Join Advarra

Learn more about our company team, careers, and values. Join Advarra’s Talented team to take on engaging work in a dynamic environment.

See Jobs

Q&A – Site and Patient Engagement

In Advarra’s first Fireside Chat, CEO Gadi Saarony met with Deb Tatton, Parexel Senior Vice President of Global Clinical Operations, for a video conversation about the future of clinical trials and site engagement. Almost 600 clinical research professionals joined the virtual event to hear about possible ways sponsors and CROs can work more collaboratively with sites to improve study startup and address the changing clinical trial landscape. In part 2 of this Q&A blog, Deb and Gadi consider ways to improve engagement with sites and with patients. Read part 1 for their thoughts on the evolving role of technology in clinical research.

Q: How early in the protocol design process should you engage with sites?
A: It is important to engage with investigators and site representatives early enough to modify the protocol design based on patient and site feedback. At the latest, this should occur when eligibility criteria and assessments are considered, as this will finally determine if sites are able to enroll and conduct the study. Ideally, feasibility specialists should contact at least 1-2 investigators per region to ensure the protocol is feasible in all regions (not just in the lead investigator or sponsor’s country of origin).

CROs like Parexel provide early protocol design services to help sponsors optimize their protocols. And Advarra, often in partnership with the CRO and sponsor, leverages its expansive access to institutions and sites, protocol knowledge, participant insights, and scientific and regulatory expertise to help inform protocol optimization and site selection activities.

Q: How is the patient recruitment approach evolving in these times?
A: The pandemic and the race for approved COVID-19 therapeutics and vaccines have generally increased clinical trial awareness across patient populations. As a result, more patients are seeking out clinical trials to explore participation.

Additionally, there is a strong focus on patient-centric innovation, and significant business investments enable development of new, exciting participant recruitment and retention approaches, including:

Q: Sites have up to 7 different types of software with easily 7 different passwords among lab, radiology, electrocardiogram (EKG), regulatory, EDC, patient electronics, queries, etc. It would be helpful if sponsors could provide a single technology sign-on. Why have sponsors not made more efforts to make this part of trial management easier for sites?
A: We could not agree more; this is certainly the vision of both Parexel and Advarra. The industry has made attempts in this direction, including PI’s MyTrials and Advarra’s OnCore. Platform solutions can reduce the number of site accounts if you implement more than one module, as Parexel does with electronic trial master file (eTMF) and study startup (SSU) or Advarra’s Oncore, eReg, Payments, and other systems. Of course, one can also federate accounts between vendor solutions, as Parexel did with Rave and Longboat recently, so the same account can be used for both. The need to simplify the sign-in process for sites will become critical to reduce the burden for the site personnel.

Q: With the potential requirements needed for patients to participate remotely, do you see that as a potential bias excluding some potential participants (e.g., those is rural areas without internet, or those without devices)? Or is the hybrid model the answer to preventing that bias?
A: Yes, this is one of the reasons why the hybrid (DCTs) approach is recommended, and why we believe sites are critical to research. Of course, part of the effort to bolster DCTs means the device and drug supply chain and logistics must be accounted for. For example, for patients who may not have internet access, Parexel can provide electronic devices that allow them to participate in a trial for which they may not have otherwise been eligible.

Q: Are sites involved in protocol design or early development of documents?
A: Ideally, yes. Designing patient- and site-centric protocols is the recommended approach, but this may not always be feasible. In rare diseases, sponsors tend to reach out to physicians and investigators rather early, but often not early enough, which leads to protocol amendments instead of a feasible version 1.0 of the protocol. This usually involves medical advisors and key opinion leaders; unfortunately, often these scientists are not investigators, so they might have a very different perspective than investigators in clinical practice. Sometimes global or local principal leads are involved early on.

The question might instead be if sites are involved in the drug development program. For example, waiting until the phase 3 trial to involve sites can be challenging, as what was done in phase 2 can limit assessments and eligibility criteria.

Q: Other than the need for virtual trial settings, are there any other learnings from COVID-19 for the future of clinical trials?
A: Some critical learnings speak to the importance of clinical research as a whole. The race to develop a vaccine is a great example of why research and development and clinical trials are so important. Another learning is the need for patient- and site-centric protocol development.

Q: Can you please suggest a solution for east coast/west coast CRA monitoring time difference?
A: This is challenging, as CRA assignments are often done within a region/time zone aligning with the site. However, in the cases where we can do remote monitoring, CROs and sponsors are increasingly more flexible with working hours. Therefore, if a CRA is assigned a site not within their time zone, the potential to alter the CRA’s work schedule to accommodate site availability is certainly an option.

For more of these thought leaders’ perspectives on the changing clinical trial landscape, watch Fireside Chat: The Future of Clinical Trials and Site Engagement.

Back to Resources