Evaluating registry-based trial economics : Results from the STRESS clinical trial
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc..
Background: Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed.
Methods: We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model.
Results: The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design.
Conclusion: Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:38 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Contemporary clinical trials communications - 38(2024) vom: 31. März, Seite 101257 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Eisenstein, Eric L [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Clinical trial |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 20.03.2024 published: Electronic-eCollection Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101257 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM367882175 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM367882175 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240320234049.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240201s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101257 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1337.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM367882175 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38298917 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Eisenstein, Eric L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluating registry-based trial economics |b Results from the STRESS clinical trial |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 20.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-eCollection | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. | ||
| 520 | |a Background: Registry-based trials have the potential to reduce randomized clinical trial (RCT) costs. However, observed cost differences also may be achieved through pragmatic trial designs. A systematic comparison of trial costs across different designs has not been previously performed | ||
| 520 | |a Methods: We conducted a study to compare the current Steroids to Reduce Systemic inflammation after infant heart surgery (STRESS) registry-based RCT vs. two established designs: pragmatic RCT and explanatory RCT. The primary outcome was total RCT design costs. Secondary outcomes included: RCT duration and personnel hours. Costs were estimated using the Duke Clinical Research Institute's pricing model | ||
| 520 | |a Results: The Registry-Based RCT estimated duration was 31.9 weeks greater than the other designs (259.5 vs. 227.6 weeks). This delay was caused by the Registry-Based design's periodic data harvesting that delayed site closing and statistical reporting. Total personnel hours were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design (52,488 vs 29,763 vs. 24,480 h, respectively). Total costs were greatest for the Explanatory design followed by the Pragmatic design and the Registry-Based design ($10,140,263 vs. $4,164,863 vs. $3,268,504, respectively). Thus, Registry-Based total costs were 32 % of the Explanatory and 78 % of the Pragmatic design | ||
| 520 | |a Conclusion: Total costs for the STRESS RCT with a registry-based design were less than those for a pragmatic design and much less than an explanatory design. Cost savings reflect design elements and leveraging of registry resources to improve cost efficiency, but delays to trial completion should be considered | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Clinical trial | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Cost analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Data collection | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Registry | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hill, Kevin D |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wood, Nancy |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kirchner, Jerry L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Anstrom, Kevin J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Granger, Christopher B |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rao, Sunil V |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Baldwin, H Scott |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jacobs, Jeffrey P |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jacobs, Marshall L |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kannankeril, Prince J |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Graham, Eric M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a O'Brien, Sean M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Jennifer S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Contemporary clinical trials communications |d 2015 |g 38(2024) vom: 31. März, Seite 101257 |w (DE-627)NLM257485147 |x 2451-8654 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:38 |g year:2024 |g day:31 |g month:03 |g pages:101257 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101257 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 38 |j 2024 |b 31 |c 03 |h 101257 | ||