The Journey to Multiregional Clinical Trials in Support of Simultaneous Global Product Development

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark H. Lee ◽  
Judith A. Arcidiacono ◽  
Anastacia M. Bilek ◽  
Jeremiah J. Wille ◽  
Caitilin A. Hamill ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Brian Perry ◽  
Carrie Dombeck ◽  
Jaye Bea Smalley ◽  
Bennett Levitan ◽  
David Leventhal ◽  
...  

Patient group engagement is increasingly used to inform the design, conduct, and dissemination of clinical trials and other medical research activities. However, the priorities of industry sponsors and patient groups differ, and there is currently no framework to help these groups identify mutually beneficial engagement activities. Methods: We conducted 28 qualitative, semi-structured interviews with representatives from research sponsor organizations (n=14) and patient groups (n=14) to determine: 1) how representatives define benefits and investments of patient group engagement in medical product development and, 2) to refine a list of 31 predefined patient group engagement activities. Results: Patient group and sponsor representatives described similar benefits: engagement activities can enhance the quality and efficiency of clinical trials by improving patient recruitment and retention, reduce costs, and help trials meet expectations of regulators and payers. All representatives indicated that investments include both dedicated staff time and expertise, and financial resources. Factors to consider when evaluating benefits and investments were also identified as were suggestions for clarifying the list of engagement activities. Discussion: Using these findings, we refined the 31 engagement activities to 24 unique activities across the medical product development lifecycle. We also developed a web-based prioritization tool (https://prioritizationtool.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/) to help clinical research sponsors and patient groups identify high priority engagement activities. Use of this tools can help sponsors and patient groups identify the engagement activities that they believe will provide the most benefit for the least investment and may lead to more meaningful and mutually beneficial partnerships in medical product development.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rampalli Viswa Chandra ◽  
Devaraju Rama Raju

ABSTRACTBackground & objectivesThe study had two aims. 1) Analysis of research projects done in our institution from 2014-2019 to identify products with a potential for commercialization and 2) To understand the effect of product-development variables on research projects to improve the quality of future commercialization-oriented trials.Methods338 clinical trials were grouped into 188 projects under the headings irrigants, diagnostic devices, surgical devices, biomaterials and gels. Trials per project, capital, material costs, labour and the cycle times per trial were calculated. To understand the effect these variables, five hypotheses were generated to test whether greater number of trials, successes, higher capital, more investigators per trial and a longer trial duration will result in a product worthy of commercialization.Results22 projects had products with a potential for commercialization. Except labour and cycle time (p>0.05), all variables showed significant differences across all projects. Three products were identified as having potential for actual commercialization. It was observed that greater number of trials (χ2=4.6793; p=0.030528) and successes (χ2=20.8134; p<0.00001) in a project along with a higher capital (χ2=12.2662; p=0.000461) will generate a product worthy of commercialization.Interpretation & conclusionsThe results seem to suggest that in trials for commercialization, emphasis must be placed on implementing multiple, well-designed clinical trials on a device or product to successfully identify whether it is commercialization-worthy or not. Due attention must be given to the financial aspects of the projects as deficiencies may result in negative impact on the flow and outcomes of a clinical trial.


Author(s):  
Brian Perry ◽  
Carrie Dombeck ◽  
Jaye Bea Smalley ◽  
Bennett Levitan ◽  
David Leventhal ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Patient group engagement is increasingly used to inform the design, conduct, and dissemination of clinical trials and other medical research activities. However, the priorities of industry sponsors and patient groups differ, and there is currently no framework to help these groups identify mutually beneficial engagement activities. Methods We conducted 28 qualitative, semi-structured interviews with representatives from research sponsor organizations (n = 14) and patient groups (n = 14) to determine: (1) how representatives define benefits and investments of patient group engagement in medical product development, and (2) to refine a list of 31 predefined patient group engagement activities. Results Patient group and sponsor representatives described similar benefits: engagement activities can enhance the quality and efficiency of clinical trials by improving patient recruitment and retention, reduce costs, and help trials meet expectations of regulators and payers. All representatives indicated that investments include both dedicated staff time and expertise, and financial resources. Factors to consider when evaluating benefits and investments were also identified as were suggestions for clarifying the list of engagement activities. Discussion Using these findings, we refined the 31 engagement activities to 24 unique activities across the medical product development lifecycle. We also developed a web-based prioritization tool (https://prioritizationtool.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/) to help clinical research sponsors and patient groups identify high-priority engagement activities. Use of this tool can help sponsors and patient groups identify the engagement activities that they believe will provide the most benefit for the least investment and may lead to more meaningful and mutually beneficial partnerships in medical product development.


Author(s):  
Catherine Beaudry

Using the four Biotechnology Uses and Development surveys of Statistics Canada, the chapter examine the importance of collaborating with firms and public institutions at various stages of product development, from research and development to clinical trials and then on to production and commercialization. The models examine the propensity to have products at a particular stage of development using instrumental variables probit regressions. This chapter finds that while small firms do not benefit from collaborating with firms at the research and development stage, during the clinical trials and in the production phases, collaborating with firms has a strong positive effect. The factors that affect the R&D phase are R&D expenditures, an important IP strategy, revenues from contracts and to some extent contracting out some innovation activities. In later stages of the development process, the number of patents and the diversity of the biotechnology employment team play a more crucial role.


Biotechnology ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1759-1794
Author(s):  
Catherine Beaudry

Using the four Biotechnology Uses and Development surveys of Statistics Canada, the chapter examine the importance of collaborating with firms and public institutions at various stages of product development, from research and development to clinical trials and then on to production and commercialization. The models examine the propensity to have products at a particular stage of development using instrumental variables probit regressions. This chapter finds that while small firms do not benefit from collaborating with firms at the research and development stage, during the clinical trials and in the production phases, collaborating with firms has a strong positive effect. The factors that affect the R&D phase are R&D expenditures, an important IP strategy, revenues from contracts and to some extent contracting out some innovation activities. In later stages of the development process, the number of patents and the diversity of the biotechnology employment team play a more crucial role.


Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 2269-2269
Author(s):  
Nadia Rosencher ◽  
Simon Frostick ◽  
Martin Feuring ◽  
Eva Kleine ◽  
Martina Brueckmann ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2269 Background: In randomized, double-blind, phase III trials, dabigatran etexilate (DE) 220 mg once daily (qd) was as effective as enoxaparin 40 mg qd in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) following total hip or knee replacement (THR, TKR), with a favourable safety profile. As patient populations in clinical practice may differ from those in clinical trials, we conducted an international, observational, single-arm study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DE in a real-world setting. A prespecified secondary objective was to generate epidemiological data on the incidence of co-morbidities and co-medications in TKR and THR patients treated with DE in a routine clinical setting. We present here these epidemiological results as well as the patient characteristics observed in phase III clinical trials of DE and historical population studies. Methods: Patients were recruited at 110 sites in 9 countries in the European Union. The protocol required that patients were aged ≥ 18 years, undergoing elective THR or TKR and eligible for DE 220 mg qd (first dose 110 mg 1–4 hours after surgery) according to the European label (≤ 75 years old with creatinine clearance [CrCL] > 50 mL/min). Baseline data were collected at the screening visit prior to surgery. In the phase III clinical trials of DE, randomization to DE 220 mg qd or 150 mg qd was irrespective of age and renal function. Results: Of the 5292 patients treated in this observational study, 2734 underwent THR and 2558 TKR. Table 1 shows the baseline demographics and medical history and the concomitant use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA). Patients undergoing TKR were more often female and mean BMI was higher than THR patients. With the exception of diabetes, other co-morbidities and co-medications were comparable between TKR and THR patients. Mean CrCL and mean age at baseline were influenced by the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study and therefore differed from those in the Phase III DE trials (Table 2). Regarding gender, BMI, diabetes and history of VTE, the data from the observational study are generally comparable to those found in other large observational studies (e.g., White, et al. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:1525–1531; Andersen, et al. Chest. 2003;124:349–356; Warwick, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89-B:799–807). The incidences of the primary endpoints for efficacy (symptomatic VTE and all-cause mortality) and safety (major bleeding events) in the observational study are reassuring and supportive of the evidence seen in the clinical trials. Conclusions: Demographic characteristics of the patients included in the observational study are broadly aligned with previously published real-world data sets and add detail on co-morbidities. Patients included in this observational study were in general similar to those of the phase III TKR and THR trials of DE but a valid direct comparison between these data should take into account the differences in age and renal function due to study design. Disclosures: Rosencher: Sanofi (haemostasis, thrombosis and transfusion): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer (haemostasis, thrombosis and transfusion): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim (haemostasis, thrombosis and transfusion): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS (haemostasis, thrombosis and transfusion): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer (haemostasis, thrombosis and transfusion): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK (haemostasis, thrombosis and transfusion): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Frostick:Pfizer (anticoagulant therapy): Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb (anticoagulant therapy): Speakers Bureau; Biomet (product development and education): Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim (anticoagulant therapy): Speakers Bureau; DePuy (product development and education): Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim (anticoagulant therapy): Consultancy; Biomet (product development and education): Consultancy; DePuy (product development and education): Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson (anticoagulant therapy): Research Funding. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim (anticoagulant therapy): Employment. Kleine:Boehringer Ingelheim (anticoagulant therapy): Employment. Brueckmann:Boehringer Ingelheim (anticoagulant therapy): Employment. Clemens:Boehringer Ingelheim (anticoagulant therapy): Employment. Samama:GSK (anticoagulant therapy): Primary Investigator Other; LFB (anticoagulant therapy): Primary Investigator, Primary Investigator Other; Fresenius: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Curacyte (anticoagulant therapy): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer (anticoagulant therapy): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxter (anticoagulant therapy): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lilly (anticoagulant therapy): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS (anticoagulant therapy): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer (anticoagulant therapy): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK (anticoagulant therapy): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis (anticoagulant therapy): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring (anticoagulant therapy): Honoraria; Biotest (anticoagulant therapy): Honoraria; Bayer (anticoagulant therapy): Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim (anticoagulant therapy): Honoraria; LFB (anticoagulant therapy): Honoraria; Cordis (product development and education): Honoraria; Sanofi (anticoagulant therapy): Primary Investigator, Primary Investigator Other.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document