Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2013 Aug;6(4):279-85.
doi: 10.1111/cts.12073. Epub 2013 Jun 10.

Observational study of contracts processing at 29 CTSA sites

Affiliations
Observational Study

Observational study of contracts processing at 29 CTSA sites

James Kiriakis et al. Clin Transl Sci. 2013 Aug.

Erratum in

  • Clin Transl Sci. 2014 Aug;7(4):348

Abstract

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.

Keywords: CTSA Consortium; clinical research management; clinical trials; contracts; public private partnerships; virtual national laboratory.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Schulman KA, Sells DM, Timble JW, Sugarman J, Dame LA, Weinfurt KP, Mark DB, Califf RM. A national survey of provisions in clinical‐trial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347:1335–1341. - PubMed
    1. Morrison BW. Industry Sponsored Trials at Academic Medical Centers: Goals and Requirements. https://www.ctsacentral.org/clinical‐research‐management‐workshop‐15. Accessed May 15, 2013.
    1. Dilts DM, Sandler AB. Invisible barriers to clinical trials: the impact of structural, infrastructural, and procedural barriers to opening oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 4545–4552. - PubMed
    1. Dilts DM, Sandler AB, Baker M, Cheng SK, George SL, Karas KS, McGuire S, Menon GS, Reusch J, Sawyer D, et al. Processes to activate phase III clinical trials in a cooperative oncology group: the case of cancer and leukemia group B. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 4553–4557. - PubMed
    1. Zerhouni E. Translational and clinical science–time for a new vision. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1651–1653. - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources