CONTRACT RESEARCH


Given the collective expertise of study teams comprised of internal and external members, early engagement would contribute to a shared vision, better alignment of effort and incentive around performance goals, and more operationally feasible protocols.


Consistent and More Disciplined


Relationship Implementation Although all participating sponsor companies in our study had entered into strategic, integrated full-service relationships in the past three years, none of the CRO partners were responsible for managing all functional areas supporting an individual phase II or III study. Instead, sponsor companies used a variety of conflicting outsourcing models to support their studies, mixing and matching the use of internal staff, transactional relationships, functional service providers and integrated alliances simultaneously; some sponsor companies varied the types of outsourcing relationship models used on a study-by-study basis.


Tufts CSDD observed a complete lack of standardization about how outsourcing strategy is defined, understood and enforced within organizations. Some strategic partners receive less work than non- partner CROs; project teams often give non-partner service providers work that already has been contractually promised through a strategic alliance. Although there are situations where these approaches may have been justified, most often they reflect reactive choices made without regard to the company’s overall outsourcing strategy and tactical intent.


Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have difficulties stan- dardizing and enforcing consistent outsourcing approaches for a variety of reasons. Many companies are simply too large and too fragmented. Tufts CSDD found that many clinical teams don’t know which outsourcing relationships were used across multi-functional areas for their recently completed studies, suggesting a lack of cross-functional awareness and communication.


Legacy activity underway when new partnerships form is also contributing to the problem. Clinical teams typically have established their own relationships with select service providers and resist handing- over existing projects to new partners. Companies going through mergers and acquisitions, in particular, often find themselves forced to allow inconsistent practices across organizational functions to ensure that legacy projects are completed as new models are rolled out.


Another dynamic that contributes to the inconsistent use of multiple sourcing models includes turnover of key senior staff championing, overseeing and implementing collaboration strategies. Partnerships that have not sufficiently been adopted are prone to fall apart when new executives, who might have different ideas about sourcing models, take charge. And many large sponsor companies that have formed strategic outsourcing relationships still have significant in- house development resources creating internal competition with comparable outsourced resources.


The bottom line - inconsistent approaches are the enemy of efficiency due to the additional direct and indirect incremental costs required to support custom relationships, on an as needed basis, with multiple vendors. In addition, collaborative practice experience and efficiencies are isolated to individual studies and don’t carry across the development portfolio.


Stopping Collaborative Value Leakage


Given expected ongoing growth in demand for outsourcing - combined with pressures to accelerate drug development timelines, improve success rates of investigational chemical entities and biologics, and reduce high and rising R&D costs - sponsor companies must fundamentally change practices that are leading to partnering frictions and inefficiencies. Capturing a higher percentage of collaborative value is essential to the long term viability of the clinical research enterprise. How can this be achieved?


Tufts CSDD is monitoring two major trends that are expected to help drive more consistency and shared team focus. Neither trend will deliver its aspirational goals without senior management buy-in and ongoing involvement.


Growing adoption of adaptive designs holds promise in facilitating a shared line of sight into development planning and study design. Adaptive trial designs offer cross-functional internal/externally sourced teams the ability to shape and anticipate study design changes through scenario planning and trial simulation prior to finalizing the protocol. Rigorous upfront planning will force partnerships to collectively challenge protocol feasibility at the right time.


Patient engagement holds tremendous promise in changing the CRO- sponsor relationship in a variety of ways including ongoing shared interactions with patient advocacy groups, health care providers and payers to shape development planning; soliciting patient feedback into protocol design to improve feasibility; improving study volunteer access to, and convenience participating in, clinical trials; and performing robust interrogative and predictive analysis of patient health information and real world observational data pre- and post-drug product approval. Patient centricity requires more integrated relationships with health systems and payers to connect with electronic health and medical information and unstructured real world data to support a learning clinical practice-clinical research ecosystem.


Market leading CROs are already anticipating strengthening their investigative site relationships and their access to and use of patient health data. This past February, for example, ICON crossed the forbidden line between project management and study conduct with the acquisition of PMG Research, one of the top investigative site networks in the United States. All of the major CROs appear to be implementing initiatives to strengthen ties with experienced investigative sites. Quintiles Prime and Partner Site programs and INC’s newly launched Catalyst program are but two examples of key initiatives underway.


Covance and Quintiles now have access to large central lab networks that could double as investigative site locations in remote areas throughout the United States. Covance was acquired by LabCorp in November 2014. This acquisition ties Covance to 1,700 LabCorp patient service centers nationwide. In March 2015 Quintiles and Quest Diagnostics responded with an announced partnership giving Quintiles access to Quest’s 2,200 US-based patient service centers. These relationships also give Covance and Quintiles access to massive databases of patient health information. The announced merger of Quintiles with IMS Health in May 2016 is an unusual and bold move designed to build a portfolio of operating services and technologies that leverage rich health care data to serve the converging R&D healthcare ecosystem.


At the same time that many CROs are attempting to proactively innovate under a patient centric operating environment, sponsor companies are also investing in patient centricity innovations including individual company efforts to strengthen investigative site relationships, integrate new technologies and practices and interact with electronic health vendors. Industry consortia (e.g., TransCelerate) are also investing in new approaches to support patient engagement and investigative site management. At the present time, the many initiatives being implemented by sponsors and CROs are not well coordinated and, as a result, may not yield their desired enterprise-wide impact on drug development efficiency and performance.


There is much practical and actionable work to be done to better leverage the value of collaborations. Our research points to two critical areas of opportunity that will yield immediate positive results: systematically engaging CRO partners to participate in planning and study design and consistently implementing outsourcing strategy and tactics across the portfolio. At this time, out of necessity, with increasing adoption of adaptive clinical trials and patient engagement initiatives, sponsors and CROs are uniquely motivated to capture more collaborative value.


Pharmaceutical Outsourcing | 20 | July/August 2016


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54