1<!DOCTYPE html>
2
3Anonymous
4/bestp
5/bestp/domrep.nsf
633A044E730D461E000258C440022F237
8
9
10
11
12
13
140
15
16
17/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/insights-iit-management-success-study-funding-optimized-processes-approval-guidelines?opendocument
18
19opendocument
2018.97.14.80
21
22
23www.best-in-class.com
24/bestp/domrep.nsf
25BMR




» Products & Services » » Medical Affairs » Clinical Trials

Building a Competitive IIT Program: Best Practices to Support Better Funding, Resourcing, and Approval Policies

ID: POP-408


Features:

5 Info Graphics

40 Data Graphics

590+ Metrics

4 Narratives


Pages: 53


Published: 2025


Delivery Format: Shipped


 

License Options:


Buy Now

 

919-403-0251

  • STUDY OVERVIEW
  • BENCHMARK CLASS
  • STUDY SNAPSHOT
  • KEY FINDINGS
  • VIEW TOC AND LIST OF EXHIBITS
In order to drive meaningful advancements in clinical practice and therapeutic innovation, biopharma organizations are increasingly looking to Investigator-Initiated Trials (IIT) programs. And for the Medical Affairs team who often lead these IIT programs, the task of maximizing IIT efficiency and impact is challenging - including multifaceted process management which involves strategically aligning policies, optimizing funding strategies, and refining approval processes to ensure IIT programs deliver maximum value in a timely manner.

Best Practices, LLC conducted this benchmarking research to evaluate IIT management structures, staffing, budgets, and performance metrics across large and mid-small biopharma organizations. The findings and benchmarks from this report will empower Medical Affairs teams to enhance IIT capacity in key operational regions, optimize program investments, right-size study costs to remain competitive, negotiate fees effectively, manage intellectual property, enlist MSL support strategically, improve external engagement, and ultimately strengthen the overall impact of IIT programs.

Industries Profiled:
Biopharmaceutical; Pharmaceutical; Medical Device; Manufacturing; Biotech; Consumer Products; Diagnostic; Health Care; Laboratories


Companies Profiled:
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals; AstraZeneca; Baxter International; Bayer; Biotest AG; Eli Lilly and Company; Eisai; Incyte; Intellia Therapeutics; Ionis Pharmaceuticals; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; PDS Biotechnology; Pierre Fabre; Regeneron; Rigel Pharmaceuticals; Santen; Sobi; Stemline Therapeutics; Summit Therapeutics; Veloxis Pharmaceuticals

Study Snapshot

Best Practices, LLC conducted a benchmark survey with 22 Medical Affairs and IIT leaders from 21 biopharma organizations. The research segments insights by geography (US, EU, Global) and company size (Large vs. Mid/Small Pharma), allowing you to compare your scope and performance against industry peers. To enhance benchmarking, Best Practices, LLC also incorporates proprietary data on IIT program FTEs, phase intervals, streamlining strategies, and submission review approaches.

Key topics covered in this report include:

  • Optimizing IIT Budgets and Funding Strategies
  • Key Policies and Compliance Guidelines for IIT Programs
  • Streamlining IIT Management and Approval Processes
  • Best Practices for Enhancing IIT Review Efficiency
  • Geographic and Company Size Trends in IIT Program Execution

Key Findings

Select key insights uncovered from this report are noted below. Detailed findings are available in the full report.

  • Study Mix: Across the total benchmark class, 57% of approved studies are Interventional, 21% are Retrospective, and 9% are Preclinical on average.
  • EU vs. US Differences in MSL Involvement: EU MSLs tend to be slightly more involved in IIT programs overall than US counterparts, especially in proposal review and the publications process.
Table of Contents

Sr. No.
Topic
Slide No.
I.
Executive SummaryPg. 3
II.
Scope of IIT Support, Budget, and Program Pg. 16
III.
IIT Program PoliciesPg. 31
IV.
IIT Management Structure, Channels, and ToolsPg. 38
V.
Additional IIT Metrics from Best Practices, LLC Benchmark Report DatabasePg. 48
VI.
About Best Practices, LLCPg. 53

    List of Charts & Exhibits

    I. Executive Summary

    • Benchmark study objective and methodology
    • Benchmark study partners
    • Geographic responsibilities
    • Key takeaways and data summary
    • Average program size and support – Summary
    • IIT budget comparison – Large pharma vs. mid-small pharma averages
    • Cost breakout overview
    • IIT program policy and rate cap sharing
    • Overhead limits and rejections
    • Role of MSLs in the IIT process

    II. Scope of IIT Support, Budget, and Program

    • Types of IITs supported – Total benchmark class
    • Types of IITs supported – Geographic comparison
    • IIT program scope: Approved products, ongoing studies, and annual initiations
    • Average duration of IIT studies from initiation to close-out
    • IIT program scope and duration – Geographic comparison
    • IIT program budgets: Reported totals (large pharma vs. mid-small pharma) and budget range
    • IIT spend per product: Reported totals (large pharma vs. mid-small pharma) and spend range
    • IIT spend per study: Reported totals (large pharma vs. mid-small pharma) and spend range
    • IIT studies supported per product: Reported totals (large pharma vs. mid-small pharma) and support range
    • IIT study spend in the US: Average, minimum, and maximum per study type
    • IIT study spend in regions excluding the US: Average, minimum, and maximum per study type
    • Breakdown of activities and costs in IIT proposals: Personnel, study, and other related costs
    • Geographic comparison of IIT proposals: Breakdown of personnel and related costs
    • Geographic comparison of IIT proposals: Breakdown of study costs

    III. IIT Program Policies

    • Disclosure of IIT program policies and publicization of maximum allowable indirect rate caps to investigators
    • IIT program policy sharing and indirect rate caps publication – Geographic comparison
    • Maximum allowable indirect rates (overhead costs) per study and percentage of IIT submissions rejected due to exceeding limits
    • Deliverables required before final payment to investigators
    • Deliverables required before final payment to investigators – Geographic comparison
    • Access to IP rights included in IIT agreements

    IV. IIT Management Structure, Channels, and Tools

    • Functions involved in IIT approvals at your organization
    • Functions involved in IIT approvals at your organization: US focus
    • Functions involved in IIT approvals at your organization: EU focus
    • Functions involved in IIT approvals at your organization: Global function
    • MSL involvement in IIT process phases
    • MSL involvement in IIT process phases: US vs. EU differences
    • Percentage of IIT proposals submitted through different channels and portals used for managing proposals
    • Channels and management portals used for IIT proposals – Geographic Comparison
    • Online portal management: Flow of information/data and KOL/investigator engagement

    V. Additional IIT Metrics from Best Practices, LLC Benchmark Report Database

    • Number of FTEs dedicated to IIT management and their responsibilities across the process
    • Time spent on IIT contracting management (in days)
    • Top approaches to increase efficiency in IIT review
    • Review process for concept proposals: Rolling basis vs. submission window