An assessment if the current scientific environment in the United Kingdom is contributing to development and adoption of stratified medicines

• Main Author: Engelbrecht, Van Zyl
• Format: Others
• Language: en
• Published: 2016
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10539/21308

MSc (Med) in Pharmaceutical Affairs Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology University of Witwatersrand 11 January 2016 === Introduction: In October 2010 the Stratified Medicines Innovation Platform (SMIP) was created under the oversight of the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) to help accelerate the rate of development and uptake of stratified medicine in the UK. The SMIP aim to bring together the private sector, policymakers and researchers in an initiative drawing on government funding of over £50 million, along with matched funding from industry the total investment might be in the order of £100 million for innovative research and development. The ultimate goal of the SMIP is to accelerate the development and uptake of stratified research in the UK and thus make the UK a world leader in the development and adoption of stratified medicines. Study Objectives: The primary objective of the research project is to determine if the current scientific environment in the United Kingdom is contributing to the (1) development and (2) adoption of stratified medicine. The secondary objective is to determine which of the key factors required for the development and adoption of stratified medicine is experienced by the key stakeholders to be the biggest obstacles in the current scientific environment. Methods: A qualitative assessment were conducted via a questionnaire which was distributed to the attendees of the 7th Annual Clinical Outsourcing & Partnering World Europe and Disruptive Innovation in Clinical Trials Conferences on the 4th and 5th of March 2014 at the Victoria Plaza in London. Results and discussion: The study sample size was the 251 attendees of the conferences and the respondents the 48 who completed their questionnaire and return it. The results indicated that a more senior and experienced individual attended the conferences. Nobody with less than 5 years of experience attended. The overall majority (85%) of respondents had 10 or more years of experience in their respective industries. The primary objective assessed the respondent’s level of agreement with statements that the current scientific environment in the UK is contributing to the development and adoption of stratified medicine in the UK. A high score was indicative of a higher level of agreement with the relevant statement. There was a significant difference in the average for development at 6.9 (σ = 1.5) and adoption at 3.7 (σ = 1.6). The respondents were definitely of the opinion that the environment in the UK is more favourable for the development than adoption of stratified medicine. The secondary objective was to determine which key factors are the most and least obstructive for the development and adoption of stratified medicine in the UK. The most obstructive key factors for both development and adoption had in common the lack of communication and collaboration among the respective stakeholders, and the financial environment which is not contributing to for the development and adoption of stratified medicine. The least obstructive key factors for both development and adoption were the science, the scientist ability and knowledge to development and adopt stratified medicine. Conclusion: The outcome of the primary measurement clearly indicates that the respondents definitely assessed the environment in the UK to be much more conducive for the development of stratified medicine than for the adoption of stratified medicine. The average score for development being 6.9 (σ = 1.5) compare to 3.7 (σ = 1.6) for adoption. Limitation: The conferences focused on outsourcing, partnering and disruptive innovation, which is processes and building blocks required for stratified medicine, but the focus on stratified medicine could have been more concentrated if the conferences were exclusively addressing stratified medicine. Secondly the project would have benefitted from distributing the questionnaires at regular intervals over a period of time. The first distribution should have occurred as close as possible to the SMIP launch in October 2010. This would have allowed the researcher to explore any trends that might have revealed it. === MT2016