When Patient Input Should Be Collected in the Clinical Research Process

The narrative forming around AI in the pharma and biotech industries is less focused on if the technology should be used, it’s when it should be used. The powerful technology has the capability to be implemented in a variety of workflows, but that doesn’t always mean that it’s being used in a way that gets the best results.

Pharmaceutical Executive spoke with Stacy Hurt, chief patient officer at Parexel, about her views on AI-usage in clinical research. This is an area where she sees tremendous potential for the advanced tech, but she also sees a need to ensure that patients are being the given to provide input in the process as well.

When it’s not used properly, AI may create situations where patients are facing improperly designed research scenarios or struggling with poor communication. However, she also argues that when properly implemented, the AI can allow for a greater level of understanding of the patients’ viewpoints and allow not just for easier communication, but deeper communication as well.

Pharmaceutical Executive: When should patient input be collected in the clinical research process?
Stacy Hurt: Patient input should be considered from the very beginning — from the earliest possible stages. Sometimes we hear pushback from sponsors in phase one clinical trials: “That’s not going to be meaningful until we get further along.” I push back and say this is especially where patient input is important, because it can improve the process from the start. A couple extra months of patient input at the beginning can translate to saved years at the end. We know that an amendment in a phase three clinical trial costs an average of $535,000. So having that patient input at the beginning — being proactive, mitigating risk, and heading off those amendments — is tremendously cost-effective for sponsors and meaningful to patients.