MENUCLOSE

 

Connect with us

Author: ArcheMedX Team

A Decentralized Clinical Trial Requires Training at Scale. Here’s What That Means.

The decentralized clinical trial is one of the most talked-about emerging trends in the life sciences industry. These sorts of clinical trials present immense benefits, as we wrote about in a recent blog.

If executed well, the decentralized clinical trial design could both reduce resource consumption and accelerate treatments arrival to the patients that need them.

But to realize the benefits of a decentralized trial, it’s important to understand that decentralization means education at scale. It means training at scale. Because obstacles like patient treatment adherence, consistency of performance, and data collection loom large, it means you have to find a way to educate and train, assess, and then probably re-train in a way that doesn’t stretch your resources.

And it’s realistic today – if you can implement a few key changes. 

Decentralization means a focus on results, not just training.

In the traditional clinical trial design, you have the ability to look at very discrete activities that can be tracked and completed. Each investigator or site can become a milestone on the big-picture plan.

But in a decentralized clinical trial, you lose some of the core group dynamics that come from the reliance on centralized study locations. You could be working with people in faraway regions who are much less experienced than you in clinical research. Or you may encounter healthcare practitioners with only a single patient. Or – you may be engaging with mobile nursing or care teams.

Traditional clinical trial site training was created for a scenario where people are face to face with an instructor, and perhaps have one another to lean on afterwards.

As we decentralize clinical operations, we have to shift away from the idea of “completing the training task” and shift into the concept of “driving results.”

And in case “results” feels too obtuse, let’s get specific. Start thinking about how you equip your trial team to:

  • Meet your overall enrollment targets. Where a centralized clinical trial site may have had specific site targets, a decentralized trial design doesn’t mean that.
  • Avoid deviations. Decentralization opens the opportunity to participate in a clinical trial to many more patients (and their caregivers) who may not have a lot of exposure to the process.
  • Deliver the data and results effectively. There are going to be questions, and lots of retraining. If you accept that, and plan to make and maintain clinical trial readiness as a goal for your trial team members, you will reduce the effort on your part – and on caregivers’ parts.

 

A decentralized clinical trial demands quality control. Don’t make that more work – it should be less. 

Excited to spend days turning your protocol document into a 200 site initiation presentation? No?

Good, because that’s wasted time. When thinking about a decentralized clinical trial, you need to ensure quality and consistency. Your goal should be to see how much you can reuse to reduce your workload.

There is no good reason to convert everything to a slide deck, when learning platforms like Ready by ArcheMedX make more effective training directly on the protocol possible.

Focus on the content you’ve already gotten approved. Then spend a fraction of that time you were planning to invest in converting that slide deck into a far more useful exercise. Instead, use a platform like Ready to create learning moments and resources that focus each learner’s attention on the key points that need emphasis.

You’ve saved dozens of hours on slide creation, so use it to build content that emphasizes critical protocol points.

Protocols are rarely optimized for use by trial site staff, doctors, or personnel. This can become even more critical in a decentralized clinical trial. So think critically about where a set of new eyes might miss a point. 

Where could a caregiver need more detail or more scientific background? At what points could you add some additional materials to better support the protocol? Where are trial staff making notes, asking questions, or providing key pieces of implementation feedback?

Some things we’ve seen work well in other clinical trials:

Videos presented by research or development team.

Video is also extremely powerful for keeping someone engaged. Today, you can quickly produce a video using a variety of tools. For example,  your medical director could record a 90 second talk using their iPhone on the importance of the study. Or use a personal Zoom meeting to combine a site training powerpoint, with voiceover, or even music to break up the viewing experience. 

Infographics and visual ways to present past phase results.

Charts, graphs, flowcharts, and simple images are all effective to engage people visually with concepts you’ve included already in written copy, and they can all be created by anyone with a computer and the Internet. 

The great thing about engaging people is that they’re more likely to retain the information you’re putting in front of them. A video or well-designed image will engrain a point into the staff member’s memory. 

Embedded quizzes or prompts to nudge participants at key points in the protocol.

It’s a common best practice to use real world scenarios or vignettes to drive critical thinking during learning activities. This also helps break up the learning experience.

If you’ve delivered a case study in a large group at an investigator meeting, you can easily transition that to digital exercise. Virtually, individuals must complete the activity, rather than sit as you walk through the entire story with limited interaction. Completing the activity themselves helps to attach meaning to the content you’ve provided them. That meaning is what prompts the recall of the concept in the field.

Make your vignettes complex, and make them as realistic as possible. And make them take a decision while thinking critically. Remember that you are equipping people that will have to deal with real patients and real risks during a clinical trial, and they may be without experienced clinical staff that would exist in a larger study center.

Distributed clinical teams need ongoing training and support. Plan for that.

We’ve mentioned the Forgetting Curve in previous posts. It’s well-documented that humans will forget 70% of what they learned in 24 hours. We retain information better when it’s repeated.

So it’s important to build a cadence of communication to re-emphasize points that need to be retained or remembered. But a cadence like this can help you in other ways.

There’s a trend of CRAs or trial managers sending out “newsletters” hoping to deliver best practices or updates. These can quickly become noise – and worse, vary in quality and accuracy.

In a decentralized clinical trial, there are many more people to remind, engage, and update. Establish a schedule, and centralize the execution for your dispersed personnel.

Our clients tell us that they use Ready to develop regular, ongoing communication streams with our Boosts feature. During a trial, these clients use the automated Boosts to deliver best practices that they discover from caregivers, updates to processes, and even amendments to the protocol. 

Embrace technologies that support asynchronous delivery and decentralized teams.

In losing the centralized study training models, you also avoid the struggles of coordinating calendars and travel with very busy people. Embrace the flexibility of asynchronous learning, that is – delivering your clinical trial content on-demand.

Decentralized teams may span geographies and time zones, and you could easily spend days or weeks trying to deliver various sessions to accommodate all. Instead, choose technology that lets you deploy once, and update centrally.

Asynchronous learning isn’t the same as a recorded video, that can fail to engage or deliver any measurable results. In fact, the opposite can be true.

We blog frequently about clinical trial readiness, and a large part of readiness is the ability to measure. That is, understanding how capable and confident personnel are with applying your content.

As we described previously, metrics are both available and important for clinical trial readiness, especially in a remote clinical trial.

For example, imagine your entire clinical trial team completes an online presentation covering your upcoming trial protocol. Do you present them with a quiz to test their recall of critical information?

If you do, some of the team might answer correctly because they have gained the knowledge and are ready to apply what they have learned in your trial. Others, however, may get through the test by guessing. Perhaps they all pass. 

If they do, are they all equally prepared to conduct your study or are you releasing under-prepared staff, patients, and caregivers into the field alongside others who are ready to make good decisions. Without measuring readiness, which is what we drive towards with Ready, you won’t know how risky this is until you run into trial delays and deviations, or worse. 

Ready by ArcheMedX makes decentralized clinical trial training scalable. 

There are still a lot of challenges for life science companies that want to deliver a decentralized clinical trial. Fortunately, there are some strategies that will deliver benefits to any clinical trial – and developing a scalable approach to educating clinical trial teams is one major opportunity.

The first thing you need is an approach, and clinical trial readiness is an ideal one. Learn more in the Definitive Guide to Clinical Trial Readiness.

Second, you need an on-demand delivery platform for learning at scale, and Ready by ArcheMedX is the only learning and insights platform designed to better equip clinical trial teams. Ready is an ideal tool as you work to adopt the decentralized clinical trial design, and you can get a demo today.

 

 

 

5 Challenges in Working with CROs – and How to Overcome Them

You have a clinical trial starting soon. Are you working with a contract research organization, or at least planning to do so? Probably. In 2020, the ACRP estimated that 70% of clinical trials would involve sponsors working with CROs. And, as a result, 100% of those sponsors will encounter some mix of problems.

Sponsors outsource for many reasons – to reduce costs and IRB cycle times, to improve efficiency by working with CROs who seem to have well-honed processes, or to increase the likelihood of regulatory packet approval. Working with CROs – without doubt – can be an excellent way to manage your clinical study.

But there are always challenges, and they can be expensive, frustrating, and risky. Fortunately, most CRO related issues can also be prevented.

We’ll explore 5 of the most painful – and most common – problems in this article. Plus, we’ll highlight actionable steps to overcome them. They include:

  • Losing control of the clinical trial project timeline
  • High turnover at the CRO
  • General vs. therapeutic expertise in CRAs and project team
  • Competition for CRO resource time
  • Lack of transparency

Losing control of the clinical trial project timeline

What is the largest contributor to clinical trial cost creep? Hands down, it’s delays. And most delays are preventable.

Many sponsors report that their CROs don’t (and possibly can’t) take into consideration all the risks and realities of the study during scoping. Therefore, delays are inevitable – and as timelines stretch, costs increase.

You may hope your CRO will “make up the time somewhere else” but that’s unrealistic in most cases. Plus, it typically involves additional resources and unplanned additional expenses.

Prevent problems when you’re working with CROs by:

Understanding where your risks lie – as early as possible. Detail in your project plan is key. Look at each task and break them into smaller subtasks to identify possible risk areas.

However, it is entirely possible that your greatest risks will be human. This is why using the clinical trial readiness model to improve trial performance is so impactful. Also, using a learning and predictive analytics platform, like Ready, is a great way to assess how capable your clinical trial resources actually are. 

When you are running a traditional study and need to evaluate the CRO’s team, your own trial team members, and your sites, you can reduce onsite remediation time and CRA hours drastically with clinical trial readiness. And in decentralized trials with patients, caregivers, and home health staff now responsible for conducting trial activities, using a digital tool like Ready is even more important to reveal exactly where your human capital could struggle. 

Taking a more proactive step before your first patient is enrolled will slash the likelihood of delays and keep your CRO resources on track for success. 

High turnover at the CRO

Managing CRO resources is hard enough, but the longer the project, the more that risk of turnover creeps in. In fact, ACRP quoted a recent study showing CRA turnover to be higher than 21% despite the pandemic. 

With every staff member loss, you can expect delays. Delays due to fewer available resources, delays due to higher workload, and delays due to onboarding a replacement.  Delays cost money, and they impact timelines and performance.

Prevent problems related to CRO turnover by:

Preparing for turnover. You can’t stop CRAs, PMs, and other team members from leaving, though you can select CROs with higher employee retention and negotiate key employee provisions in your CRO contract. However, turnover is inevitable – even at the best run organizations and with the most iron clad contracts. So it’s better to prepare yourself for it.

Sponsors using Ready when working with CROs follow a few best practices to safeguard against turnover-delays. These include:

  • Requiring all CRO team members to complete the same project training, regardless of when they join the trial.
  • Defining how you’ll approve the addition of new/replacement team members – an example being that replacements must demonstrate that they are sufficiently ready for conducting the trial.
  • Outlining who incurs the cost of delays related to turnover in the contract.

General vs. therapeutic expertise in CRAs and project team

When you have the luxury of in-house clinical trial resources, you tap into staff who have a deeper understanding of your therapies and the journey to get them to trial. But that’s not always how CROs staff your project.

Some CROs work hard to place resources that have specific skills or experience on each project, but not all do. Plus, many CRO resources have gained much of their experience on-the-job. Some CRAs you work with may have broad expertise, but lack therapeutic area depth. 

For some research, that’s no problem. But in more complex studies it could drag out study startup. The CRO staff could struggle to consume your materials. You could experience lower-quality deliverables. Or worse, encounter more errors during the study due to lack of preparation or critical thinking skills. 

Prevent problems when you’re working with CROs and their teams by:

Defining exactly what knowledge your CRO team needs to work successfully on your clinical trial. Your CRO will put forward resources for your project. The CRO believes they’re good enough, but it’s up to you to assess whether that team is up to your standards.

Some sponsors turn to a functional assessment of the trial team. This could be therapy-related, or include SOPs and skills gap analysis. Whatever you do to evaluate and better equip the team when working with a CRO can pay off big, especially if you use a proven platform like Ready to deliver the assessment and remediation. We found, for example, that clinicians who went through training using Ready were 2X more likely to use what they learned in the field.

A functional assessment can also do double work for you. Use your protocol and other trial materials and get some initial feedback before you provide them to your trial sites.

Competition for CRO resource time

When you’re working with a CRO, it’s important to remember that your team has other clients. The CRO resources you work with may have other projects and other responsibilities. But this leads to a common perception: the CRO is not putting enough time into the clinical trial.

Especially during the very early stages of your project, it’s difficult to get a true understanding of what the trial team is working on if you’re not communicating with them daily. And depending on your size – communication may be limited, too. Add to the mix CRA turnover, any reductions in the scope you initially wanted, and the natural disconnect between the bid and project teams, and you’ve got a recipe for delays and distrust.

Prevent problems when you’re working with CROs by:

Establishing simple ways to keep tabs on status. Whether it’s how far they’ve gotten through consuming your project’s protocol, or the status on site activation, your CRO works for you. Make it easy for them by demanding – upfront – that they commit to doing everything possible to remain transparent.

Often they have their own “reporting cadence” but that’s likely a vestigial process that is ripe for technological disruption. Have your own tools you like for project management? Get them onboarded. Need better visibility into things like CRA onboarding and investigator selection? Push them to include a tool like Ready in their processes

Lack of transparency 

And while we’re on the topic of communication, ask yourself: how much time are you (and your CRO) losing just because you’re using disparate tools? How much trust is lost between partners because of a failure to communicate?

When sponsors outsource research to CROs, they’re transferring the responsibility of running a lot of the day-to-day operations. But, as I explained earlier, they’re still responsible for the outcome. Without clear and transparent communication at every step, sponsors can become a bit, well, concerned.

Plus, CROs that use information systems and don’t provide access to the sponsor create trust issues. And worse, when a system is used but not regularly updated, trust declines.

You don’t have to struggle with these risks. Communication – and transparency – can be simplified in our current environment.

Prevent problems when working with CROs by:

Pushing your CRO to adopt technology and platforms that benefit you both. Whether it’s EDC, eCOA, or a clinical trial readiness tool, you will benefit. And the CRO will too – by developing skills and ways to accelerate your timelines (as well as other clients in the future).

One study we recently worked on involved a biotech and a CRO that had been manually creating slides based on essential study documents. When the CRO team discovered they could upload the actual protocol into Ready and create a more interactive learning experience without all the wasted time and effort, they were shocked at how much faster they could release the startup materials and measure how prepared the sites actually were.

This is just one example of where a sponsor was able to push a CRO to change, to mutual benefit. Reduce your own timelines, and know you’re helping the next trial, too.

CROs are only as good as you equip them to be.

Whatever the reason you have for outsourcing your research to your CRO partners, you’re making a major investment by trusting these companies with your therapy.

Even the smallest biotech companies have the power to impact the CRO’s performance. Be proactive by preparing the project teams, and demand transparency throughout your project. Technology like Ready makes it easy to do this today, and adopting processes and tools that support clinical trial readiness will ensure that working with CROs becomes one of the best parts of any research project.

How Can We Manage the Increasing Complexity of Clinical Trial Protocols?: Interview with Ken Getz of Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development

Ken Getz joins Kelly Ritch, EVP of Product and Clinical Research Solutions at ArcheMedX, to discuss the growing complexity in clinical trial protocols. The Director of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development and a Research Professor at the Tufts University School of Medicine, Ken shares his insights on protocol design along with strategic advice on how to design for maximum impact.

Enjoy this interview by video below, or by subscribing to our podcast on Simplecast, Spotify, or iTunes.

Ken Getz

Ken Getz is the Director of the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development and a Research Professor at the Tufts University School of Medicine. Ken is an expert in drug development management and practices who has dedicated much of his career to raising awareness of clinical research enterprise.

In addition to frequently speaking at industry events and publishing in peer-reviewed journals, Ken is the founder of several organizations, including the non-profit CISCRP and the publisher CenterWatch. His career is a true testament to his belief in the importance of transparency and keeping all clinical research stakeholders well-informed.

Episode Highlights

  • The takeaways, both expected and surprising, from 2020 protocol performance data
  • The factors that are contributing to increased complexity in clinical trial protocols
  • Why simplifying the design of a study is not the right goal
  • The inherent benefits in complexity, and how we can reap them through proper management
  • What drives regulatory agencies to seek to quell rising complexity in clinical trial protocols
  • Why more data isn’t necessarily better
  • The importance of investigating underlying causes of problems rather than defaulting to solving them with volume
  • What happened to feasibility committees and what should replace them
  • Why it’s critical to incorporate patient input into study design
  • The consistent positive impact of patient advisory boards
  • How taking the time for thoughtful advanced planning can help preclude costly unplanned amendments later on

Resources:

Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development
Ken Getz on LinkedIn
CISCRP
CenterWatch
Conversations in Clinical Trial Readiness Interview Series

ValenzaBio Selects Ready by ArcheMedX to Expedite Biomarker Study

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA Apr. 21, 2021 — ArcheMedX announced today that ValenzaBio, a biotech focused on developing monoclonal antibody therapeutics for autoimmune and inflammatory indications, has selected Ready, the industry’s leading clinical trial learning and predictive analytics platform, to optimize performance on its upcoming Phase II study.

ValenzaBio is deploying Ready to transform the critical phases of study start-up and on-going site engagement for their VB119 study. With Ready, ValenzaBio will avoid the typical delays that impede 85% of all clinical trials by implementing an on-demand, clinical trial readiness solution to increase the preparedness of its trial team and study sites.

“The ValenzaBio team is aggressively moving our research forward for monoclonal antibodies. To continue this pace during these uncertain times, we knew we wanted a more innovative and future-proof approach to the next phase studies,” said Jay Mitchell, VP, Clinical Operations at ValenzaBio. “We selected the Ready platform because we could see the immediate and long-term benefits in performance and efficiency, cost reduction, and improved oversight into our CRO relationship.”

Ready by ArcheMedX enables life sciences organizations to better equip and evaluate trial teams and sites, revealing those most prepared to start and effectively conduct the study. By transforming study documents into interactive learning experiences, Ready helps to eliminate manual tasks as it virtualizes start-up activities and automates upskilling over time. The predictive insights Ready provides allows CROs and trial sponsors to prioritize site activation, accelerate enrollment, and avoid preventable delays throughout the study.

“We are thrilled to add ValenzaBio to our growing list of forward-thinking pharma, biotech, medical device, and CRO clients,” said Joel Selzer, CEO of ArcheMedX. “Trial sponsors and CROs must confront the dual challenge of competing in an already difficult market and overcoming operational barriers still posed by the pandemic. We enable our clients to adapt and innovate, and ValenzaBio is already leaping ahead.”

Want to learn more about Ready? Click here to request a demo.

As ValenzaBio deploys Ready, the biotech will:

  • Eliminate most or all of the traditional travel- and hosting-related costs associated with primary investigator meetings and site initiation visits.
  • Significantly reduce costs related to turnover, initiating sites or CRO resources that are not ready, and performance-related delays.
  • Gain visibility to both CRO and site staff preparedness, areas of risk, and content deficiency.
  • Reduce site burden by enabling an on-demand asynchronous solution to deliver  investigator training and preparing site members. 
  • Improve site engagement by increasing retention of study knowledge, and improving understanding of study changes.
  • Better inform operational decisions through predictive insights.

