Budgeting of non-commercial clinical trials: development of a budget tool by a public funding agency

How many sites should an orthopedic trauma prospective multicenter trial have? A marginal analysis of the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium completed trials

BACKGROUND

Multicenter trials in orthopedic trauma are costly, yet crucial to advance the science behind clinical care. The number of sites is a key cost determinant. Each site has a fixed overhead cost, so more sites cost more to the study. However, more sites can reduce total costs by shortening the study duration. We propose to determine the optimal number of sites based on known costs and predictable site enrollment.

METHODS

This retrospective marginal analysis utilized administrative and financial data from 12 trials completed by the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium. The studies varied in size, design, and clinical focus. Enrollment across the studies ranged from 1054 to 33 patients. Design ranged from an observational study with light data collection to a placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Initial modeling identified the optimal number of sites for each study and sensitivity analyses determined the sensitivity of the model to variation in fixed overhead costs.

RESULTS

No study was optimized in terms of the number of participating sites. Excess sites ranged from 2 to 39. Excess costs associated with extra sites ranged from $17K to $330K with a median excess cost of $96K. Excess costs were, on average, 7% of the total study budget. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that studies with higher overhead costs require more sites to complete the study as quickly as possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support that this model may be used by clinical researchers to achieve future study goals in a more cost-effective manner.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Please see Table 1 for individual trial registration numbers and dates of registration.

Consent document translation expense hinders inclusive clinical trial enrolment

Patients from historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at disproportionately low rates in the USA1-3. As these patients often have limited English proficiency4-7, we hypothesized that one barrier to their inclusion is the cost to investigators of translating consent documents. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated more than 12,000 consent events at a large cancer centre and assessed whether patients requiring translated consent documents would sign consent documents less frequently in studies lacking industry sponsorship (for which the principal investigator pays the translation costs) than for industry-sponsored studies (for which the translation costs are covered by the sponsor). Here we show that the proportion of consent events for patients with limited English proficiency in studies not sponsored by industry was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. We also show that among those signing consent documents, the proportion of consent documents translated into the patient's primary language in studies without industry sponsorship was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. The results suggest that the cost of consent document translation in trials not sponsored by industry could be a potentially modifiable barrier to the inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency.

An Economic Model for Estimating Trial Costs with an Application to Placebo Surgery Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Waste in clinical trials remains rife. We developed an economic model to predict the cost of trials based on input costs, duration, power, number of sites, recruitment eligibility and consenting rates.

METHODS

We parameterised the model for three proxy placebo-controlled surgical trials using data from a systematic review, a bespoke cost survey, and from the literature. We used the model to compare target and actual trial performance for (i) a trial that was completed on time but with more sites, (ii) a trial that completed after a time extension, and (iii) an incomplete trial.

RESULTS

Successful trials more accurately anticipated the true recruitment rate that they achieved and those that overestimated this were most likely to fail. The costs of overestimating recruitment rates were dramatic: all proxy trials had significantly higher costs than planned, with additional funding of at least AUD$600,000 (50% above budget) required for trials that completed after adding more sites or more time, and over AUD$2 million (260% above budget) for incomplete trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This model shows the trade-offs between time and cost, or both, when recruitment is lower than anticipated. Greater consideration is needed to improve trial planning, reviewing, and funding of these trials to avoid costly overruns and incomplete trials.

How to balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines in Belgium?

Background: Countries are struggling to provide affordable access to medicines while supporting the market entry of innovative, expensive products. This Perspective aims to discuss challenges and avenues for balancing health care system objectives of access, affordability and innovation related to medicines in Belgium (and in other countries). Methods: This Perspective focuses on the R&D, regulatory approval and market access phases, with particular attention to oncology medicines, precision medicines, orphan medicines, advanced therapies, repurposed medicines, generics and biosimilars. The authors conducted a narrative review of the peer-reviewed literature, of the grey literature (such as policy documents and reports of consultancy agencies), and of their own research. Results: Health care stakeholders need to consider various initiatives for balancing innovation with access to medicines, which relate to clinical and non-clinical outcomes (e.g. supporting the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials, treatment optimisation and patient preference studies, optimising the use of real-world evidence in market access decision making), value assessment (e.g. increasing the transparency of the reimbursement system and criteria, tailoring the design of managed entry agreements to specific types of uncertainty), affordability (e.g. harnessing the role of generics and biosimilars in encouraging price competition, maximising opportunities for personalising and repurposing medicines) and access mechanisms (e.g. promoting collaboration and early dialogue between stakeholders including patients). Conclusion: Although there is no silver bullet that can balance valuable innovation with affordable access to medicines, (Belgian) policy and decision makers should continue to explore initiatives that exploit the potential of both the on-patent and off-patent pharmaceutical markets.

Attitudes towards open-label versus placebo-control designs in oncology randomized trials: A survey of medical oncologists

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Randomized trials are considered the gold standard when assessing the efficacy of new therapeutic agents. In clinical situations where no standard of care therapy is approved, randomized trials usually compare experimental agents to either a placebo or an open-label nonintervention arm (i.e., best supportive care). We surveyed Canadian medical oncologists to understand their attitudes towards each design.

METHODS

Members of the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. Standardized case scenarios were used to determine participants' attitudes regarding the role of open-label versus placebo-controlled trials.

RESULTS

A total of 322 medical oncologists and trainees were invited to participate and 86 responded (response rate 27%). Fifty-one (59%) believed that open-label trials are an acceptable alternative to placebo-controlled design when investigating a therapeutic agent in the adjuvant setting. Thirty-eight (49%) deemed it acceptable to compare the investigational agent to an open-label arm instead of a placebo to assess progression-free survival in the metastatic setting. Twenty-eight (38%) of respondents felt that open-label design was acceptable when assessing the quality of life endpoint. Most physicians were unsure whether the US Food and Drug Administration require a placebo-controlled arm in oncology trials.

CONCLUSION

Canadian medical oncologists participating in this survey are divided in their opinions regarding the acceptability of an open-label design in randomized-controlled trials, where no standard therapy is approved. Clearer guidance from regulatory bodies on the adequacy of different trial designs is needed.

Methodological aspects of a randomized within-patient concurrent controlled design for clinical trials in spine surgery

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials are considered the highest level of evidence, but their feasibility in the surgical field is severely hampered by methodological and practical issues. Concurrent comparison between the experimental and control conditions within the same patient can be an effective strategy to mitigate some of these challenges and improve generalizability, mainly by the elimination of between-patient variability and reduction of the required sample size. This article aims (1) to describe the methodological aspects of a randomized within-patient controlled trial and (2) to quantify the added value of this design, based on a recently completed randomized within-patient controlled trial on bone grafts in instrumented lumbar posterolateral spinal fusion.

METHODS

Boundary conditions for the application of the randomized within-patient controlled trial design were identified. Between-patient variability was quantified by the intraclass correlation coefficient and concordance in the primary fusion outcome. Sample size, study duration and costs were compared with a classic randomized controlled trial design.

RESULTS

Boundary conditions include the concurrent application of the experimental and control conditions to identical but physically separated sites. Moreover, the outcome of interest should be local, uncorrelated and independently assessable. The spinal fusion outcomes within a patient were found to be more similar than between different patients (intraclass correlation coefficient 32% and concordance 64%), demonstrating a clear effect of patient-related factors. The randomized within-patient controlled trial design allowed a reduction of the sample size to one-third of a parallel-group randomized controlled trial, thereby halving the trial duration and costs.

CONCLUSION

When suitable, the randomized within-patient controlled trial is an efficient design that provides a solution to some of the considerable challenges of a classic randomized controlled trial in (spine) surgery. This design holds specific promise for efficacy studies of non-active bone grafts in instrumented posterolateral fusion surgery.

