Industry Clinical Trials Proceed Faster Than Academic Trials, Study Finds

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in the U.K. reports that industry sets up and completes clinical trials faster than academic entities. The data shows that for the 2014-15 financial year so far, 88 percent of industry-funded trials were approved within 40 days, compared to 82 percent of non-commercial clinical trials. The findings were reported to the Times Higher Education and suggest that more funding is needed to help academic researchers cope with the demands of clinical trials.

Lydia Christopher, from the Clinical Research Network of the NIHR, said industry is better at clinical trials due to commercial drivers. She said, “Commercial companies have entire teams dedicated to setting up and delivering research who are very highly skilled and they are doing this day in, day out.”

NIHR Clinical Trial Findings

The NIHR finds that commercial backing and funding allows pharmaceutical companies to move more quickly through the process of setting up and launching clinical trials. Industry can initiate and complete complex trials such as cancer trials with its greater funds and experienced personnel. Academic institutions, research councils, and research charities are at a disadvantage in terms of funding, and a smaller proportion of their studies are approved within target times. The NIHR has elucidated several other findings.

• Industry sets up more straightforward trials.
• Trial approval and trial recruitment is slower in academia than in industry, which is a new trend as previous years showed less of a discrepancy.
• In the U.K., the findings vary by region. For instance, the North Thames region approves 100 percent of industry trials within 40 days, compared to 51 percent of non-commercial trials.
• 58 percent of industry trials recruit their first patient within 30 days, compared to 36 to 45 percent of non-commercial trials.   
• Academic trials often involve rare diseases, for which it is more difficult to recruit patients.

Ms. Christopher said that the Clinical Research Network is working to discover ways for academics to improve the clinical trial process. However, due to the “publish or perish” framework at universities, academics may be more interested in publishing rather than speeding up the clinical trial process. Additionally, a lack of resources delays investigators who need a particular type of patient and have to visit multiple sites in the U.K. and Europe to find them.