About ArcheMedX:

ArcheMedX helps companies across the life sciences and healthcare industries to better equip, evaluate, and predict team and clinician performance, in order to accelerate the development and adoption of new clinical treatments and best practices.

Ready by ArcheMedX is an industry leading solution that predicts and improves clinical trial performance. The platform applies behavioral science to enhance how trial team members and site personnel will apply knowledge and skills in real-world scenarios. Ready then analyzes unique behavioral indicators to reveal areas of trial readiness and potential risk. 

To learn more about our readiness solutions across clinical operations, commercial programs, and medical education, visit www.archemedx.com or follow ArcheMedX on LinkedIn.

About ValenzaBio:

ValenzaBio is a privately held biopharmaceutical company focused on developing safe and effective therapies for autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. The company is advancing a pipeline of differentiated monoclonal antibodies targeting clinically validated mechanisms of action, in order to provide improved therapies for patients with limited treatment options. ValenzaBio’s lead program, VB119, is being developed for the treatment of membranous nephropathy (MN), followed by VB421, which is being developed for the treatment of thyroid eye disease. ValenzaBio is based in Bethesda, Md. For more information, please visit www.valenzabiotech.com.

Request a demo of Ready

 

Continue Reading

An Honest Look at How Demanding Oncology Trials Have Become: Interview with Rebecca Setta of Oncosec

Rebecca Setta joins Kelly Ritch, EVP of Product and Clinical Research Solutions at ArcheMedX, to discuss effective management of sites and teams through arduous clinical trials.

Rebecca shares how she’s kept her team motivated and productive in spite of the added burdens imposed by the pandemic, and why she’s excited about the future of the industry.

Enjoy this interview by video below, or by subscribing to our podcast on Simplecast, Spotify, or iTunes.

Rebecca Setta

Rebecca Setta is an Associate Director at OncoSec whose 13 years of experience in clinical trials have given her the benefit of several different perspectives. Rebecca began her career on the vendor side, and her continuous pursuit of development and higher-level understanding led her to transition to the CRO space in 2015. Her role at OncoSec represents the natural evolution of a career shaped around an inherent desire for growth through further immersion in clinical trials.

In Rebecca’s years of experience at the project level, she consistently found building effective teams to be among the most rewarding elements of her work. She now brings that expertise to bear at the department level, where she can act as a mentor, shaping a team to build on her knowledge and experience.

Episode Highlights

  • How Rebecca helps her team avoid burnout in a grueling field
  • The common characteristics she saw across the sites that adapted best at the start of the pandemic
  • A crucial change in mindset that she’s encouraged in her CRAs
  • The COVID-inflicted adaptations she expects to persist post-pandemic
  • Why it’s important to partner with sites
  • The unexpected upside to the pandemic adjustments her sites have made
  • What really impresses her about the industry
  • How remote work and limited face time can impact morale, and one way she compensates for that
  • How the weighty context of oncology research can also translate to motivation
  • Why she is so excited about the future of the industry

Resources:

Oncosec
Find Oncosec on LinkedIn
Find Oncosec on Twitter
Conversations in Clinical Trial Readiness Interview Series

Got a Clinical Trial Startup Post-COVID? Plan to Tackle 3 Big Challenges

There are still a lot of challenges facing pharmaceuticals, med tech, and biotech companies that seek to begin a clinical trial post-COVID. But the obstacles aren’t stopping them. At time of writing, over 500 companies have a Phase II or Phase III clinical trial startup planned in the next 12 months. Clinical research moves on, as it must.

If you’re planning a clinical trial, you already recognize some major differences from past studies. And the emergence of new trial designs like decentralized clinical trials and hybrid trials provide new opportunities – and obstacles of their own. 

However, regardless of your clinical trial design, there are three major differences every clinical operations leader needs to expect. Here’s a discussion of each one – along with some ideas of how to tackle them.

First, remember that it’s anything but “business as usual” for your clinical trial sites.

You feel the challenges of the ongoing pandemic, don’t you? Remember that many of the site staff are frontline healthcare workers. Their challenging day jobs are exacerbated by everything you’re feeling.

And you may worry about loading up already stretched site staff. There’s a lot they have to do before they even enroll the first patient: study startup training, initiation, and activation activities.

But with the availability of new digital and remote enabled tools, you can actually use the clinical trial startup to reduce site burden.

 

Reduce site burden by accommodating their busy schedules.

No, I don’t mean running web meetings every hour on the hour. Instead, think asynchronously. That is – make your protocol and clinical trial content available on-demand, instead of on your schedule.

On-demand start-up activities, such as site training, ease the load of the all-day meeting for site staff.  It also accelerates enrollment, because staff can begin preparing to screen patients as soon as your on-demand training is available. No more waiting for schedules to align for a group meeting or visit.

Using more advanced tools (like Ready) to deliver interactive training also enables you to collect valuable data immediately.  This data can then inform faster operational decisions (i.e., prioritizing site activation and monitoring coverage) based on real-time insights into site and staff readiness.  One of our largest clients, PRA Health Sciences values this quick access to data and actionable insights.

In fact, in equipping their own CRAs, PRA’s leadership uses Ready to deploy more interactive content globally. They can quickly determine which of their CRA team members are ready for a specific trial, and which ones need more preparation. This lets them intervene early to increase the capabilities of their teams where needed. You can do the same with site staff, or even your CRO’s team members.

Reduce site burden by consolidating their clinical study startup resources in a single hub, available anytime.

When you provide site training and activities in an on-demand environment, you get to avoid sending multiple files, portals, or emails stuffed with attachments. 

Centralize your study startup content into a single portal, or learning experience. And cut the extraneous noise of extra emails.

Tools like Ready make it so easy for you to build your site training around your existing protocol and essential study documents. Instead of wasting time converting each document into a slide deck, and then trying to deliver individual training sessions for each site, a far more useful exercise is to utilize a platform like Ready to turn that essential document into an on-demand and highly engaging learning experience.

Best of all you can do this in hours, not days and weeks. This saves valuable time (and possibly many hours of billable CRO time), and helps to drive consistency in your content. As we suggested in a recent article, you can re-invest some of the saved time by pulling together complementary resources, or improving your assessments.

And packaging all of your resources into a focused learning experience makes it easy for you to update, enhance, and deploy the same quality of learning to everyone even if they join a site part-way through a trial. Even better, it simplifies the lives of your site staff. It helps them to know where to go for everything related to your protocol, SOPs, and best practices.

