Non-commercial vs. commercial clinical trials: a retrospective study of the applications submitted to a research ethics committee.

There are many difficulties in undertaking independent clinical research without support from the pharmaceutical industry. In this retrospective observational study, some design characteristics, the clinical trial public register and the publication rate of noncommercial clinical trials were compared to those of commercial clinical trials. A total of 809 applications of drug-evaluation clinical trials were submitted from May 2004 to May 2009 to the research ethics committee of a tertiary hospital, and 16.3% of trials were noncommercial. They were mainly phase IV, multicentre national, and unmasked controlled trials, compared to the commercial trials that were mainly phase II or III, multicentre international, and double-blind masked trials. The commercial trials were registered and published more often than noncommercial trials. More funding for noncommercial research is still needed. The results of the research, commercial or noncommercial, should be disseminated in order not to compromise either its scientific or its social value.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Additional Funding Intervention to Improve Clinical Trial Enrollment.

Background: A low proportion of adults with cancer are recruited to clinical trials. Cancer Council Victoria provides funding to clinical trial sites through its statewide Cancer Trials Management Scheme (CTMS). Historically, there appeared to be a relationship between budget-allocated funding and the number of patients recruited. A randomized controlled trial was conducted to test whether additional funding in 2013 would increase trial recruitment. Methods: A total of 18 trial centers ("sites") received usual CTMS funds, whereas 16 intervention sites received usual funds plus additional funds, proportional to recruitment in 2011; additional payments to sites in the intervention group ranged from $6,750 to $234,000 AUD (≈$6,750-$234,000 USD at the time). This represented an average 11.8% (interquartile range [IQR], 8.0%, 12.3%) increase in sites' budgets. Sites were required to use the funds with the aim of increasing recruitment. The study end point was the number of new participants recruited to trials in 2013. An online survey assessed strategies used to increase recruitment. Results: The median number of new trial recruits per site in 2013 was 21 (IQR, 5-39) in the control arm and 12.5 (IQR, 3.5-44.5) in the intervention arm. The ratio of new trial recruitment numbers at the intervention sites compared with control sites in 2013, adjusting for respective 2012 numbers and institution type, was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.69, 1.43; P=.96). The survey revealed most intervention sites used funding to increase staffing. Conclusions: Additional funding at a site level did not lead to a contemporaneous increase in trial recruitment.

Sample size and cost analysis for pulmonary arterial hypertension drug trials using various imaging modalities to assess right ventricular size and function end points.

BACKGROUND: Placebo-controlled trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension are no longer acceptable because new therapies must show clinically significant effects on top of standard treatment. The purpose of this study was to estimate sample sizes and imaging costs for the planning of a hypothetical pulmonary arterial hypertension drug trial using imaging to detect changes in right ventricular size and function in response to combined therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Same-day cardiovascular MR (CMR) and 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D transthoracic echocardiography (2DTTE and 3DTTE) were performed in 22 patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (54±13 years of age) twice, 6 months apart. Short-axis CMR cines and full-volume 3DTTE data sets of the right ventricle were used to measure end-diastolic volume and ejection fraction. Fractional area change was obtained from 2DTTE. Sample size calculations used a 2-sample t test model incorporating differences between baseline and 6-month measurements. Cost estimates were made using the Medicare fee schedule. No significant differences were noted between baseline and follow-up measurements. Large SDs reflected variable progression of disease in individual patients on standard therapy and measurement variability. These sources of variability resulted in intertechnique differences in sample sizes: to detect a change of 5% to 15% in 3DTTE-derived right ventricular ejection fraction and fractional area change or change of 15 to 30 mL in 3DTTE right ventricular end-diastolic volume; sample sizes were 2× to 2.5× those required by CMR. As a result, the total cost of a trial using complete TTE was greater than CMR, which was greater than limited TTE. CONCLUSIONS: Because of lower measurement variability, CMR is more cost saving in pulmonary arterial hypertension drug trials than echocardiography, unless limited TTE is used.

Private manufacturers' thresholds to invest in comparative effectiveness trials.

