Cost effectiveness analysis of clinically driven versus routine laboratory monitoring of antiretroviral therapy in Uganda and Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: Despite funding constraints for treatment programmes in Africa, the costs and economic consequences of routine laboratory monitoring for efficacy and toxicity of antiretroviral therapy (ART) have rarely been evaluated. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the DART trial (ISRCTN13968779). Adults in Uganda/Zimbabwe starting ART were randomised to clinically-driven monitoring (CDM) or laboratory and clinical monitoring (LCM); individual patient data on healthcare resource utilisation and outcomes were valued with primary economic costs and utilities. Total costs of first/second-line ART, routine 12-weekly CD4 and biochemistry/haematology tests, additional diagnostic investigations, clinic visits, concomitant medications and hospitalisations were considered from the public healthcare sector perspective. A Markov model was used to extrapolate costs and benefits 20 years beyond the trial. RESULTS: 3316 (1660LCM;1656CDM) symptomatic, immunosuppressed ART-naive adults (median (IQR) age 37 (32,42); CD4 86 (31,139) cells/mm(3)) were followed for median 4.9 years. LCM had a mean 0.112 year (41 days) survival benefit at an additional mean cost of $765 [95%CI:685,845], translating into an adjusted incremental cost of $7386 [3277,dominated] per life-year gained and $7793 [4442,39179] per quality-adjusted life year gained. Routine toxicity tests were prominent cost-drivers and had no benefit. With 12-weekly CD4 monitoring from year 2 on ART, low-cost second-line ART, but without toxicity monitoring, CD4 test costs need to fall below $3.78 to become cost-effective (<3xper-capita GDP, following WHO benchmarks). CD4 monitoring at current costs as undertaken in DART was not cost-effective in the long-term. CONCLUSIONS: There is no rationale for routine toxicity monitoring, which did not affect outcomes and was costly. Even though beneficial, there is little justification for routine 12-weekly CD4 monitoring of ART at current test costs in low-income African countries. CD4 monitoring, restricted to the second year on ART onwards, could be cost-effective with lower cost second-line therapy and development of a cheaper, ideally point-of-care, CD4 test.

Regulatory impediments jeopardizing the conduct of clinical trials in Europe funded by the National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND: A number of reports have highlighted problems of conducting publicly funded trials in Europe as a consequence of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive. The impact of the EU Directive on multi-national trials, which include sites in Europe that are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have not been described. METHODS: Four problems in the conduct of two international HIV treatment trials funded by NIH in the EU are described: (1) conflicting regulations on the continuing review of protocols by Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees; (2) US regulations requiring Federalwide Assurances for sites which are only partially funded by NIH; (3) EU guidance on the designation of studies as a trial of an investigational medicinal product; and (4) EU guidance on trial sponsorship and the requirements for insurance and indemnification. Following the description of the problems, recommendations for improving global collaborations are made to the US Office of Human Research Protections, to NIH, and to the EU and its Member States. RESULTS: A lack of harmonization of regulations at multiple levels caused enrollment in one study to be interrupted for several months and delayed for one year the initiation of another study aimed at obtaining definitive evidence to guide the timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for individuals infected with HIV. The delays and the purchase of insurance resulted in substantial increases in trial costs and caused substantial disruption at clinical sites among staff and study participants. LIMITATIONS: The problems cited and recommendations made pertain to trials funded by NIH and conducted by sites in the EU. There are many other challenges in the conduct of international research, public and private, that global harmonization would alleviate. CONCLUSIONS: Disharmony, at multiple levels, in international regulations and guidelines is stifling publicly funded global research. International scientific organizations and government groups should make the documentation and solution of these problems a priority.

Data monitoring in randomized controlled trials: surveys of recent practice and policies.

BACKGROUND: Data Monitoring Committees (DMCs) are increasingly involved in the conduct of randomized controlled trials, but there is little documented evidence of what they do. Three interlinked surveys were carried out as part of the DAMOCLES project to explore recent and current DMC practice and policy. METHODS: 1) A questionnaire about DMC practice was sent to sample of 45 authors of trials published in selected journals in 2000. The sample was stratified by centre (single/multiple), disease area, and presence of DMC. 2) A sample of investigators in trials ongoing in the United Kingdom in 2001-02 was also sent a questionnaire about DMC practice. The sample was drawn from trials funded by the Medical Research Council, the United Kingdom Department of Health's Health Technology Assessment Programme, and a local and a multicentre research ethics committee. The sample was additionally stratified by funder (public/industry), centre (single/ multiple), and disease area. 3) A sample of major organisations involved in randomised controlled trials was sent a questionnaire about DMC policies. RESULTS: Information about DMC practice from the first survey was obtained from 31 trials (69%), of which four had a DMC. Information about DMC practice from the second survey was obtained about 36 trials (90%), of which 20 had a DMC. Information about DMC policy from the third survey was obtained from 25 out of 25 organisations. There was general agreement about the sorts of trials particularly needing independent DMCs, but there were few uniform approaches to their modes of functioning, and few of the organisations surveyed had developed formal policies. CONCLUSIONS: The roles of existing DMCs and policies governing DMC functioning vary widely across trials and organisations that sponsor or oversee trials, both within the UK and internationally. These findings reinforce previous calls for development of such policies across a wider range of organisations, better means to monitor their implementation within trials, and wider use of structured "charters", which set out DMC modus operandi in advance. Clinical Trials 2005; 2: 22-33. www.SCTjournal.com

The evaluation of subcutaneous proleukin (interleukin-2) in a randomized international trial: rationale, design, and methods of ESPRIT.

The Evaluation of Subcutaneous Proleukin in a Randomized International Trial (ESPRIT) is a large ongoing randomized trial of subcutaneous interleukin-2 (IL-2) plus antiretroviral therapy versus antiretroviral therapy alone in patients with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) disease and CD4 cell counts of at least 300 cells/mm(3). The primary objective is to determine whether the addition of IL-2 to combination antiretroviral therapy improves morbidity and mortality. The aim is to recruit 4000 participants and follow them for an average of 5 years. Eligible subjects will be recruited at 275 investigational sites in 23 countries around the world. Coupled with broad eligibility criteria this will ensure widely applicable results. A range of secondary objectives will also be addressed in this setting that will include the conduct of observational studies and nested substudies with a public health focus. This article describes the rationale supporting the trial in addition to reviewing the study design, coordination, and governance.