![]() The collection and analysis of accurate clinical trial data are vital for pharma research and development (R&D) to discover and distribute new treatments. Technologies such as biometric devices, artificial intelligence (AI), advanced analytics, wearables, and cloud-based management significantly improve clinical trials. Koneksa Health – Real-World Clinical Data Platform Moreover, the Heat Map reveals regions that observe a high startup activity and illustrates the geographic distribution of all 273 companies we analyzed for this specific topic. The Global Startup Heat Map below highlights 5 startups & scaleups developing innovative clinical trial solutions. Depending on your specific criteria, the top picks might look entirely different. These companies were chosen based on a data-driven startup scouting approach, taking into account factors such as location, founding year, and relevance of technology, among others. For this research, we identified 273 relevant solutions and picked 5 to showcase below. Using our StartUs Insights Discovery Platform, covering 1.379.000+ startups & scaleups globally, we looked at innovation in the field of clinical research, trials, and studies. This time, you will be able to discover 5 promising clinical trial solutions. ![]() As there is a large number of startups working on a wide variety of solutions, we want to share our insights with you. In addition, 10.9 percent of initiated sites are never activated - a constant figure over the past 20 years, according to Tufts - with sites being managed by CROs being activated more often.Our Innovation Analysts recently looked into emerging technologies and up-and-coming startups working on solutions for the pharma sector, to identify innovative solutions for you. More than half of sponsors still rely on spreadsheets, compared to just under one-third of CROs. This was “very telling because there isn’t a lot of research out there comparing cycle times between sponsors and CROs,” Lamberti said.ĬROs make more use of advanced technology solutions for the study initiation process than drug sponsors, according to Tufts researchers, with 47 percent of CROs saying they used clinical trial management systems compared to only 28 percent of sponsors. Tufts researchers found that CROs are more efficient than drug sponsors, completing initiation an average of 5.6 weeks faster for repeat sites and 11 weeks faster for first-time sites. Sharing information with sites early on to assess study feasibility could enhance the site selection process, according to the Tufts report. “It’s happening, but it’s just not happening fast enough,” she said.Īnother potential solution, Lamberti said, is pooling data from clinical sites to counter the siloing of data common among drug manufacturers. Sponsors are investing in technology and working to make contracting and budgeting negotiations - which can be a significant drag on the process - more efficient, Lamberti told CWWeekly. Tufts CSDD senior research fellow Mary Jo Lamberti, who led the analysis, said drugmakers are trying to improve the timeliness of the site initiation process. Nearly three in 10 sites were new, with no prior history of working with a sponsor or CRO. Tufts researchers found the widest variations among respondents in site identification cycle times, indicating “highly inconsistent practices,” the report said. Respondents reported that 61 percent of total cycle time was associated with study start-up activities such as contract and budget negotiations. ![]() The process of selecting clinical trial sites and launching studies, beginning with site identification and ending with study start-up completion, takes an average of 31.4 weeks for Phase II and III studies - a full month longer than the average seen 10 years ago, according to a survey conducted by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.īetween 30 and 40 percent of 590 sponsors and CROs said they were somewhat or completely unsatisfied with their processes for site initiation, according to the study.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |