Costs of vasospasm in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of vasospasm on costs, length of stay, and mortality among inpatients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. METHODS: We combined hospital accounting and physician billing data for a consecutive cohort of 198 patients who underwent surgical clipping or endovascular coiling for subarachnoid hemorrhage repair. We considered patients with transcranial Doppler (TCD) velocity of 120 cm/s or greater in the middle cerebral artery to have TCD-defined vasospasm and patients with delayed ischemic neurological deficit to have symptomatic vasospasm. We compared outcomes of patients with TCD-defined vasospasm (n = 116) and those without (n = 73) and patients with symptomatic vasospasm (n = 62) and those without (n = 127), adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, the incremental cost attributable to TCD-defined vasospasm was 1.20 times higher (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.36; P = .004) than for patients without TCD-defined vasospasm. Length of stay was an estimated 1.22 times longer for patients with TCD-defined vasospasm (95% CI, 1.07-1.39; P < .01). For symptomatic vasospasm, adjusted costs were 1.27 times higher (95% CI, 1.12-1.43; P < .001) and length of stay was an estimated 1.24 times longer (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P < .01) for patients with vasospasm than for those without. There was no significant relationship between either type of vasospasm and in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage and TCD-defined or symptomatic vasospasm incur higher inpatient costs and longer hospital stays than those without vasospasm.

Effects of disclosing financial interests on participation in medical research: a randomized vignette trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effects of investigators' financial disclosures on potential research participants. METHODS: We conducted a vignette trial in which 470 participants in a telephone survey were randomly assigned to receive a simulated informed consent document that contained 1 of 2 financial disclosures (per capita payments to the research institution or equity ownership by the investigator) or no disclosure. The main outcome measures were trust in medical research and willingness to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial. RESULTS: Participants in the equity group reported less willingness to participate than participants in the per capita payments group (P = .01) and the no disclosure group (P = .03). Trust in the investigator was highest in the per capita payments group and lowest in the equity group (P < .001). Trust among participants who received no disclosure was also greater than trust among participants in the equity group (P = .04) but did not differ significantly from trust among participants in the per capita payments group (P = .15). Participants in the equity group made 3 times as many negative comments as participants in the per capita payments group; and 10 participants in the equity group spontaneously said they would not participate in the hypothetical trial because of the financial interest, compared with only 1 such participant from the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although investigators' financial disclosures in research do not substantially affect willingness to participate, potential research participants are more troubled by equity interests than by per capita payments.

Effects of disclosing financial interests on attitudes toward clinical research.

BACKGROUND: The effects of disclosing financial interests to potential research participants are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of financial interest disclosures on potential research participants' attitudes toward clinical research. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Computerized experiment conducted with 3,623 adults in the United States with either diabetes mellitus or asthma, grouped by lesser and greater severity. Respondents read a description of a hypothetical clinical trial relevant to their diagnosis that included a financial disclosure statement. Respondents received 1 of 5 disclosure statements. MEASUREMENTS: Willingness to participate in the hypothetical clinical trial, relative importance of information about the financial interest, change in trust after reading the disclosure statement, surprise regarding the financial interest, and perceived effect of the financial interest on the quality of the clinical trial. RESULTS: Willingness to participate in the hypothetical clinical trial did not differ substantially among the types of financial disclosures. Respondents viewed the disclosed information as less important than other factors in deciding to participate. Disclosures were associated with some respondents trusting the researchers less, although trust among some respondents increased. Most respondents were not surprised to learn of financial interests. Researchers owning equity were viewed as more troubling than researchers who were compensated for the costs of research through per capita payments. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from a researcher holding an equity interest, the disclosure to potential research participants of financial interests in research, as recommended in recent policies, is unlikely to affect willingness to participate in research.

Does reimportation reduce price differences for prescription drugs? Lessons from the European Union.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of parallel trade on patterns of price dispersion for prescription drugs in the European Union. DATA SOURCES: Longitudinal data from an IMS Midas database of prices and units sold for drugs in 36 categories in 30 countries from 1993 through 2004. STUDY DESIGN: The main outcome measures were mean price differentials and other measures of price dispersion within European Union countries compared with within non-European Union countries. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified drugs subject to parallel trade using information provided by IMS and by checking membership lists of parallel import trade associations and lists of approved parallel imports. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Parallel trade was not associated with substantial reductions in price dispersion in European Union countries. In descriptive and regression analyses, about half of the price differentials exceeded 50 percent in both European Union and non-European Union countries over time, and price distributions among European Union countries did not show a dramatic change concurrent with the adoption of parallel trade. In regression analysis, we found that although price differentials decreased after 1995 in most countries, they decreased less in the European Union than elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Parallel trade for prescription drugs does not automatically reduce international price differences. Future research should explore how other regulatory schemes might lead to different results elsewhere.