Second, the reasons you had for using the same sites for every study startup are not as compelling now.

There’s really no good reason to only stick with “tried and true” sites post-pandemic. In a recent interview with Liz Beatty, the Chief Strategy Officer of Inato, she revealed that 70% of clinical trials are performed by the same 5% of trial sites.

And is there a great reason for that? Despite the belief that tried and true sites should be reliable to enroll and perform, there has been no marked improvement in the performance of clinical trial sites over recent history. In fact, Tufts reported that the clinical period has gotten longer.

It’s an ideal time to disrupt your model for activating sites for two major reasons.

Getting onsite is difficult today, so location isn’t as critical.

While it’s difficult to get onsite today, it is, and has always been, a burden to your sites when you’re there. In the push to reduce site burden, now is the time to reduce your reliance on in-person visits. Without that barrier, your site options expand greatly.

Is it now possible for you to consider sites that may be in regions that offer more diversity? Or perhaps areas with a less experienced but highly motivated investigator who has an available patient population…but hasn’t worked with you before?

The opportunity to expand to new sites and untapped patient populations has never been greater. Plus, over the past two years it has become evident that not only is diversity in your patient demographics needed, but it will be expected. Investors, partners, regulators, and the entire industry are expecting clinical trial leaders to learn and to change how they research treatments across ethnicities, cultures, lifestyles, and ages.

There are ways for you to objectively measure site readiness early in the clinical trial startup.

A site’s experience with you, your CRO, or any past clinical trial doesn’t tell the full story about its ability to perform in your upcoming trial. Site staff change, patient populations shift, sites may be enrolling competing studies. Solutions like Ready can reveal the critical insights you need to know about a site and its staff capabilities as they currently exist.

  • Want to see their confidence in enrolling the right patients quickly? Easily done.
  • Need to understand staff knowledge around handling and administering your investigational product? A snap.
  • Think it’s important to assess a site’s understanding of decision-making on exclusion criteria? Yep, that’s easy, too.

With objective and immediate readiness analysis available across all sites, both new and old, there is no need to guess about which sites can perform. You can have the same level of confidence whether you’ve worked with a site a dozen times, or never before. And – likely slash the risk of missing enrollment targets.

 

Third, the big in-person investigator meeting is not only off the table, it may be gone for good. 

OK, it’s probably not gone for every clinical trial for good. But depending on your specific objectives, you may not need it. And if that’s the case, you’ll greatly reduce your costs and workload. Plus, you’ll avoid the burden of scheduling a lot of very busy people away for hours or even days more than necessary.

One emerging biotech we work with has reimagined the PI meeting completely. This biotech instead chose to use Ready to deploy all of their PI meeting content completely online and completely on-demand. That means, similar to site training, investigators and study coordinators can begin consuming the protocol as soon as it’s deployed by the biotech. And that means the trial team can immediately discover insights about investigator readiness, too.

Just as you adjust your clinical trial startup, your trial team will adjust, too.

Fortunately, we humans are natural innovators, and natural adapters. You’ve already had to make major changes, and your sites, teams, and patients are making changes too, too. 

But when you’re not there in-person with your clinical trial resources, it’s easy to lose sight of the opportunities you have to help them adjust to your changes. 

Take the ongoing uncertainty in our environment as an opportunity to change. Don’t just do it for your next trial, but establish new and better processes to pave a path for running higher performing trials. For reducing your risk and error. And for embracing a future where you may run a truly decentralized clinical trial, or even a fully virtual trial. 

New digital tools and predictive models will make this shift much easier, and can also deliver benefits to the rest of your team. But you must recognize these three challenges, and plan for them. Ready by ArcheMedX can help you improve your clinical trial startup, while you simultaneously improve your site and team performance (and ease their workload, too).

 

 

 

Decentralized, virtual, or hybrid clinical trial – what’s the difference?

Increased diversity. Faster enrollment. Reduction in costs. These are just a few of the myriad benefits of the virtual clinical trial touted by CROs and solution providers. But are you ready for a truly virtual clinical trial? If not, is a hybrid clinical trial realistic? And what is a decentralized clinical trial – how is it different? 

There’s no doubt that these and many other benefits are possible results, and even likely ones. If you’ve ever wondered how to even get started with one of these promising new trial designs, read on for our introductory primer. 

First, why are there so many new clinical trial designs?

It may feel confusing why the industry is using so many different terms to discuss what seems like one main idea: shifting many of the traditional in-person activities in a clinical trial to digital or virtual ones.

But two things are at play.

First, it’s not one main idea that’s up for discussion. The push towards virtual, hybrid, decentralized, and siteless clinical trials stems from a lot of challenges that plague clinical research:

  • Difficulty in reaching patient populations that don’t live close to existing study centers
  • Skyrocketing costs of clinical research (much of it in site costs)
  • Manual data collection despite availability of new technology
  • High early termination and/or discontinuation rates because of perceived burden

I could go on, as there are many more challenges. 

But the second factor is the obvious fact that COVID-19 all but halted most in-person activity in 2020. Thus, we pressed forward with innovations. Because the industry accelerated so quickly, we just haven’t had the time or maturity to settle on one concept.

What we’ll uncover in this post is that each of these terms actually are three discrete concepts. Though different, they each present a need for clinical operations leaders to find new ways to train caregivers and study participants in new ways and at scale – so that they will be ready to perform in their now virtual role.

So let’s dig into each of the predominant trial designs. And more importantly, see what they mean for you.

So, what is a Virtual Clinical Trial?

Let’s get this part out of the way: there is no “industry-accepted” definition of what a virtual clinical trial is. 

Very broadly, you see the term used to describe clinical trials that replace much – or all – of the in-person clinical trial activities with similar activities conducted through software tools, wearable technology, or some other digital means. 

The FDA hasn’t released a clear definition, either. But it was the FDA’s guidance at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak that really launched the topic to a trend.

Want to try the free learning activity that covers the FDA’s guidance? Click here.

But with limited clear direction, we now see confusion about the multiple terms used, and what they mean. 

How much technology must be used for a clinical trial to be considered a virtual clinical trial?

The most strict definition: A fully virtual clinical trial.

The strictest interpretation of the term is also the easiest to classify. A fully virtual clinical trial is one that is completely technology-based. That means there are no traditional sites, no physical locations used, and no face-to-face interactions. 

