibility criteria Project management/oversight Cost benchmarking/management Overall protocol designs Patient/volunteer recruitment Sponsors Providers Q: Overall, how would you rate your company’s advancement in the use of “intelligent” approaches to each of the below areas over the last 2 years? A greater proportion of Provider respondents reported making at least moderate advances over the past two years in each of the clinical trial activities evaluated than Sponsor respondents. The largest gaps were associated with region selection, data collection tools and monitoring. Advancement in the Use of “Intelligent” Approaches by Clinical Trial Activity % reporting moderate or great advancements in the past 2 years Advancement of “Intelligent” Approaches Sponsor N (range) = 63-84 Provider N (range) = 50-65
  • 16.
    16 19% 14% 21% 22% 7% 15% 7% 7% 50% 43% 37% 35% 37% 29% 31% 26% 21% 26% 27% 35% 32% 36% 36% 41% 40% 52% 46% 39% 6% 7% 6% 13% 15% 20% 20% 26% 26% 4% 6% 9% Site selection Region selection Monitoring Patient/volunteer recruitment Project management/oversight Data collection tools Provider selection Protocol procedures/eligibility criteria Overall protocol designs Cost benchmarking/management Essential contribution Significant contribution Little contribution No contribution Negative contribution N 70 69 73 72 67 68 55 66 57 57 Q Sponsors: In your opinion, to what extent do your company's clinical service providers either contribute to, or detract from, your company's use of "intelligent" (data-driven) clinical development approaches for each area listed below? Provider Contribution to “Intelligent” Approaches by Activity From the perspective of Sponsors A majority of Sponsors surveyed indicated that Providers are making significant or essential contributions to the use of “intelligent” approaches in four key areas: site selection, region selection, monitoring, and patient/volunteer recruitment. Sponsors perceive the smallest contributions in the area of cost benchmarking/management. Provider Contributions
  • 17.
    17 N 48 47 42 50 43 53 39 46 39 Sponsor Contributions Q Providers: In your opinion, to what extent do your company’s sponsor customers either contribute to, or detract from, your company’s use of “intelligent” (data-driven) clinical development approaches for each area listed below? Sponsor Contribution to “Intelligent” Approaches by Activity From the perspective of Providers Providers were most likely to report that Sponsors are making significant or essential contributions to protocol procedures/eligibility criteria, overall protocol design and region selection. Looking across all areas evaluated, Provider perceptions of Sponsor contributions were less pronounced than Sponsor perceptions of Provider contributions. 17% 26% 7% 10% 7% 6% 11% 10% 35% 19% 36% 26% 26% 25% 26% 15% 15% 40% 40% 40% 42% 44% 49% 56% 39% 51% 6% 13% 10% 14% 14% 13% 10% 26% 21% 7% 8% 9% 8% 5% 9% Protocol procedures/eligibility criteria Overall protocol designs Region selection Monitoring Site selection Project management/oversight Provider selection Cost benchmarking/management Patient/volunteer recruitment Essential contribution Significant contribution Little contribution No contribution Negative contribution
  • 18.
    18 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Relationships with patient organizations Relationships with other providers Relationships with regulatory authorities Ability to analyze data/create models Relationships with sites Understanding of relevant regulations Understanding of general approaches Availability of data Technology tools Sponsors Providers Q Sponsors: What have your providers contributed most to your company’s adoption of “intelligent” (data-driven) approaches? Q Providers: What have your sponsor customers contributed most to your company’s use of “intelligent” (data-driven) approaches? A relatively large percentage of Providers acknowledged that Sponsors have contributed to their adoption of “intelligent” approaches to clinical development by helping them understand general approaches and by making data available. For Sponsors, contributions of Providers were primarily around technology and data. Contributions to the Adoption of “Intelligent” Approaches % reporting that the other party has contributed to their company’s usage in each area Contributors to Adoption Sponsor N = 127 Provider N = 64
  • 19.
