Evofem Biosciences is on the cusp of releasing a revolutionary birth control product. But before the FDA gives its approval, this small biopharma has to navigate two very different clinical trials.
The appallingly low rates of patient participation in cancer clinical trials, especially in the community setting, is no secret. The fact is that 98 percent% of our patient population isn’t aware of available trials, doesn’t know how to apply, or is under too much financial and emotional strain, etc. to even consider joining a trial. The blame for this rightfully falls on the proverbial shoulders of the main stakeholders: the biopharmaceutical industry, healthcare institutions, government, and — yes — patient support groups.
Part 1 of this two-part article examined the implications the transition to value-based, patient-centric, precision medicine has for drug discovery, development, and deployment, particularly for clinical trials. Part 2 explores precision medicine in more depth regarding the tailored and targeted treatments that aim to match patients to medicines according to particular clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors.
Many biotechnology/pharmaceutical organizations are in the early stages of developing their risk management process. For the most part, we tend to see this process developing at the clinical trial level. The struggle with implementing these practices solely at the trial level is that it quickly becomes inconsistent and obsolete. Study teams are taking the time to assess risk as it applies to their trial, but the information gained is seldom shared cross-functionally or upward through an organization. It is more of a “going through the motions” type practice — which is then filed away, never to be utilized again.
Cross-sectional studies (CSS) serve as an effective study design option to gather pertinent epidemiological data quickly to support drug development across the lifecycle. Here we explore how a hybrid MCR combined CSS can be an advantageous study design for real world evidence (RWE) generation, and how gaining a better understanding of the implementation of these designs can allow for better future planning, as well as to guide the development of the next generation of real world studies.
The rapid shift to VBHC is reshaping markets for medical and diagnostic devices in several important ways. Its incentives significantly affect the purchasing behavior of payers, clinicians and patients – and what device makers must do to win their business. Generally, this includes determining how these various stakeholders define value, and gathering evidence to build a value based purchasing case early in the product development cycle. In this paper, we examine some of the major factors that influence how different stakeholders define value. We then describe a model for mapping stakeholder value that can help drive profitable device development programs in increasingly value driven markets.
Biosimilars are generally expected to offer a competitive price advantage to appeal to healthcare organizations and payers which make them an attractive business opportunity.. This whitepaper provides an introduction into key regulatory and development concerns for sponsors, including a discussion of the factors that affect biosimilar uptake for the United States and Europe and recommendations to address these issues
The big challenge for study sponsors is that clinical trial transparency remains a “volatile” area with continuously evolving requirements and expectations. Most life sciences companies don’t have the time, money or resources to develop a compliance solution.
Welcome to Clinical Leader, the premier online community that helps streamline clinical research by connecting trial sponsors and cutting edge service providers. Clinical Leader is part of the Life Science Connect media group. The vision of Life Science Leader and Life Science Connect is to help facilitate connections and foster collaborations in pharmaceutical and medical device development to find ways to get more life-saving and life-improving therapies to market. Connect, Collaborate, Contribute.
Visitors are enriched with valuable information on CRO, Pre-Clinical Contract Research Organization, Bio-Analytical Contract Research Organization, Clinical Contract Research Organization, Pharmacovigilance, Clinical Data Management, Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (ePRO), Point-of-Care Testing (POCT), Patient Recruitment, Electronic Data Capture (EDC), Clinical Trials Management Systems (CTMS) and more that can improve your business and make it more profitable.
Please take a moment to join our community and discover the benefits of your free membership.
The appallingly low rates of patient participation in cancer clinical trials, especially in the community setting, is no secret. The fact is that 98 percent% of our patient population isn’t aware of available trials, doesn’t know how to apply, or is under too much financial and emotional strain, etc. to even consider joining a trial. The blame for this rightfully falls on the proverbial shoulders of the main stakeholders: the biopharmaceutical industry, healthcare institutions, government, and — yes — patient support groups.
Part 1 of this two-part article examined the implications the transition to value-based, patient-centric, precision medicine has for drug discovery, development, and deployment, particularly for clinical trials. Part 2 explores precision medicine in more depth regarding the tailored and targeted treatments that aim to match patients to medicines according to particular clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors.
This is the first part of a two-part article that examines the implications the transition to value-based, patient-centric, precision medicine has for drug discovery, development, and deployment, particularly for clinical trials.
The appallingly low rates of patient participation in cancer clinical trials, especially in the community setting, is no secret. The fact is that 98 percent% of our patient population isn’t aware of available trials, doesn’t know how to apply, or is under too much financial and emotional strain, etc. to even consider joining a trial. The blame for this rightfully falls on the proverbial shoulders of the main stakeholders: the biopharmaceutical industry, healthcare institutions, government, and — yes — patient support groups.
Sadly, the average drop-out rate across clinical trials is 30%. Greenphire has increasingly seen clients focused on increasing completion rates of patient reported outcomes and bolstering compliance using ClinCard. ClinCard has built-in text reminders for upcoming onsite patient visits and the ability to trigger “micropayments” when select tasks are completed.
That’s a wrap on our second DIA global annual meeting workshop, “Setting the Stage for Stakeholder Collaboration.” Everyones engagement turns an idea into real moment of reflection and learning for all. Read more about these collaboration scenerios and what was learned from them.
Part 1 of this two-part article examined the implications the transition to value-based, patient-centric, precision medicine has for drug discovery, development, and deployment, particularly for clinical trials. Part 2 explores precision medicine in more depth regarding the tailored and targeted treatments that aim to match patients to medicines according to particular clinical, demographic, and lifestyle factors.
Many biotechnology/pharmaceutical organizations are in the early stages of developing their risk management process. For the most part, we tend to see this process developing at the clinical trial level. The struggle with implementing these practices solely at the trial level is that it quickly becomes inconsistent and obsolete. Study teams are taking the time to assess risk as it applies to their trial, but the information gained is seldom shared cross-functionally or upward through an organization. It is more of a “going through the motions” type practice — which is then filed away, never to be utilized again.