In short, everything is completely virtual:

  • Study start up – no face-to-face meetings, no site visits
  • Patient enrollment – completely digital
  • Patient treatment – no clinic visits, all done remotely
  • Data collection – fully automated via phones, apps, watches, and e-diaries
  • Testing, imaging, outcomes – are all digital touchpoints

All clinical trial activities are managed centrally. While interesting, this trial design poses some major challenges because of the availability of – or familiarity with – the necessary technologies. And availability of wearable tech, though on the rise, may be an accessibility concern for some populations.

And in this interpretation, there is no patient and caregiver interaction – only data movement. This creates an additional obstacle for the already difficult recruitment and enrollment process. The perceived benefit of additional, or more personal care drives some participants to join a study.

Further, some demographics could feel uncomfortable with the lack of caregiver contact. And we can’t discount the importance of the personal relationships that frontline caregivers provide to patients. Without them, retention could also decline. 

But as noted in a recent ClinicalLeader article, there’s some disagreement in the market about that point. Does a virtual trial mean that patients and caregivers can still interact, albeit virtually? Or does it preclude participant and caregiver interaction altogether?

The most realistic definition: Nearly all trials today are at least partly virtual clinical trials, because they are technology-enabled.

The broadest interpretation of the term virtual clinical trial, though not accepted, is what reflects reality today. Technology enables or assists most – if not all – clinical trials today. It often replaces what was once an interaction between a study participant and a caregiver.

And when someone talks about a virtual clinical trial,  it’s often the more realistic definition. While there are some who are pushing for the fully digital, no-interaction trial, most CROs use the term “virtual clinical trial” interchangeably with something else – the “decentralized clinical trial.”

So then what is a Decentralized Clinical Trial?

Helpfully, the FDA has given more guidance on the topic of the decentralized clinical trial.

By the FDA’s definition, it’s the operations of a clinical trial that are being decentralized, using technology to communicate with study participants and to collect data. 

While decentralized clinical trials are also virtual by necessity, the model centers on removing the burden of travel placed on patients.

Decentralized clinical trials shift the locus of the research.

It’s well-documented that most patients don’t live near a traditional research site. Decentralized clinical trials move the research out of the central study center and closer to those patients. That could be their homes, or their local community’s doctor’s office.

Though all the activities of a decentralized clinical trial are conducted remotely, and away from central study sites, they don’t have to be fully virtual.

In fact, by partnering with community doctors and even mobile health networks, caregivers are able to perform patient treatments in person. Doing so, however, still requires the support of virtual technologies, like:

  • Remote learning on the clinical trial protocol for practitioners and caregivers.
  • Digital transmission of data and collected outcomes.
  • Virtualization of patient enrollment and other processes.

The greatest benefit of decentralized clinical trials is reducing the burden of the patient. That opens up great opportunity for diversifying patient participant and caregiver populations across race, culture, language, and regional barriers that exist.

Decentralization introduces new obstacles.

But even with a highly-engaged patient population, and with the best virtual plan, some obstacles remain:

  • Decentralized clinical trials are not ideal for every clinical protocol, especially those that require specialized treatment or testing.
  • They also require education-at-scale for any caregiver or practitioner that will service patients during the trial. Without a plan for asynchronous learning and automated communications, this stretches resources.
  • Management of patients and investigational product has to be planned well to ensure adherence.
  • Data has to be collected in a way that is both reliable and scalable. Decentralization means that clinical operations must expand and simplify data collection to allow many more entry points, by more individuals – some of whom may lack experience, or be doing so for the first time.  

But now is a great time for trial sponsors to find solutions to these challenges. Telemedicine services, the acceptance of consumer-grade wearable sensors as reliable, new providers of mobile lab services and IP delivery, and on-demand learning tools like Ready for training-at-scale mean decentralization is more realistic than ever.

Get a demo of Ready, the only learning and analytics platform designed to improve performance and enable digital clinical trials.

With the right structure and a well-thought out plan, a decentralized clinical trial becomes very attractive. Today, CROs compete to build centers of excellence, even if they lack experience to support the demand.

But are they realistic for your trial – today? It’s unlikely, but that is why yet a third term has entered the nomenclature: the hybrid clinical trial.

What is a Hybrid Clinical Trial?

If your upcoming clinical trial is simple, and doesn’t require any face-to-face visits, a virtual design may be ideal for you.

If your trial demands diverse patient populations, and you’re well-equipped to educate individual care providers to deliver your investigational product, you might strongly consider a decentralized trial design.

But what if you see some opportunity for your trial, but still need some central sites? Or still require at least one in-clinic visit because of procedures or special tests?

This is the most common scenario for upcoming trials today, and it’s why I led with the idea that we should consider nearly all clinical trials “partly virtual.” In the strictest sense, though, they’re known as “hybrid clinical trials.” 

Today’s hybrid clinical trial designs are part of the catalyst for technology adoption. That is:

Even the FDA appears to be open to the opportunities of the hybrid trial design. The organization included the study design in its RWE framework as early as 2018. And after the COVID-19 outbreak reached the US, it issued new guidance establishing its openness to new technology adoption to keep clinical research going in an unprecedented time.

Virtual vs. decentralized vs. hybrid?

So, what term should we use? In short, all of them.

Each trial design offers specific benefits and challenges to upcoming clinical trials today.

Some areas of clinical research are not ready for remote monitoring and full decentralization. Many trials have some nuance that renders them too complex to remove human supervision from the protocol.

Telemedicine, while on the rise, doesn’t drive the same confidence as a face-to-face visit for some patients – at least not yet. And it’s not suitable for all trials, because of potential reactions, adverse events, or sophisticated equipment necessary for monitoring.

For most clinical trials beginning today, only the hybrid clinical trial model describes a suitably flexible scenario that accommodates any level of technology enablement. Most – if not all – clinical trials today qualify as hybrid trials.

Your study protocols today can mix and match centralized and decentralized tools and processes based on your specific study objectives. For example:

While you build your capabilities to embrace a virtual future, take advantage of the tools available today. Many, like those above, can deliver immediate value to you regardless of how virtual or decentralized your next hybrid clinical trial may be.

What Do You Do When You Don’t Have Enough Clinical Trial Locations: Interview with Krystyna Kowalczyk of Oncobay

Krystyna Kowalczyk joins Kelly Ritch, EVP of Product and Clinical Research Solutions at ArcheMedX, to discuss innovation and leadership in oncology clinical trials.

The founder and CEO of OncoBay Clinical, Krystyna shares her efforts to break the mold when it comes to cancer research, and explores OncoBay’s “just in time” enrollment model and why investing up-front in site preparedness is critical to impacting clinical research.