    19 Contributing Forces:Open-End Themes Q: Please describe the major contributors / impediments to your company’s advancement in the use of these approaches. ●Internal pressures: Pressures to increase efficiency and quality while reducing cost generally promote the use of “intelligent” approaches within companies. ●External pressures: Providers often reported that data-driven approaches had advanced quickly within their companies because of pressures from clients, as well as competitive pressure in general. Sponsors indicated that as examples of the use of such approaches become more prevalent in the industry, their companies/managers experience pressure to implement similar approaches. ●Availability of data: Use of data-driven approaches is promoted by the availability and, importantly, the aggregation of relevant data, and impeded by its absence. ●Availability of analytical models and experience: Likewise, the use of data-driven approaches is promoted by the availability of appropriate analytical models and experience, and impeded by its absence. Many respondents mentioned that access to expertise and experience in this area was the factor that most limited their companies’ use of such approaches. ●Understanding of regulatory perspective: Concerns about regulatory perspectives on innovative, data-driven approaches often impact companies’ willingness to “risk” their use. ●Technology: Technology solutions for facilitating the aggregation, analysis, and interpretation of data, particularly in a dynamic fashion, are not available to all companies. ●Resource availability: The use of data-driven approaches can require increased resources during the early planning and start-up stages of projects, when resources may already be limited, particularly in smaller companies. ●Effective change management: Like any other novel approach, the use of data-driven approaches is promoted by the availability and utilization of effective approaches to change management (e.g., training, messaging, etc.) and impeded by lack thereof.
  • 20.
    20 Q: Hasyour company implemented any specific change management initiatives to help accelerate/improve the adoption of "intelligent" approaches to clinical trial design and execution? Q: Has your company employed any specific new technologies , consultants , etc., to facilitate the use of “intelligent” approaches to clinical trial design and execution? Drivers of Increased Usage A slightly greater percentage of Provider than Sponsor respondents reported having implemented change management initiatives to accelerate the adoption of “intelligent” approaches to clinical development, and a much greater percentage of Providers reported using new technologies in that capacity. Implementation of Change Management Initiatives 55% 63% 54% 74% Sponsors Providers Sponsors Providers N = 69 52 65 54 Use of New Technologies or Other Resources Methods of Facilitating Use of “Intelligent” Approaches to Clinical Development % of respondents answering “yes”
  • 21.
    21 Impact ofStrategic Alliances POSITIVE ●“Strategic alliances allow for easier access to/use of data from previous studies conducted within the partnership.” ●“CRO strategic partners are selected on the basis of their ability to provide this.” ●“Increases trust, and hence the willingness to use innovative approaches.” ●“More involvement of vendors in early stages of programs, hence more opportunity to discuss proactive data-driven approaches.” ●“Cost/resource benefits of strategic partnerships have allowed more resources to be directed toward development of innovative approaches.” ●“Use of partner’s technology and data.” ●“Ability to align processes around such approaches.” NEUTRAL / NEGATIVE ●“We have strategic alliances with CROs but the impetus for use of intelligent approaches still comes from internal staff.” ●“The lack of competition has made the provider lazy with no incentive to develop or apply more intelligent or effective services.” ●“Constrains alliance partners from freely partnering to leverage unique data systems and tools.” Q: What impact, if any, has the establishment of strategic alliances had on the implementation of "intelligent," data-driven approaches to clinical trial execution? Sample Verbatim
  • 22.
    22 Satisfaction withApplication Q Sponsors: For each of your in-house teams and your clinical service providers, please rate your levels of satisfaction with their application of “intelligent” (data- driven) approaches on your projects, in each of the below areas. Q Providers: Please rate your levels of satisfaction with your company’s application of “intelligent” (data-driven) approaches, in each of the areas below. Please use a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning “very dissatisfied” and 5 meaning “very satisfied.” On average, Sponsor ratings of satisfaction with internal application of “intelligent” approaches was higher than satisfaction with Providers in nearly every area evaluated. Furthermore, a gap was observed across all areas with respect to how Sponsors view Provider performance and how Providers assessed their own performance. Satisfaction with Application of “Intelligent” Approaches by Respondent Type Sponsor Ratings Provider Satisfaction Perception Gap Mean Ratings. 1 = Very Dissatisfied 5 = Very Satisfied In-House Teams Service Providers Self Rating Overall protocol designs 3.4 2.9 3.8 -0.9 Site selection 3.3 3.1 3.9 -0.8 Protocol procedures / eligibility criteria 3.4 3.0 3.7 -0.7 Cost benchmarking/management 3.3 2.5 3.2 -0.7 Patient/volunteer recruitment 3.2 3.1 3.6 -0.5 Provider selection 3.4 2.9 3.4 -0.5 Region selection 3.4 3.3 3.7 -0.4 Project management/oversight 3.4 3.0 3.4 -0.4 Data collection tools 3.4 3.3 3.7 -0.4 Monitoring 3.1 3.1 3.5 -0.4 N (range) = 49-65 34-54 37-54
  • 23.
