Report confirms electronic report methods outweigh traditional alternatives for clinical trials
A new report from Almac Group (PA, USA) has announced the results of a survey conducted by researchers at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (MA, USA). The survey, based on 22 responses from 18 companies, outlined the perceptions and anticipated implementation of electronic Patient Reported Outcome (ePRO) methods used in conducting clinical trials.
Backed by a grant from Almac, the report indicates that sponsor and CRO companies are both receptive to, and planning to increase their use of, ePRO. The results suggest that the primary benefits of ePRO adoption are increased patient compliance and data quality, and efficiency of data collection. The respondents agreed that ePRO is more expensive than traditional paper-based methods, though few companies could provide metrics or evidence of cost comparisons.
The results also showed that the adoption rate of ePRO is expected to continue to rise, as it is a relatively new addition to clinical research programs. Sixty one percent of respondents indicated their companies began to use ePRO in the last 5 years, while 11% stated that they have been using ePRO for more than 10 years. In the section of the survey examining potential future trends, >75% of respondents anticipated increased ePRO usage for post-marketing trials for primary and secondary endpoints.
Mark Wade, Director of Patient-Focused Solutions at Almac, explained, “The findings highlight that two-thirds of companies in this survey are satisfied with ePRO, and over half indicate that the time to database lock is shorter with ePRO.” He elaborated, “As regulatory bodies continue to press for higher standards of data quality and sponsors seek cost savings, Almac is strongly positioned to provide solutions and offer support to ease the transition from traditional methods to electronic reporting systems.”
Source: Report from almac confirms ePRO benefits outweigh paper-based alternative for clinical trials.
