Explore the vast range of titles available.

Nonrandomized observational analyses have been promoted as alternatives to randomized clinical trials. However, randomization ensures balance between groups, whereas nonrandomized studies are often biased by between-group differences. Efforts to reduce the cost and complexity of clinical trials are preferable to relying on observational studies.

BackgroundSubstantial amounts of public funds are invested in health research worldwide. Publicly funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often recruit participants at a slower than anticipated rate. Many trials fail to reach their planned sample size within the envisaged trial timescale and trial funding envelope.ObjectivesTo review the consent, recruitment and retention rates for single and multicentre randomised control trials funded and published by the UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.Data sources and study selectionHTA reports of individually randomised single or multicentre RCTs published from the start of 2004 to the end of April 2016 were reviewed.Data extractionInformation was extracted, relating to the trial characteristics, sample size, recruitment and retention by two independent reviewers.Main outcome measuresTarget sample size and whether it was achieved; recruitment rates (number of participants recruited per centre per month) and retention rates (randomised participants retained and assessed with valid primary outcome data).ResultsThis review identified 151 individually RCTs from 787 NIHR HTA reports. The final recruitment target sample size was achieved in 56% (85/151) of the RCTs and more than 80% of the final target sample size was achieved for 79% of the RCTs (119/151). The median recruitment rate (participants per centre per month) was found to be 0.92 (IQR 0.43–2.79) and the median retention rate (proportion of participants with valid primary outcome data at follow-up) was estimated at 89% (IQR 79–97%).ConclusionsThere is considerable variation in the consent, recruitment and retention rates in publicly funded RCTs. Investigators should bear this in mind at the planning stage of their study and not be overly optimistic about their recruitment projections.

Background Randomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers. Methods We performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project. Results The following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential. Conclusions The present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area.

Objective To examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators’ financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial’s outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.Design Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Setting Studies published in “core clinical” journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.Participants Random sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.Main outcome measure Association between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.Results A total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers’ fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).Conclusions Financial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.

Abstract BACKGROUND The setting of a randomized trial can determine whether its findings are generalizable and can therefore apply to different settings. The contribution of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to neurosurgical randomized trials has not been systematically described before. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic analysis of design characteristics and methodology, funding source, and interventions studied between trials led by and/or conducted in high-income countries (HICs) vs LMICs. METHODS From January 2003 to July 2016, English-language trials with >5 patients assessing any one neurosurgical procedure against another procedure, nonsurgical treatment, or no treatment were retrieved from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Income classification for each country was assessed using the World Bank Atlas method. RESULTS A total of 73.3% of the 397 studies that met inclusion criteria were led by HICs, whereas 26.7% were led by LMICs. Of the 106 LMIC-led studies, 71 were led by China. If China is excluded, only 8.8% were led by LMICs. HIC-led trials enrolled a median of 92 patients vs a median of 65 patients in LMIC-led trials. HIC-led trials enrolled from 7.6 sites vs 1.8 sites in LMIC-led studies. Over half of LMIC-led trials were institutionally funded (54.7%). The majority of both HIC- and LMIC-led trials evaluated spinal neurosurgery, 68% and 71.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION We have established that there is a substantial disparity between HICs and LMICs in the number of published neurosurgical trials. A concerted effort to invest in research capacity building in LMICs is an essential step towards ensuring context- and resource-specific high-quality evidence is generated.

To map the current status of head-to-head comparative randomized evidence and to assess whether funding may impact on trial design and results. From a 50% random sample of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in journals indexed in PubMed during 2011, we selected the trials with ≥100 participants, evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs, biologics, and medical devices through a head-to-head comparison. We analyzed 319 trials. Overall, 238,386 of the 289,718 randomized subjects (82.3%) were included in the 182 trials funded by companies. Of the 182 industry-sponsored trials, only 23 had two industry sponsors and only three involved truly antagonistic comparisons. Industry-sponsored trials were larger, more commonly registered, used more frequently noninferiority/equivalence designs, had higher citation impact, and were more likely to have “favorable” results (superiority or noninferiority/equivalence for the experimental treatment) than nonindustry-sponsored trials. Industry funding [odds ratio (OR) 2.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6, 4.7] and noninferiority/equivalence designs (OR 3.2; 95% CI: 1.5, 6.6), but not sample size, were strongly associated with “favorable” findings. Fifty-five of the 57 (96.5%) industry-funded noninferiority/equivalence trials got desirable “favorable” results. The literature of head-to-head RCTs is dominated by the industry. Industry-sponsored comparative assessments systematically yield favorable results for the sponsors, even more so when noninferiority designs are involved.

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are costly. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of the available evidence on resource use and costs for RCTs to support budget planning. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and HealthSTAR from inception until November 30, 2016 without language restrictions. We included any publication reporting empirical data on resource use and costs of RCTs and categorized them depending on whether they reported (i) resource and costs of all aspects at all study stages of an RCT (including conception, planning, preparation, conduct, and all tasks after the last patient has completed the RCT); (ii) on several aspects, (iii) on a single aspect (e.g., recruitment); or (iv) on overall costs for RCTs. Median costs of different recruitment strategies were calculated. Other results (e.g., overall costs) were listed descriptively. All cost data were converted into USD 2017. A total of 56 articles that reported on cost or resource use of RCTs were included. None of the articles provided empirical resource use and cost data for all aspects of an entire RCT. Eight articles presented resource use and cost data on several aspects (e.g., aggregated cost data of different drug development phases, site-specific costs, selected cost components). Thirty-five articles assessed costs of one specific aspect of an RCT (i.e., 30 on recruitment; five others). The median costs per recruited patient were USD 409 (range: USD 41–6,990). Overall costs of an RCT, as provided in 16 articles, ranged from USD 43–103,254 per patient, and USD 0.2–611.5 Mio per RCT but the methodology of gathering these overall estimates remained unclear in 12 out of 16 articles (75%). The usefulness of the available empirical evidence on resource use and costs of RCTs is limited. Transparent and comprehensive resource use and cost data are urgently needed to support budget planning for RCTs and help improve sustainability.

Changes in the way health insurers pay healthcare providers may not only directly affect the insurer’s patients but may also affect patients covered by other insurers. We provide evidence of such spillovers in the context of a nationwide Medicare bundled payment reform that was implemented in some areas of the country but not in others, via random assignment. We estimate that the payment reform—which targeted traditional Medicare patients—had effects of similar magnitude on the healthcare experience of nontargeted, privately insured Medicare Advantage patients. We discuss the implications of these findings for estimates of the impact of healthcare payment reforms and more generally for the design of healthcare policy.

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard assessment for health technologies. A key aspect of the design of any clinical trial is the target sample size. However, many publicly-funded trials fail to reach their target sample size. This study seeks to assess the current state of recruitment success and grant extensions in trials funded by the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). Methods Data were gathered from two sources: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA Journal Archive and the MRC subset of the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register. A total of 440 trials recruiting between 2002 and 2008 were assessed for eligibility, of which 73 met the inclusion criteria. Where data were unavailable from the reports, members of the trial team were contacted to ensure completeness. Results Over half (55%) of trials recruited their originally specified target sample size, with over three-quarters (78%) recruiting 80% of their target. There was no evidence of this improving over the time of the assessment. Nearly half (45%) of trials received an extension of some kind. Those that did were no more likely to successfully recruit. Trials with 80% power were less likely to successfully recruit compared to studies with 90% power. Conclusions While recruitment appears to have improved since 1994 to 2002, publicly-funded trials in the UK still struggle to recruit to their target sample size, and both time and financial extensions are often requested. Strategies to cope with such problems should be more widely applied. It is recommended that where possible studies are planned with 90% power.

Conducting high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging and resource intensive. Funders and academic investigators depend on limited financial resources and, therefore, need empirical data for optimal budget planning. However, current literature lacks detailed empirical data on resource use and costs of investigator-sponsored RCTs. The aim of this study is to systematically collect cost data from investigator-sponsored RCTs from Switzerland, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK). Principal investigators were asked to share their RCT cost and resource use data and enter it into an online case report form. We assessed cost patterns, cost drivers, and specific cost items, examined costs by study phase (planning-, conduct-, and finalization phase), compared planned with actual RCT costs, and explored differences in cost patterns across countries, medical fields, and intervention types. We included 93 RCTs which were initiated in Switzerland (n = 53; including eight conducted in low- and lower middle-income countries), Germany (n = 22), and the UK (n = 18). The median total trial cost in our RCT sample was $645,824 [interquartile range (IQR), $269,846–$1,577,924]. The median proportion of the total costs spent for planning phase was 27.5% [IQR, 20.6%–39.7%], for conduct phase 57.3% [IQR, 44.4%–66.3%], and for finalization phase 12.7% [IQR, 8.5%–19.3%] with little variation across countries. The items that contributed most to the total costs were protocol writing (7.2%; IQR 3.8%–10.6%), data management (5.0%; IQR 2.2%–8.1%) and follow-up (4.5%; IQR 2.3%–8.4%). Of the 66 RCTs with an available original budget, 46 (69.7%) exceeded the budget by over 50%. Use of routinely collected data to assess primary outcomes was independently associated with lower per patient- and lower total trial costs. Over a quarter of total trial costs were incurred in the planning phase, which is typically not fully funded. Two-thirds of RCTs exceeded their budget by more than 50%. Investigators and funders should consider empirical cost data to improve budgeting and funding practices. •Over a quarter (27.5%) of total trial costs were incurred in the trial planning phase.•Seventy percentage of RCTs exceeded their budget by more than 50%.•Key costs were protocol writing (7.2%), data management (5.0%), and follow-up (4.5%).•Factors associated with higher total cost included number of centers and longer duration.•Trials using routinely collected data for primary outcomes were associated with lower costs.