Search

Although collaborations between academic institutions and industry have led to important scientific breakthroughs in the discovery stage of the pharmaceutical research and development process, the role of multistakeholder partnerships in the clinical development of anticancer medicines necessitates further clarification. The benefits associated with such cooperation could be undercut by the conflicting goals and motivations of the actors included. The aim of this review was to identify and characterize past, present, and future stakeholder partnership models in cancer clinical research through the lens of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Based on the analysis of several landmark EORTC trials performed across the span of three decades, four existing models of stakeholder cooperation were delineated and characterized. Additionally, a hypothetical fifth model representing a potential future collaborative framework for cancer clinical research was formulated. These models mainly differ in terms of the nature and responsibilities of the partners included and show that clinical research partnerships in oncology have evolved over time from small‐scale academia‐industry collaborations to complex interdisciplinary cooperation involving many different stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current drug development paradigm has been criticized for being too drug-centered and for not adequately focusing on the patients who will eventually be administered the therapeutic interventions it generates. The drug-driven nature of the present framework has led to the emergence of a research gap between the pre-approval development of anticancer medicines and their post-registration use in real-life clinical practice. This gap could potentially be bridged by transitioning toward a patient-centered paradigm that places a strong emphasis on treatment optimization, which strives to optimize the way health technologies are applied in a real-world environment. However, questions remain concerning the ideal features of treatment optimization studies and their acceptability among key stakeholders. Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the views of key stakeholders in the drug development process regarding the concept of treatment optimization. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2018 and May 2019 with 26 participants across ten EU Member States and six different stakeholder groups, including academic clinicians as well as representatives of patient organizations, regulatory authorities, health technology assessment agencies, payers, and industry. Results: Based on the input of the experts interviewed, clarification was obtained regarding the optimal features of treatment optimization studies in terms of their conduct, funding, timing, design, and setting. Moreover, a number of opportunities and challenges of undertaking such trials were identified. Inter-stakeholder discussion during their design was seen as desirable. There was also broad support among the participants for regulatory measures to facilitate treatment optimization, although there was no agreement on the optimal scale and nature of these initiatives. Furthermore, the interviewees believed that the evidence strength of well-designed treatment optimization studies performed according to rigorous quality standards is greater than or at least equal to that of classical clinical trials. In addition, there was a strong consensus that the results of treatment optimization studies should be taken into account during the decision-making of regulators, payers, and/or clinicians. Conclusions: Stakeholders involved in drug development consider treatment optimization studies to be valuable tools to address current evidence gaps and support their implementation into the existing research framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) interacts with many different stakeholders involved in the development of drugs, including academic researchers. In recent years, EMA has collaborated more closely with academia, inter alia by taking part in external research projects such as those set up under the Horizon 2020 program in general and the Innovative Medicines Initiative in particular. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perceived added value of EMA's involvement in these projects, both from the perspective of the Agency's participating Scientific Officers and of the coordinators of the consortia that undertook them., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the coordinators of 21 ongoing or recently finalized projects in which EMA has participated, as well as with the Agency experts contributing to them., Results: In total, 40 individuals were interviewed, of whom 23 were project coordinators and 17 were EMA staff members. While most of the projects were reported to suffer from delays due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the consortia adapted to the circumstances and their members still expected to deliver on their objectives. EMA's input into the projects ranged from providing guidance by reviewing documents and attending meetings to creating project materials and disseminating them. The frequency of communication between EMA and the consortia varied widely. The projects generated a diverse set of outputs, which encompassed new or improved medicinal products, methodological standards, research infrastructures, and educational tools. All of the coordinators expressed that EMA's contributions to their projects had increased the scientific relevance of their consortium's work, and the EMA experts found that the knowledge and the deliverables produced by the projects were valuable, taking into consideration the time they had invested into them. In addition, interviewees highlighted some actions which could be taken to increase the regulatory significance of the project outcomes., Conclusion: EMA's engagement in external research projects benefits the consortia conducting them and supports the Agency's mission to foster scientific excellence and advance regulatory science., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Saesen, Machado, Crifo, Liu, de Vries, Herold, Llinares Garcia and Huys.)