Enjoy this interview by video below, or by subscribing to our podcast on Simplecast, Spotify, or iTunes.

Krystyna Kowalczyk

Krystyna Kowalczyk is the CEO and President of OncoBay Clinical. The boutique CRO is not the first company she’s founded. She began her career in drug-device combination work but soon made the move to the CRO side, where she saw plenty of potential for making a significant impact in the research space.

It was Krystyna’s clear-eyed assessment of the industry that drove her to found OncoBay Clinical. Determined to build a fresh, modern CRO worthy of the ever-evolving oncology field, Krystyna and her team embraced an innovative approach to how digital tools and predictive analytics could change the research paradigm.

The willingness to constantly evaluate and adapt is fundamental to their work advancing immuno-oncology research.

Episode Highlights

  • The three tenets of OncoBay’s approach to cutting-edge cancer research
  • How to prepare staff for the complexities of a 21st-century oncology trial
  • Why we need to evolve from serial to real-time data assessment 
  • OncoBay’s “just-in-time” enrollment model (and a touching success story)
  • Why investing up-front in site preparedness is critical to maximizing impact in research
  • How the just-in-time model can help address diversity challenges in enrollment
  • Why new technologies and methodologies often create discomfort, and what leaders can do about it
  • How you can make 1 + 1 equal 3 when you combine tools effectively
  • Why putting together the right team is both more challenging and more critical than putting together the technology
  • What Krystyna looks for when assessing potential team members 
  • Why she’s excited for the next generation of industry employees

Resources:

Oncobay
Find Oncobay on LinkedIn
Conversations in Clinical Trial Readiness Interview Series

When Seeking Diversity during Site Selection, Look Beyond Historical Data to Discover Untapped Patient Populations

Interview with Liz Beatty about site selection and diversityWe recently spoke with Liz Beatty, Chief Strategy Officer at Inato about how the company is disrupting the industry’s approach to site selection. The company is headquartered in Paris, France, with US operations based in New York City, NY. Here are some of the most interesting excerpts from our discussion:

ArcheMedX:

You spent the bulk of your career at Bristol Myers Squibb, one of the biggest names in pharmaceuticals, but you’re now at Inato, which is a small-but-exciting place to be. How did you get here?

Beatty:

Yes, I was in clinical operations at BMS for several years, and went on to lead the digital clinical trials team during my last few years there. We were really focused on how technology could improve the way we run our clinical trials, and specifically, how we could better serve patients. I strongly believe we need to do more to ensure patients have access to clinical trials and then support them through the process. I felt that the right technology could help achieve this.

When I started with that group, I could see that there was some incredibly interesting tech out there, but most of it wasn’t ready for use in clinical trials. To help expedite the process, we had an innovation team serving as a corporate incubator that tested the technology. Once it was ready for use in clinical trials, we would bring it into trials through our team.

When BMS closed the CT office, I knew I wanted to venture out to the tech sector and use my experience to help a small company getting started in the space. Through that process, I met Inato. They’re a very innovative team asking: “How can we use technology to get medicines to patients faster?” 

This was so aligned to my passion, I knew I wanted to help bring their vision to life. I joined as their Chief Strategy Officer, helping with the strategic roadmap, shaping the marketplace model, and ensuring that we can deliver on value.

ArcheMedX:

Inato’s marketplace model is very unique. Can you tell us a bit about the history?

Beatty:

Inato actually started in feasibility. They had a platform that digitized data collection for global sponsors. When I started, they were supporting nearly 50 feasibility studies. This was at the same time that data-driven site selection was becoming a key part of sponsor strategy. 

Inato was at the center of digitizing data, using new sources to help with decision making and accelerate feasibility. Because we were the intermediary, we would often receive questions  from sites who weren’t selected and wanted guidance. We began to truly hear the voice of the site, as they said to us, ”I don’t understand. We have these patients. I know we could do this study. What could we do next time to be selected?” 

There was no feedback loop. Because sponsors were only using data to make their selections, some of these sites just didn’t have enough historic data to stand out or make the cut. 

ArcheMedX:

We hear so often that site selection is based on – best case – historic data of what a site has done in the past – and worst case – a total guess. Is that what you saw?

Beatty:

So much of site selection is simply history and relationships. So many sites that had all the makings of a successful trial site were passed over because sponsors would go with sites that they’d worked with before and believed could succeed. There were so many intangible factors that went into site selection that many sites couldn’t break through. We saw a major imbalance.

We did some analysis on data from clinical trials that successfully went through site selection to find what percent of sites actually got selected. Sponsors were telling us that they “needed to move faster, needed to do things differently,” but they always selected the same sites. We found that the top 5% of sites were running 70% of trials. Our data proved this to us.

The sponsors kept picking the same sites and then were wondering why patient numbers per site were decreasing and competition was rising. It became very clear to us that there are sites with motivated physicians who know how to do the research that can’t even get the opportunity to participate. We created the marketplace model to change this dynamic and allow more sites to raise their hands and prove that they are right for a trial. 

Sites that go through the marketplace don’t go through the traditional feasibility. We let them self-identify the clinical trials that best fit them and their patients. Once their application has been vetted and approved by our team, we highlight those sites and their strengths to the sponsors conducting the research so they have a greater chance of being selected.

ArcheMedX:

As you know, the ArcheMedX team is passionate about using data during site selection and study startup to prove which sites are ready to perform in a trial. So it’s exciting to hear about Inato’s data model. Can you explain more about the insights you’re producing for sponsors?

Beatty:

There’s an underlying trust problem between sponsors and sites that needs to be addressed. When sites fill out a questionnaire, they may put in the number of patients they think they can enroll – but the sponsors don’t trust it. They may discount the numbers by default.

What we’re doing is approaching the sites with a challenge: “This trial is important to you and you say you’re a fit – now prove it.”

Using any tools – their EMR, their database, anything available – we ask them to use data to show the sponsor why they’re a good fit for the study. With this approach, the sites can prove they have the right patients, staff, and ability to run the trial. 

The sites are very savvy and know their patient populations. Our marketplace helps them use data to show their unique capabilities, their ability to diversify the patient population, and ultimately helps to build trust with the sponsor.

Diversity and inclusion is a major part of our platform. Not only can sites say they do well with cultural diversity and education, they can actually prove that they have a diverse patient population and the right approach to support them through the trial process. Diversity can come in the form of ethnicity, age, gender – the sites have this data and giving them a way to highlight it builds that trust.