    Summary of Findingsand Takeaways
  • 24.
    24 Summary ofFindings ●Respondents from Sponsor organizations generally reported lower levels of satisfaction than Providers in the respective areas evaluated. The difference in perceptions of quality has grown more pronounced, as Provider satisfaction (44% “very satisfied” in 2014 vs. 27% in 2013) has increased much more than Sponsor satisfaction (4% in 2014 vs. 2% in 2013). ●A greater proportion of respondents from Sponsor organizations perceive room for improvement in the efficiency with which outsourced projects are managed relative to Provider respondents. Nearly 30% of Sponsors surveyed said efficiency could be improved by more than 25%, while less than 10% of Providers reported the same. ●More than 60% of Sponsor respondents reported that they engage their CRO providers early in the process for most of the clinical trials they execute, whereas less than 40% of Provider respondents indicated that they are typically engaged early in the process. ●Both Sponsor and Provider respondents had mixed views regarding the frequency of collaboration on protocol design, but a much greater percentage of Providers than Sponsors reported believing that collaboration greatly improves protocol design quality.
  • 25.
    25 Summary ofFindings ●Most respondents from both Sponsor and Provider companies reported using “intelligent” approaches to region selection and site selection for a majority of trials they conduct, and close to half reported using these approaches for cost management and project management. Usage of “intelligent” approaches for other clinical trial activities varied. ●A greater proportion of Provider respondents reported making at least moderate advances over the past two years in each of the clinical trial activities evaluated than Sponsor respondents. The largest gaps were associated with region selection, data collection tools and monitoring. ●A majority of Sponsors surveyed indicated that Providers are making significant or essential contributions to the use of “intelligent” approaches in four key areas: site selection, region selection, monitoring, and patient/volunteer recruitment. Sponsors perceive the smallest contributions in the area of cost benchmarking/management. ●Providers were most likely to report that Sponsors are making significant or essential contributions to protocol procedures/eligibility criteria, overall protocol design and region selection. Looking across all areas evaluated, Provider perceptions of Sponsor contributions were less pronounced than Sponsor perceptions of Provider contributions.
  • 26.
    26 Summary ofFindings ●A relatively large percentage of Providers acknowledged that Sponsors have contributed to their adoption of “intelligent” approaches to clinical development by helping them understand general approaches and by making data available. For Sponsors, contributions of Providers were primarily around technology and data availability. ●A slightly greater percentage of Provider than Sponsor respondents reported having implemented change management initiatives to accelerate the adoption of “intelligent” approaches to clinical development, and a much greater percentage of Providers reported using new technologies in that capacity. ●On average, Sponsor ratings of satisfaction with internal application of “intelligent” approaches was higher than satisfaction with Providers in nearly every area evaluated. Furthermore, a gap was observed across all areas with respect to how Sponsors view Provider performance and how Providers assessed their own performance.
  • 27.
    27 Key Takeaways ●There remains a gap in perceptions among Sponsors and Providers in various areas, including overall quality that is being delivered, the impact of collaborating on protocol design, and satisfaction associated with the application of data-driven approaches to clinical development. Both parties could benefit from investing additional time at the beginning of a relationship (or at the program level) using a formal, structured approach to clarify roles and expectations, and document: ╸How quality will be assessed and measured. ╸The extent to which Providers will have input on protocol design and other early program activities. ╸The tools and capabilities each party offers to support data-driven approaches to various program activities and how to optimize usage. ●While significant advancements have been made in the movement towards more “intelligent” approaches to clinical development, additional progress and consistency is needed to realize the full potential of these new approaches. Both Sponsors and Providers should develop tailored strategies to guide investment in this area with very clear priorities regarding capabilities needed in-house vs. those best fulfilled via relationships with external providers. Strategies must be designed to evolve with changing marketplace dynamics (technological, economic, regulatory, etc.).
  • 28.
    Contact Avoca at: (609) 252-9020 www.theavocagroup.com info@theavocagroup.com 179 Nassau Street Suite 3A Princeton, NJ 08542