Abstract
ABSTRACTBackgroundLife sciences research often turns out to be ineffective. Our aim was to develop a method for mapping repetitive research processes, detecting practice variations, and exploring inefficiencies.MethodsThree samples of R&I projects were used: companion diagnostics of cancer treatments, identification of COVID-19 variants, and COVID-19 vaccine development. Major steps involved: defined starting points, desired end points; measurement of transition times and success rates; exploration of variations, and recommendations for improved efficiency.ResultsOver 50% of CDX developments failed to reach market simultaneously with new drugs. There were significant variations among phases of co-development (Bartlett test P<0.001). Length of time in vaccine development also shows variations (P<0.0001). Similarly, subject participation indicates unexplained variations in trials (Phase I: 489.7 (±461.8); Phase II: 857.3 (±450.1); Phase III: 35402 (±18079).ConclusionAnalysis of repetitive research processes can highlight inefficiencies and show ways to improve quality and productivity in life sciences.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference13 articles.
1. Integrating companion diagnostic assays into drug development: addressing the challenges from the diagnostic perspective;Drug Development Research,2013
2. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
3. COVID-19 Vaccination. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/distributing/steps-ensure-safety.html.
4. Biomarker-driven oncology clinical trials: Key design elements, types, features, and practical considerations;JCO Precision Oncology,2019
5. Clinical and regulatory aspects of companion diagnostic development in oncology;Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics,2018