• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trials
    • Search Clinical Trials
    • Patient Notification System
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • iConnect
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Sponsors Look to More Customization of IRT Systems

Sponsors Look to More Customization of IRT Systems

May 17, 2021

Sites will likely see more customized interactive response technology (IRT) systems put in place, according to a survey of sponsors that found more than 80 percent prefer systems tailored to their specific needs.

The Almac Group, a contract development and management organization, surveyed sponsors about their need and preferences for IRT systems, finding that 53 percent said their current clinical trial portfolio warranted use of an IRT system that was fully customizable, despite the added expense of development and implementation. Another 30 percent of sponsors were interested in limited customizations.

The survey also found that 62 percent of emerging sponsor companies expect their IRT systems to take four weeks or less to set up, compared to 58 percent of small/mid-size companies and 51 percent of large companies. The industry standard timeline is eight to 12 weeks.

Sponsors have differing opinions on the compelling features of an IRT system based on how many drugs or therapies they have in development, the survey found. Flexibility was a bigger issue for small and mid-size companies (79 percent) than for large (64 percent) and emerging (54 percent) ones. Small/mid-size companies were also more focused on price (74 percent) compared to emerging (70 percent) and large (53 percent) companies.

The survey considered companies with up to five assets in clinical or preclinical development to be emerging companies, while those with six to 10 assets were labeled small/mid-size and those with more than 10 assets were considered large.

Read the survey here: https://bit.ly/3sBlhCm.

Upcoming Events

  • 16Feb

    Fundamentals of FDA Inspection Management: Reduce Anxiety, Increase Inspection Success

  • 21May

    WCG MAGI Clinical Research Conference – 2023 East

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Revamp-360x240.png

    Califf Calls for Major Evidence Generation Revamp, Experts’ Opinions Differ

  • AskTheExpertsGreen-360x240.png

    Ask the Experts: Managing Investigational Products

  • SurveywBlueBackground-360x240.png

    Survey Outlines Site Challenges, Successes on Diversity

  • PatientCentricity-360x240.png

    Site Spotlight: DM Clinical Shows Patient Centricity Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Data

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing