Industry Standard Research has recently published new research titled "Post-marketing Safety Market Dynamics," which deeply dives into the growth and decline of study conduct and outsourcing in the post-marketing safety arena. As with much the company's research, a portion of the work was dedicated to exploring the attitudes and use of service providers in the space. Sponsors identified different types of service providers as "Best Fit," depending on the specific service. And the pattern of winners and losers is variable across all five services tested (Phase IV studies, Signal Management Activities, Risk Management Programs, EU QPPV Service, and Scientific Literature Searches). 

However, in spite of their lagging position for signal management activities (and some of the others tested) sponsors continue to express a preference for using large CROs.  

 Large CROs were voted the best fit for non-interventional Phase IV studies. 

What should be made of this dynamic? Why should a buyer prefer to use members of a group they believe are a poor fit for the service, relatively speaking?  

Perhaps it is the old adage that "nobody gets fired for hiring IBM." But for our industry it's "nobody gets fired for hiring Quintiles/PPD/PAREXEL/Covance/ICON." Or perhaps in spite of a theoretical good fit, the scope of the work is outgrowing the specialists' capabilities. Your thoughts? Send them to 

News

Applied Clinical Trials-10-01-2011

Industry Standard Research has recently published new research titled "Post-marketing Safety Market Dynamics," which deeply dives into the growth and decline of study conduct and outsourcing in the post-marketing safety arena.