Investigational medicinal products, related costs and hospital pharmacy services for investigator-initiated trials: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Conducting high quality investigator-initiated trials (IITs) is challenging and costly. The costs of investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in IITs and the role of hospital pharmacies in the planning of IITs are unclear. We conducted a mixed-methods study to compare planned and actual costs of IMPs in Swiss IITs, to examine potential reasons for differences, and to gather stakeholder views about hospital services for IITs.

METHODS

We included all IITs with IMP services from the Basel hospital pharmacy invoiced between January 2014 and June 2020 (n = 24). We documented trial and IMP characteristics including planned and actual IMP costs. Our working definition for a substantial cost difference was that the actual IMP costs were more than 10% higher than the planned IMP costs in a trial. We conducted semi-structured interviews with investigators, clinical trials unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and qualitatively analyzed transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

For 13 IITs we observed no differences between planned and actual costs of IMPs (median, 11'000 US$; interquartile range [IQR], 8'882-16'302 US$), but for 11 IITs we found cost increases from a median of 11'000 US$ (IQR, 8'922-36'166 US$) to a median over 28'000 US$ (IQR, 13'004-49'777 US$). All multicenter trials and 10 of 11 IITs with patients experienced substantial cost differences. From the interviews we identified four main themes: 1) Patient recruitment and organizational problems were identified as main reasons for cost differences, 2) higher actual IMP costs were bearable for most investigators, 3) IMP services for IITs were not a priority for the hospital pharmacy, and 4) closer collaboration between clinical trial unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and sufficient staff for IITs at the hospital pharmacy could improve IMP services.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicenter IITs enrolling patients are particularly at risk for higher IMP costs than planned. These trials are more difficult to plan and logistically challenging, which leads to delays and expiring IMP shelf-lives. IMP services of hospital pharmacies are important for IITs in Switzerland, but need to be further developed.

Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project

BACKGROUND

Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials.

METHODS

We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences.

RESULTS

Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had.

CONCLUSIONS

This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials.

Exploring new uses for existing drugs: innovative mechanisms to fund independent clinical research

BACKGROUND

Finding new therapeutic uses for existing medicines could lead to safe, affordable and timely new treatment options for patients with high medical needs. However, due to a lack of economic incentives, pharmaceutical developers are rarely interested to invest in research with approved medicines, especially when they are out of basic patent or regulatory protection. Consequently, potential new uses for these medicines are mainly studied in independent clinical trials initiated and led by researchers from academia, research institutes, or collaborative groups. Yet, additional financial support is needed to conduct expensive phase III clinical trials to confirm the results from exploratory research.

METHODS

In this study, scientific and grey literature was searched to identify and evaluate new mechanisms for funding clinical trials with repurposed medicines. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 European stakeholders with expertise in clinical research, funding mechanisms and/or drug repurposing between November 2018 and February 2019 to consider the future perspectives of applying new funding mechanisms.

RESULTS

Traditional grant funding awarded by government and philanthropic organisations or companies is well known and widely implemented in all research fields. In contrast, only little research has focused on the application potential of newer mechanisms to fund independent clinical research, such as social impact bonds, crowdfunding or public-private partnerships. Interviewees stated that there is a substantial need for additional financial support in health research, especially in areas where there is limited commercial interest. However, the implementation of new funding mechanisms is facing several practical and financial challenges, such as a lack of expertise and guidelines, high transaction costs and difficulties to measure health outcomes. Furthermore, interviewees highlighted the need for increased collaboration and centralisation at a European and international level to make clinical research more efficient and reduce the need for additional funding.

CONCLUSIONS

New funding mechanisms to support clinical research may become more important in the future but the unresolved issues identified in the current study warrant further exploration.

Time in Range as a Research Outcome Measure

Time in range (TIR) is gaining ground as an outcome measure in type 1 diabetes trials. However, inclusion of TIR raises several issues for trial design. In this article, the authors begin by defining TIR and describing the current international consensus around TIR targets. They then expand on evidence for the validity of TIR as a primary clinical trial outcome before concluding with some practical, ethical, and logistical implications.

Cost-efficient clinical studies with continuous time survival outcomes

Time-to-event outcomes are common in clinical studies. For example, the time to a first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE, defined as CVD death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke) is a commonly used outcome in cardiovascular outcome trials. Owing to the lengthy time frame and other factors, the high costs of conducting such studies has been identified as one of the major obstacles in conducting clinical trials in the United States. However, typical approaches for designing clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes do not consider study costs. For a given effect size (eg, hazard ratio), the power to detect differences between two groups is typically a function of the total number of events observed in the study. Therefore, the same level of power will be achieved based on various combinations of the total number of participants, length of enrollment and total follow-up times, and group allocation probability. Herein, we provide a general framework for designing cost-efficient studies comparing treatments with respect to continuous time-to-event outcomes. Among the various designs that achieve the desired level of power to detect a given effect size for a fixed type-I error level, the optimal cost-efficient design is the design that minimizes the expected total study cost. The method is general and can be used for Cox proportional hazards models or Aalen additive models, and under various recruitment and censoring assumptions. The proposed approach for designing cost-efficient studies is illustrated for a Weibull time-to-event outcome with uniform recruitment and exponentially distributed censoring time. The case of an additive hazards model is also described. A Shiny web application implementation of the proposed methods is presented.

The Current Status of European and National Financial Sources for Clinical Research and Their Impact on Paediatric Non-commercial Clinical Trials: A Case Study of the Czech Republic

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric non-commercial interventional clinical trials (NICTs) are crucial for healthcare provision. In spite of the fact that current regulations and initiatives try to enhance the quantity and quality of paediatric NICTs, there are still shortcomings that need to be addressed in order to accelerate the conduct of relevant clinical trials in children. To improve the current landscape of paediatric clinical research, it is necessary to identify and analyse the main trends and shortcomings, along with their impact on national performance in paediatric NICTs and this is the aim of this work.

METHOD

A retrospective systematic search of paediatric NICTs was performed on four international clinical trials registries. Entries were filtered by date from 01/01/2004 to 31/12/2017. Each identified paediatric NICT was screened and analysed for sponsors, funders, type of intervention, therapeutic area, design characteristics and associated publications.

RESULTS

The search identified 439 unique NICTs. When stratifying the trials by enrolment ages, 86 trials were found involving the paediatric population. Most trials investigated the use of medicinal products and were focused on cancer or cardiovascular diseases. The most common sources of the funding were non-profit organizations. Furthermore, from the total number of completed trials, only half of them already published their results.

CONCLUSION

The main shortcomings-specifically, ethical, methodological and, in particular, economic obstacles were identified. There is a continual need for greater support and collaboration between all major stakeholders including health policymakers, grant agencies, research institutions, pharmaceutical industries and healthcare providers at the national and international level.

Closing the cycle of innovation in healthcare in Europe

Pragmatic or practice-oriented comparative effectiveness trials may be conducted to fill the evidence gaps that are revealed after the private sector has performed the trials needed for bringing their product to the market. A tool of increasing importance to identify such evidence gaps is resulting from health technology assessments (HTA) whereby the data derived from clinical research are examined in a systematic manner with reference to effect, safety, as well as additional parameters. Practice-oriented trials are informative for healthcare decision makers, practice-changing and may even be cost-saving for the healthcare payers. There are however only a limited number of funding sources for such trials. Public and private healthcare payers should stimulate the conduct of practice-oriented trials in their effort to maximize patient benefit within the limitation of the available resources. Pragmatic randomized trials can be performed at low cost when based on existing coded electronic health records and as well health registries. Public health decision makers are increasingly taking advantage of results from health technology assessments to support priority setting. In accordance with this it would appear reasonable that decision makers should get more involved in priority setting and funding also in the field of clinical research in order to provide further evidence needed for assessments, reassessments, and subsequent qualified decisions and resource allocations in health care. A closer dialogue and collaboration between the clinical research and HTA communities would facilitate a more efficient utilization of such opportunities.