Perspectives of clinical research coordinators on disclosing financial conflicts of interest to potential research participants.

BACKGROUND: Disclosing financial interests to potential research participants during the informed consent process is one strategy for managing conflicts of interest. Given that clinical research coordinators are typically charged with administering the informed consent process, it is critical to understand their experiences, attitudes and beliefs regarding the disclosure of financial interests in research. PURPOSE: To understand the role of clinical research coordinators in disclosing financial interests in research, and potential barriers to such disclosures. METHODS: We developed a survey designed to measure clinical research coordinators' awareness of financial interests in clinical research, previous experience with disclosing financial interests, comfort with answering questions about financial interests and barriers to disclosing financial interests to potential research participants. Next we conducted cognitive interviews with 10 clinical research coordinators to assess understandability and content validity and to further refine the survey. We then administered the survey to clinical research coordinators attending the 2006 Global Conference of the Association of Clinical Research Professionals. RESULTS: Among 300 clinical research coordinators who completed the survey, there was a general awareness of financial interests in research. Forty-one percent reported disclosing such financial interests to potential research participants, and 28% reported being asked about them. Greater comfort in responding to questions about financial interests was associated with previous experience with disclosure, previous experience answering questions about financial interests, and greater length of time obtaining informed consent. Respondents indicated that there were barriers to disclosure, including lack of information (76%) and that participants would not understand disclosures (26%). LIMITATIONS: Possible sample bias due to using a convenience sample. CONCLUSIONS: Making information about financial interests in research readily available to clinical research coordinators, as well as providing education and training, should facilitate the disclosure of financial interests in research to potential research participants during the informed consent process.

Disclosing conflicts of interest in clinical research: views of institutional review boards, conflict of interest committees, and investigators.

Strategies for disclosing investigators' financial interests to potential research participants have been adopted by many research institutions. However, little is known about how decisions are made regarding disclosures of financial interests to potential research participants, including what is disclosed and the rationale for making these determinations. We sought to understand the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of institutional review board chairs, conflict of interest committee chairs, and investigators regarding disclosure of financial interests to potential research participants. Several themes emerged, including general attitudes toward conflicts of interest, circumstances in which financial interests should be disclosed, rationales and benefits of disclosure, what should be disclosed, negative effects of and barriers to disclosure, and timing and presentation of disclosure. Respondents cited several rationales for disclosure, including enabling informed decision making, promoting trust in researchers and research institutions, and reducing legal liability. There was general agreement that disclosure should happen early in the consent process. Respondents disagreed about whether to disclose the amounts of particular financial interests. Clarifying the goals of disclosure and understanding how potential research participants use the information will be critical in efforts to ensure the integrity of clinical research and to protect the rights and interests of participants.

Views of potential research participants on financial conflicts of interest: barriers and opportunities for effective disclosure.

BACKGROUND: There is little guidance regarding how to disclose researchers' financial interests to potential research participants. OBJECTIVE: To determine what potential research participants want to know about financial interests, their capacity to understand disclosed information and its implications, and the reactions of potential research participants to a proposed disclosure statement. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen focus groups in 3 cities, including 6 groups of healthy adults, 6 groups of adults with mild chronic illness, 1 group of parents of healthy children, 1 group of parents of children with leukemia or brain tumor, 1 group of adults with heart failure, and 1 group of adults with cancer. APPROACH: Focus group discussions covered a range of topics including financial relationships in clinical research, whether people should be told about them, and how they should be told. Audio-recordings of focus groups were transcribed, verified, and coded for analysis. RESULTS: Participants wanted to know about financial interests, whether or not those interests would affect their participation. However, they varied in their desire and ability to understand the nature and implications of financial interests. Whether disclosure was deemed important depended upon the risk of the research. Trust in clinicians was also related to views regarding disclosure. If given the opportunity to ask questions during the consent process, some participants would not have known what to ask; however, after the focus group sessions, participants could identify information they would want to know. CONCLUSIONS: Financial interests are important to potential research participants, but obstacles to effective disclosure exist.

Policies of academic medical centers for disclosing financial conflicts of interest to potential research participants.

PURPOSE: To document the current state of institutional review board (IRB) and conflict of interest committee policies regarding disclosures of financial conflicts of interest to potential research participants, and to use this information to identify and share models for effectively achieving disclosure. METHOD: The authors identified the 123 U.S. academic medical centers that have IRBs and sought their IRB and institutional policies regarding financial conflicts of interest. In February and March 2004, using manual and key word searches, each institution's Web site was searched to identify documents containing information regarding the disclosure of financial conflicts of interest. Letters were sent to 24 institutions that had either no information or incomplete information posted on their Web sites. To assess institutions' guidelines for disclosure, the authors extracted and content coded each institution's information on disclosure. RESULTS: Relevant information was obtained from 120 (98%) academic medical centers (AMCs), of which 57 (48%) mentioned disclosing financial conflicts to potential research participants. Of these 57, 33 (58%) included verbatim language that could be used in informed consent documents. AMCs' recommendations and requirements for disclosure included details of the financial arrangement, administrative management of conflicts of interest, and encouragement of dialogue between the investigator and the potential research participant. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variability exists concerning the specific information that should be disclosed. Most of the AMCs' policies were consistent with the goal of protection from legal liability. Significant questions remain, however, concerning the goals of disclosure and the most effective methods for achieving those goals.

Comparison of conflict of interest policies and reported practices in academic medical centers in the United States.

The authors reviewed the conflict of interest policies of 9 academic medical centers in the United States and interviewed members of the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Conflict of Interest Committees (COICs) at those institutions. They found that many institutions used processes for reporting and managing conflicts of interest that were more decentralized than the processes described in their policies. Also, most institutions had no clear and comprehensive policy to guide investigators regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest to potential research participants. Considerable differences in understanding of conflict of interest policies were observed between IRB and COIC officials.

Implications of pharmacogenomics for drug development and clinical practice.

Pharmacogenomics is likely to be among the first clinical applications of the Human Genome Project and is certain to have an enormous impact on the clinical practice of medicine. Herein, we discuss the potential implications of pharmacogenomics on the drug development process, including drug safety, productivity, market segmentation, market expansion, differentiation, and personalized health care. We also review 3 challenges facing the translation of pharmacogenomics into clinical practice: dependence on information technology, limited health care financing, and the scientific uncertainty surrounding validation of specific applications of the technology. To our knowledge, there is currently no formal agenda to promote and cultivate innovation, to develop progressive information technology, or to obtain the financing that would be required to advance the use of pharmacogenomic technologies in patient care. Although the potential of these technologies is driving change in the development of clinical sciences, it remains to be seen which health care systems level needs will be addressed.

Resource use, costs, and quality of life among patients in the multinational Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (VALIANT).

BACKGROUND: In a multinational clinical trial, valsartan was statistically not inferior to captopril in reducing mortality and cardiovascular morbidity after myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with signs of heart failure and/or left ventricular dysfunction. We conducted a prospective economic evaluation to compare within-trial resource use, costs, and quality of life in patients receiving valsartan, captopril, or both after MI. METHODS: We assigned country-specific unit costs to resource use data for 14703 patients and measured health-related quality of life in a subset of 4524 patients. We used the nonparametric bootstrap method to compare rates of resource use and costs, and a piecewise linear mixed-effects regression analysis to compare longitudinal measures of quality of life. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in rates of resource use between the valsartan and captopril groups. During an average follow-up of 2 years, total costs for patients receiving valsartan were significantly higher than for patients receiving captopril (USD 14103 vs USD 13038; 95% CI USD 369-USD 1875). The cost differential was caused primarily by the cost of the study medications (USD 1056 for valsartan vs USD 165 for captopril; 95% CI USD 867 to USD 912). Quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: For most patients at high risk after MI, the availability of generic captopril confers a cost advantage over valsartan because of lower medication costs. The difference will be smaller or nonexistent in settings where brand-name ACE inhibitors are prescribed.

States' allocations of funds from the tobacco master settlement agreement.

This study assesses six states' allocation decisions for funds from tobacco settlement agreements, using information from newspaper articles and other public sources. State allocation decisions were diverse; substantial shares were allocated to areas other than tobacco control and health, including capital projects and budget shortfalls. The allocations did not reflect the stated goals of the lawsuits leading to the settlements. This outcome reflects a lack of strong advocacy from public health interest groups, an unreliable public constituency for tobacco control, and inconsistent support from state executive and legislative branches, all combined with sizable budget deficits that provided competing uses for settlement funds.