ArcheMedX:

Diversity is a critical topic in the industry right now. You’ve been vocal in the market about what we need to be doing, and why the time is now. What has been the general response from sponsors and sites? 

Beatty:

The industry knows it’s a problem, and I’m proud to say the industry is now ready to do something about it. I’ve seen feedback from the FDA stating that trials need to be diversified to ensure the clinical dataset is representative of the disease. In some cases, they’re even requiring companies to put warnings on products.

We’ve reached a point culturally where we must change. I am incredibly proud to be collaborating with other leaders on this because it’s going to take all of us coming together to change how we run our trials. We need to rely on the community-level perspective of sites to know if the area has the right populations and, more importantly, if the clinic has the resources and community outreach necessary to support those populations. Together, we can create a future where no one has to take a chance on a treatment because your background wasn’t well represented in the trial.

ArcheMedX:

This is a topic that our EVP, Kelly Ritch, is very passionate about: that for an industry so steeped in facts and accuracy, we rely so heavily on guessing in clinical trials

Beatty:

You’re right – unless a sponsor is getting the data from its site partners, they may not have the right information. Census data from where a site is located may say that a site has diverse populations, but it doesn’t reveal if the site actually sees those patients or is properly set up to support those patients. 

If the site doesn’t speak Spanish, for example, to effectively communicate and build that level of trust in the Latinx community, they’re not going to enroll this demographic into the trial. If the site doesn’t have the right staff diversity to support the community, if they’re not doing enough community outreach in an authentic way, they’re not going to enroll diverse populations. There are so many barriers. This is why sponsors need to connect directly with sites so they can see the full picture.

ArcheMedX:

This brings us back to the diversity badges you mentioned. Tell us more about the diversity initiatives and Inato’s badging process.

Beatty:

We went out broadly and spoke with industry leaders to ask about the key characteristics of a site that is successful with diversity in clinical trials. We then built our process based on the tenets that were well documented cross-industry. 

What we heard is that sites who do these initiatives well love to talk about it. They are extremely proud to share their data and approach. But we also heard concerns from sites that they didn’t want it viewed as a negative if they weren’t in a diverse area or didn’t have diverse patient populations in their community.

We introduced the badge model to make diversity a positive achievement, rather than a score. Sites can get a bronze, silver, or gold medal in diversity to highlight the work they’ve done and offer a path to improvement. Getting a medal is a positive thing, but not everyone gets one. The sites really helped us shape that.

We launched this diversity assessment in September of 2020, and nearly 100 sites have completed it. They’re incredibly proud, and because we listened to the sites, it’s been well received. From a data perspective, it’s site-reported, but we ask them to provide the proof. They have to pull from their database directly rather than rely on the census data. It’s site specific. The same goes for their staff – does it match the community they serve? Do they speak the necessary languages? Are they doing the right outreach? We ask them to prove it. 

We’ve made an effort to ensure we’re creating value for both sides of the marketplace. We spent a lot of time thinking about how we can improve things for the sites. Where can we remove burden from the site? How can we remove redundancies and make things easier for them? We want them to find the trials that are right for them, but it’s equally important to give them the support they need to be successful once they’re in the trial. 

ArcheMedX:

How do you think a focus on diversity affects other measures of site performance in a trial? 

Beatty:

This can be a really important differentiator for sites. For those who are good at diversity and inclusion in clinical trials, it should help them to stand out and be selected. 

Most of the sites that do well at this want our help changing how recruitment has been done in the past. Recruitment budgets by trial don’t work for diversity – community engagement isn’t study-specific. Sites need help with funding, budget, and staff for outreach. Can sponsors find new ways to partner with sites for this? We’re starting to get some really innovative thinking from sites who are good at diversity that should be explored. 

What we’ve seen from the sites who are active in their communities is that their patients stay in the trials. If the site has done a good job in supporting the community through its staff and speaking the community’s languages, their patients will stay in the trial. Those existing relationships help a lot with retention. By leveraging community sites more, people don’t have to travel far distances and meet with a doctor and staff they don’t know to participate in trials. Working with these community sites who have already established trust will allow sponsors to reach the patient populations they need to increase diversity in their trials.

ArcheMedX:

The next six months are a little hazy, but what can Sponsors do right now to improve on diversity in site selection?

Beatty:

I absolutely believe sponsors need to diversify their site supply. We have a problem with clinical trial competition. If we want to make an impact on the diversity of patients, we need to diversify our sites. Sponsors need to look beyond data sets and think broadly about who they need to include in their clinical trial programs.

Similarly, CROs need to be willing to work with new sites and their staff to deliver new medicines to patients faster. 

ArcheMedX:

Inato’s marketplace is truly an accelerator for clinical trial site selection, and is providing an unprecedented opportunity to sponsors to identify sites in untapped patient populations. The patient population insights provided by the Inato marketplace are an innovative measure that can change how clinical trials recruit. 

Sponsors and CROs who endeavor to forge new site relationships can do so with confidence by equipping all trial sites and their staff to succeed with Ready by ArcheMedX.

Attending Outsourcing in Clinical Trials West 2021? Join ArcheMedX There!

Along with most major clinical operations conferences, the Outsourcing in Clinical Trials event series is virtual in 2021.

The ArcheMedX team is excited to exhibit – as we join some of the foremost thought leaders at the leading clinical outsourcing and operations conference on the West Coast.

ArcheMedX team members will be available during the event, which takes place 24-25 February, to provide demos of our Ready product, the clinical trials learning platform designed to better equip Sponsors and CROs.

We will cover use cases that include:

You can join us at the event for an overview, or request a demo any time.

The 2021 Outsourcing in Clinical Trials West event has four focused tracks, covering Clinical Operations & Outsourcing, Medical Device Trials, Technology & Innovation, and Patient Engagement.

We also look forward to the scheduled panel discussions that will cover trends in patient engagement, the latest outsourcing strategies, and how to create a clinical trial landscape that makes technology and innovation more accessible to smaller companies.

COVID-19 has greatly impacted our world, and our industry in particular, and so the second day of the Outsourcing in Clinical Trials West conference is billed to address how to effectively run medical device trials at a local and global level in these unique circumstances.

Since many medical device companies are classed as small and mid-sized trial sponsors, this track will be especially valuable. The event has scheduled keynote addresses and sessions on relevant regulations, digital technology, innovation and COVID-19 responses for this day.

We’ll also be available within the conference site throughout the event for discussion on the latest trends in study startup, outsourcing in clinical trials, and other ways to improve performance and efficiency in clinical trials and clinical operations.

See you online!