Industry Contracts, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Clin Transl Sci. 2013 Aug;6(4):279-85. doi: 10.1111/cts.12073. Epub 2013 Jun 10.
We measured contracts final negotiation (FN) and full execution (FE) times using shared definitions in a prospective observational study of management of contracts for clinical trials at 29 CTSA institutions. Median FN and FE times were reached in 39 and 91 days, respectively; mean times for FN and FE were 55 and 103 days, respectively. Individual site medians ranged from 3 to 116 days for FN and 34 to 197 days for FE. The use of master agreements (MAs) and previously negotiated terms (PNTs) was associated with significant reduction of FN times by a mean of 33 days (p < 0) and 22 days (p < 0.001), respectively. PNTs, but not MAs, were associated with significantly reduced FE time (22 days, p < 0.007). Gap analysis revealed a gap of 22 days between contracts negotiation and Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and intervals of 33 days (contracts) and 48 days (IRB review) during which the process steps were being conducted alone, suggesting a potential benefit with parallel processing. These baseline data support a plan to investigate root causes of prolonged study start-up time by examining causes of variation and outliers.
我们在 29 家 CTSA 机构中进行了一项关于临床试验合同管理的前瞻性观察研究,使用共同定义来衡量合同的最终谈判 (FN) 和全面执行 (FE) 时间。FN 和 FE 的中位数时间分别为 39 天和 91 天;FN 和 FE 的平均时间分别为 55 天和 103 天。个别站点的中位数 FN 时间范围为 3 至 116 天,FE 时间范围为 34 至 197 天。使用主协议 (MA) 和先前协商的条款 (PNT) 分别可将 FN 时间平均缩短 33 天(p < 0)和 22 天(p < 0.001)。只有 PNT,而不是 MA,与 FE 时间的显著缩短相关(22 天,p < 0.007)。差距分析显示,合同谈判和机构审查委员会 (IRB) 审查之间存在 22 天的差距,合同)和 48 天(IRB 审查)期间,各个步骤是单独进行的,这表明并行处理可能具有潜在的益处。这些基线数据支持通过检查变异和离群值的原因来调查研究启动时间延长的根本原因的计划。