Goal 2: Reduce Human Disease

Towards Collaborative Funding of Clinical Trials

A way for clinical trial investigators to submit ONE application with ONE review and ONE funding decision, and the application would ask for funding from multiple funders (e.g. NHLBI and another IC, NHLBI and PCORI, NHLBI and AHA, NHLBI and CIHR, NHLBI and MRC).

Tags (Keywords associated with the idea)

Is this idea a Compelling Question (CQ) or Critical Challenge (CC)? : Critical Challenge (CC)

Details on the impact of addressing this CQ or CC :

It would be much easier for investigators from multiple sites/countries to secure funding for large-scale trials from multiple sponsors. They would only have to submit ONE application, respond to ONE review, and anticipate ONE funding decision.

Feasibility and challenges of addressing this CQ or CC :

Clinical trials have become increasingly difficult to afford, yet the need for them has never been greater. Many other sponsors (CIHR, PCORI, AHA, MRC, European Union) are eager to work with NHLBI to enable user-friendly multi-sponsor funding. Some similar type arrangements are already happening with other IC's (e.g. NINDS is working with CIHR and the UK MRC).

Large-scale clinical trials often require involvement of multiple sites, often located in > 1 country. Furthermore, the expense of trials often raises questions as to whether funders could collaborate, all contributing a certain amount. However, there is no simple user-friendly way for applicants to bring secure multiple sources of funding. Ideally, the division of funds would be agreed upon prior to application. In case of foreign funders, no monies would cross borders -- i.e. for NHLBI and UK MRC applications, the NHLBI would fund American sites while the UK MRC would fund UK sites, but all funding goes to ONE trial with ONE protocol and ONE data set.

 

One challenge would be politics. Who will do the review? NIH has traditionally acted as if it is the only agency capable to doing a valid review. Would NIH be willing to accept a review conducted by another sponsor? Would other sponsors be willing to accept a review fully run by NIH?

Name of idea submitter and other team members who worked on this idea : NHLBI Staff

Voting

-1 net votes
8 up votes
9 down votes
Active
Idea No. 162