The recent rush of enthusiasm for public investment in comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the US has focussed attention on these public investments. However, little attention has been given to how changing public investment in CER may affect private manufacturers' incentives for CER, which has long been a major source of CER. In this work, based on a simple revenue maximizing economic framework, we generate predictions on thresholds to invest in CER for a private manufacturer that compares its own product to a competitor's product in head-to-head trials. Our analysis shows that private incentives to invest in CER are determined by how the results of CER may affect the price and quantity of the product sold and the duration over which resulting changes in revenue would accrue, given the time required to complete CER and the time from the completion of CER to the time of patent expiration. We highlight the result that private incentives may often be less than public incentives to invest in CER and may even be negative if the likelihood of adverse findings is sufficient. We find that these incentives imply a number of predictions about patterns of CER and how they will be affected by changes in public financing of CER and CER methods. For example, these incentives imply that incumbent patent holders may be less likely to invest in CER than entrants and that public investments in CER may crowd out similar private investments. In contrast, newer designs and methods for CER, such as Bayesian adaptive trials, which can reduce ex post risk of unfavourable results and shorten the time for the production of CER, may increase the expected benefits of CER and may tend to increase private investment in CER as long as the costs of such innovative designs are not excessive. Bayesian approaches to design also naturally highlight the dynamic aspects of CER, allowing less expensive initial studies to guide decisions about future investments and thereby encouraging greater initial investments in CER. However, whether the potential effects we highlight of public funding of CER and of Bayesian approaches to trial design actually produce changes in private investment in CER remains an empirical question.

Head to head comparisons as an alternative to placebo-controlled trials.

Head to head trials have been proposed as an alternative to the ethical and methodological concerns related to placebo-controlled trials. While those studies may be particularly informative from the clinical and cost-effectiveness point-of-view, avoiding placebo poses several regulatory concerns: for superiority designs, the choice of the trial population, outcomes, dose and escalation of the comparator, as well as the comparator itself may be an issue; for non-inferiority studies, issues related to uncertain assay sensitivity and exposure of large samples to potentially ineffective or unsafe drugs make them inappropriate, in the absence of a previous positive superiority trial, for regulatory purposes. The inclusion of active comparators in regulatory trials should not be seen as an alternative, but as a useful complement to the information that can be obtained from placebo-controlled studies.

Rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix™): a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis in developing countries.

This article provides an overview of the clinical profile of rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 (Rotarix™) in the prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) in developing countries, followed by a comprehensive review of pharmacoeconomic analyses with the vaccine in low- and middle-income countries. RVGE is associated with significant morbidity and mortality among children <5 years of age in developing countries. The protective efficacy of a two-dose oral series of rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 has been demonstrated in several well designed clinical trials conducted in developing countries, and the 'real-world' effectiveness of the vaccine has also been shown in naturalistic and case-control trials after the introduction of universal vaccination programmes with RIX4414 in Latin American countries. The WHO recommends universal rotavirus vaccination programmes for all countries. Numerous modelled cost-effectiveness analyses have been conducted with rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 across a wide range of low- and middle-income countries. Although data sources and assumptions varied across studies, results of the analyses consistently showed that the introduction of the vaccine as part of a national vaccination programme would be very (or highly) cost effective compared with no rotavirus vaccination programme, according to widely used cost-effectiveness thresholds for developing countries. Vaccine price was not known at the time the analyses were conducted and had to be estimated. In sensitivity analyses, rotavirus vaccine RIX4414 generally remained cost effective at the highest of a range of possible vaccine prices considered. Despite these favourable results, decisions regarding the implementation of universal vaccination programmes with RIX4414 may also be contingent on budgetary and other factors, underscoring the importance of subsidized vaccination programmes for poor countries through the GAVI Alliance (formerly the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization).

Are head-to-head trials of biologics needed? The role of value of information methods in arthritis research.

Reimbursement decisions are typically based on cost-effectiveness analyses. While a cost-effectiveness analysis can identify the optimum strategy, there is usually some degree of uncertainty around this decision. Sources of uncertainty include statistical sampling error in treatment efficacy measures, underlying baseline risk, utility measures and costs, as well as uncertainty in the structure of the model. The optimal strategy is therefore only optimal on average, and a decision to adopt this strategy might still be the wrong decision if all uncertainty could be eliminated. This means that there is a quantifiable expected (average) loss attaching to decisions made under uncertainty, and hence a value in collecting information to reduce that uncertainty. Value of information (VOI) analyses can be used to provide guidance on whether more research would be cost-effective, which particular model inputs (parameters) have the most bearing on decision uncertainty, and can also help with the design and sample size of further research. Here, we introduce the key concepts in VOI analyses, and highlight the inputs required to calculate it. The adoption of the new biologic treatments for RA and PsA tends to be based on placebo-controlled trials. We discuss the possible role of VOI analyses in deciding whether head-to-head comparisons of the biologic therapies should be carried out, illustrating with examples from other fields. We emphasize the need for a model of the natural history of RA and PsA, which reflects a consensus view.

A placebo arm is not always necessary in clinical trials of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Riluzole is currently the only approved medication for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). While other potential neuroprotective agents have been tested in clinical trials, none has been effective, and few symptomatic treatments have been studied. Randomized placebo-controlled trials are necessary to establish the effectiveness of a drug, but an increasing number of potential therapies combined with limited resources means that only a few drugs at a time can be tested for efficacy in ALS. Therefore, priority must be given to agents that show an advantage in early phase trials before proceeding to Phase III efficacy trials. New strategies are being used to screen different agents, along with their correct dose, in a variety of neurological illnesses, including ALS. Early phase trial designs conducted without a placebo arm improve efficiency, reduce cost, and appeal to patients. Dose-ranging, futility, and selection trials are examples of Phase I and II trial designs that can be conducted without placebo groups.

Disciplined analyses in clinical trials: the dark heart of the matter.

Clinical research analyses must balance the desire to ;learn all that is learnable' from the database with the observation that sample-based data commonly lead to conclusions that are perfectly correct for the sample, but wholly incorrect for the population from which the data were based. Investigators who defend exploratory analyses as reliable, misuse important tools that have taken over three hundred years to develop. Statistical estimators in clinical trials function appropriately when they incorporate random data that is gathered in response to a fixed research question. Their prediction ability degrades rapidly when the selection of the research question is itself random, that is, left to the data. Operating like blind guides, these estimators mislead the medical community about what it would see in the population, based on sample observations. The result is a wavering research focus, leaping from one provocative but misleading finding to the next on the powerful waves of sampling error. Therefore, a primary purpose of the prospective design is to fix the research questions prospectively, thereby anchoring the analysis plan. Prospective statements of the research questions and rejection of tempting databased changes to the protocol preserve the best estimates of effect sizes, standard errors, confidence intervals and p-values. Embracing these principles promotes the prosecution of a successful research program, that is, the construction and protection of a research environment that permits an objective assessment of the therapy or exposure being studied. If there is any fixed star in the research constellation, it is that sample-based research must be hypothesis-driven and concordantly executed to have real meaning for both the scientific community and the patient populations that we serve.

An illustration of the modelling of cost and efficacy data from a clinical trial.

Health care providers, purchasers and policy makers need to make informed decisions regarding the provision of cost-effective care. When a new health care intervention is to be compared with the current standard, an economic evaluation alongside an evaluation of health benefits provides useful information for the decision making process. We consider the information on cost-effectiveness which arises from an individual clinical trial comparing the two interventions. Recent methods for conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis for a clinical trial have focused on the net benefit parameter. The net benefit parameter, a function of costs and health benefits, is positive if the new intervention is cost-effective compared with the standard. In this paper we describe frequentist and Bayesian approaches to cost-effectiveness analysis which have been suggested in the literature and apply them to data from a clinical trial comparing laparoscopic surgery with open mesh surgery for the repair of inguinal hernias. We extend the Bayesian model to allow the total cost to be divided into a number of different components. The advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches are discussed. In January 2001, NICE issued guidance on the type of surgery to be used for inguinal hernia repair. We discuss our example in the light of this information.

Ethical assessment of industry-sponsored clinical trials: a case analysis.

The rapid growth of clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry and conducted by community physicians raises concerns about the scientific quality of this research and the adequacy of protections for research participants. In this article, we present an in-depth ethical analysis of a recent industry-sponsored placebo-controlled study for treatment of asthma. The ethical analysis uses a proposed ethical framework for evaluating clinical research focusing on seven ethical requirements: (1) scientific value, (2) scientific validity, (3) fair subject selection, (4) favorable risk/benefit ratio, (5) independent review, (6) informed consent, and (7) respect for enrolled subjects.

Ethical, social and legal implications of pharmacogenomics: a critical review.

OBJECTIVE: My aim was to examine the ethical, social and legal implications of pharmacogenomics. METHODS: I performed a critical review of the literature. The primary focal point is the bioethical principle discussed. The second outcome measure is the perspective of the discussion. RESULTS: This review documents that the pharmacogenomics issues of concern are comparable to issues concerning other genetic developments in general. However, two main issues are particular to the case of pharmacogenomics. Firstly, this review reveals that society, industry, groups and individuals appreciate the prospect of pharmacogenomics very differently. Secondly, there is a lack of research into the post-marketing implications of pharmacogenomics. CONCLUSION: An extensive focus on the ethical, social and legal implications of pharmacogenomics, in terms of both pre- as well as post-marketing issues, is essential. Also, a multidisciplinary approach which includes individual and group opinions in an upfront manner in the research and development process is essential. Otherwise, there is a substantial risk that the positive prospects of pharmacogenomics will not survive due to fear and a lack of acceptance and understanding on the part of the general public.