Non-members: Click here to review a complimentary excerpt from “Investigator Initiated Trials Management: Performance Management and Communication Tactics”
Biopharmaceutical companies support investigator-initiated trials (IITs) to explore novel opportunities to address unmet medical needs. However, as organizations increase the number of IIT trials, it is important for companies to properly vet each proposal and approve the ones that demonstrate scientific merit, and align with corporate objectives.
Best Practices, LLC undertook benchmarking research to provide a detailed roadmap for improving IIT management at biopharmaceutical companies, capturing critical metrics and insights on evaluating IIT proposals as well as improving performance, publication tactics and communication.
This study serves as a reference point for pharma leaders who oversee or work in investigator-initiated trials so that they can compare their IIT program aspects with industry peers.
- IIT Audit
- Important Criteria for IIT Evaluation
- Reasons for Rejecting IIT Proposals
- Future Improvements
- Publication Tactics
- Communication Channels and Frequency
- Please list the top 3 approaches you take to increase the efficiency of IIT review
- Please rate the effectiveness of the metrics used to measure IIT performance
- What are the tactics used to ensure publication strategies are met?
- What are the parameters considered for auditing IIT?
- What is the preferred channel for receiving IIT updates at your company?
- How frequently are IIT updates received?
- How many global IITs were published (over what time period)?
- What percentages of IITs were published in different geographical regions?
SAMPLE KEY FINDINGS
- Use of Online Portals will Propel Enhancement in Future: More than 40% of the benchmark participants have cited use of online portals and data management systems to contribute the enhancement of IIT followed by streamlined process (32%).
Best Practices, LLC engaged 30 leaders from 23 bio-pharmaceutical and medical device companies through a benchmarking survey. Nearly 60% of participants are at the level of director or above.