Search

Background: Conducting high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging, time consuming, and resource intense. Academic investigators usually depend on scarce financial resources; however, current literature lacks systematically collected empirical data on the detailed resource use and costs of investigator-initiated RCTs., Methods: The aim of this study is to generate a database of detailed empirical resource use and cost data from 100 investigator-initiated RCTs in Switzerland, Germany, and the UK. Investigators enter their empirical costs data into an online data collection form, which is followed by a short interview and a detailed cost report. We plan to investigate cost patterns and cost drivers and examine planned versus actual RCT costs as well as explore different strata of costs across the planning, conduct, and finalization phases, in drug and non-drug trials, and across medical fields and countries., Discussion: This study will add detailed empirical data to the limited research on investigator-initiated RCT costs currently available. A study limitation will be that cost data will be retrospective and self-reported, which might be inaccurate depending on how costs were recorded., Trial Registration: Open Science Framework (OSF) https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QY2GU . Registered on June 4, 2021., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In the cluster randomized crossover trial, a sequence of treatment conditions, rather than just one treatment condition, is assigned to each cluster. This contribution studies the optimal number of time periods in studies with a treatment switch at the end of each time period, and the optimal number of treatment switches in a trial with a fixed number of time periods. This is done for trials with a fixed number of clusters, and for trials in which the costs per cluster, subject, and treatment switch are taken into account using a budgetary constraint. The focus is on trials with a cross-sectional design where a continuous outcome variable is measured at the end of each time period. An exponential decay correlation structure is used to model dependencies among subjects within the same cluster. A linear multilevel mixed model is used to estimate the treatment effect and its associated variance. The optimal design minimizes this variance. Matrix algebra is used to identify the optimal design and other highly efficient designs. For a fixed number of clusters, a design with the maximum number of time periods is optimal and treatment switches should occur at each time period. However, when a budgetary constraint is taken into account, the optimal design may have fewer time periods and fewer treatment switches. The Shiny app was developed to facilitate the use of the methodology in this contribution., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: I declare no competing interests.

Objectives: To explore the association between industry funding and network meta-analyses' (NMAs) conclusion, and the use in Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) of NMAs., Study Design and Setting: This was an overview of NMAs and CPGs. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and several guideline databases up to February 18th 2023. We included CPGs from the last 5 years and NMAs of randomized controlled trials that evaluated targeted therapies in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Data extraction and outcome assessments were done in duplicate by independent authors., Results: We included 216 NMAs and 99 CPGs. 31% (67/216) were industry-funded. The proportion of industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as being best was 44% (25/57) compared to 26% (30/116) for nonindustry-funded (OR = 2.24 [1.15-4.39]; aOR = 1.76 [0.81-3.81]). The abstract's conclusion of 39/67 (58%) industry-funded and 69/149 (46%) nonindustry-funded NMAs were considered unsupported by the results (OR = 1.61 [0.90-2.89]; aOR = 1.40 [0.71-2.78]). All industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as best cited their own sponsored drug. 59/99 (60%) CPGs included at least one NMA, with 23/59 (39%) of them citing industry-funded NMAs., Conclusions: We did not find evidence that industry-funded NMAs were more likely to have unsupported conclusions or to cite only one treatment as being best in their conclusions compared to non-industry-funded NMAs. However, almost all industry-funded NMAs favored their own treatments. Even though 40% of the CPGs did not rely on NMA, over a third of those who did used industry-funded NMAs. Limitations include the possible misclassification due to undisclosed funding and potential confounders that have not been accounted for., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Robin Guelimi reports financial support was provided by Public Assistance Hospitals Paris. and the Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-Research and Open Science. LLC, ES, and SA are co-authors of this work and authors of several studies that are included in the submitted overview. L.L.C., E.S., and S.A. are authors of several studies that are included in this overview. L.L.C. took part in the selection process, but none of them were involved in the extraction of data or in the assessment of the quality of a work they took a part in. L.L.C. and E.S. received a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRC-N AOM22145). L.L.C. is the co-ordinating editor of the Cochrane Skin. F.N. received funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR-17-CE36-0010), the French ministry of health and the French ministry of research. He is a work package leader in the OSIRIS project (Open Science to Increase Reproducibility in Science). The OSIRIS project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No. 101094725. He is a work package leader for the doctoral network MSCA-DN SHARE-CTD (HORIZON-MSCA-2022-DN-01 101120360) funded by the EU. YZZN received a grant from the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203308). R.G., A.M., T.B., and G.P. had no conflict of interest to declare. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/importance: Concerns have been raised that effects observed in studies of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) funded by industry have not been replicated in non-industry-funded studies and that findings may differ based on geographical location where the study was conducted., Objective: To investigate the impact of industry funding and geographical location on pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life and adverse events reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS., Evidence Review: Systematic review conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and WikiStim databases until September 2022. Parallel-group RCTs evaluating SCS for patients with neuropathic pain were included. Results of studies were combined in random-effects meta-analysis using the generic-inverse variance method. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted according to funding source and study location. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool., Findings: Twenty-nine reports of 17 RCTs (1823 participants) were included. For the comparison of SCS with usual care, test for subgroup differences indicate no significant differences (p=0.48, moderate certainty evidence) in pain intensity score at 6 months for studies with no funding or funding not disclosed (pooled mean difference (MD) -1.96 (95% CI -3.23 to -0.69; 95% prediction interval (PI) not estimable, I 2 =0%, τ 2 =0)), industry funding (pooled MD -2.70 (95% CI -4.29 to -1.11; 95% PI -8.75 to 3.35, I 2 =97%, τ 2 =2.96) or non-industry funding (MD -3.09 (95% CI -4.47 to -1.72); 95% PI, I 2 and τ 2 not applicable). Studies with industry funding for the comparison of high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS) with low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS) showed statistically significant advantages for HF-SCS compared to LF-SCS while studies with no funding showed no differences between HF-SCS and LF-SCS (low certainty evidence)., Conclusion: All outcomes of SCS versus usual care were not significantly different between studies funded by industry and those independent from industry. Pain intensity score and change in pain intensity from baseline for comparisons of HF-SCS to LF-SCS seem to be impacted by industry funding., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SE has received consultancy fees from Medtronic, Mainstay Medical, Boston Scientific, and Abbott, outside the submitted work. He has received department research funding from the National Institute of Health Research, Medtronic and Nevro. SN reports consultancy fees from Saluda Medical outside the submitted work. LG is a postdoctoral research fellow funded by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), Belgium (project number 12ZF622N). NM has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Sollis Therapeutics, Saluda Medical, Nevro, Abbott, Vertos Medical, Nuvectra, and Relievant Medsystems, outside the submitted work; is a Medical Monitor for Mainstay’s RESTORE clinical trial; and has received research support from Avanos 'Halyard', Mallinckrodt, Mesoblast, and Neuros Medical. MMo has received speaker fees from Medtronic and Nevro, outside the submitted work. PR reports grants and personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. RD is an employee of Saluda Medical, the employer had no role in the submitted work. He has previously received consultancy fees from Mainstay Medical, Medtronic Ltd and Saluda Medical, outside the submitted work., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Sample size calculations from high-profile surgical RCTs that used a patient-reported outcome measure as primary outcome were reviewed systematically against Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA2) standards, with a focus on target differences. In this sample of trials, there was frequent use of suboptimal methods to determine the target difference, and sample size calculations were generally not reported to DELTA2 standards. This risks over-recruitment and/or erroneous trial conclusions, which clinicians should be aware of when interpreting published trials., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) could bias the potentially practice-changing oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of tomorrow. This investigation characterized the FCOIs of the principal investigators (PIs) of all currently accruing trials of the four (adult) cooperative groups of the National Clinical Trials Network. For our study, the PI list was first compiled, and each name was then searched in the CMS Open Payments database. For each transaction (general payments (GPs) or research funding (RF)), the amount/number/source of payments was recorded. Results showed that from 2014 to 2019, the 91 PIs collectively accepted nearly one-third of a billion dollars ($10 477 023 GPs and $320 096 233 RF). The mean and median GP was $6505 and $945, respectively, and $301 693 and $49 824 RF, respectively. Multivariable Gamma regression analysis revealed that higher GP sums were associated with RCTs involving any type of systemic therapy, and higher RF sums with medical oncologist PIs, trials with phase III components, and RCTs involving radiotherapy (P < .05 for all). Both higher-volume GPs and RF were predicted by PIs having accepted payment(s) from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their RCT (P < .001 GP, P = .008 RF). Taken together, the main message of this investigation is that FCOIs may be particularly high in PIs of phase III systemic therapy trials, especially if the PI accepted payments from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their trial. Such RCTs should be thoroughly scrutinized by medical journals, the FDA, and insurance companies for potential "industry bias" that could influence the integrity of their conclusions., (© 2021 UICC.)

There is an acknowledged need for higher-quality evidence to quantify the benefit of surgical procedures, yet not enough has been done to improve the evidence base. This lack of evidence can prevent fully informed decision-making, lead to unnecessary or even harmful treatment, and contribute to wasteful expenditures of scare health care resources. Barriers to evidence generation include not only the long-recognized technical difficulties and ethical challenges of conducting randomized surgical trials, but also legal challenges that limit incentives to conduct surgical research as well as market-based challenges that make it difficult for those funding surgical research to recoup investment costs. These legal and market dynamics differ substantially from those surrounding new drug or device development. Nevertheless, obstacles could be overcome and overall expenditures could be reduced if a share of federal health care agency budgets were reallocated to generating randomized trial data, standardizing outcome measures, and conducting observational studies analogous to those that have been facilitated for drugs via the Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel Initiative. Until better quality evidence is available, ethical principles require adequate disclosure of the limited evidence base supporting current surgical procedures.

Objective: To explore the approach to participant coenrolment in publicly funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to consider its impact on study recruitment., Study Design and Setting: A cross-sectional study of the UK National Institute for Health Research Journals Library was undertaken. RCTs funded between 2010 and 2019 were eligible. The reporting of coenrolment criteria was assessed through inspection of publicly available study protocols. Where present, the approach to coenrolment was examined, including circumstances in which it was permitted/prohibited and the mechanism for decision-making. For completed RCTs, the impact on recruitment was explored by comparing rates of early recruitment (completion before the expected end date) and extensions (completion after the expected end date) between studies, which did and did not permit coenrolment., Results: Of 219 eligible protocols, coenrolment was addressed in 94 (42.9%). Twenty-three (24.5%) of these did not allow recruitment to multiple studies, while 71 (75.5%) permitted it according to a series of caveats, including considerations of study outcomes, intervention type, and patient burden. The final decision for coenrolment rested with the local recruitment team in 57 (60.6%) and with the central organizing team in 37 (39.4%). Early completion of recruitment occurred in 8 of 64 (12.5%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 5 of 20 (25.0%) where it was not (P = 0.285). An extension to recruitment time was required in 31 of 64 (48.4%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 9 of 11 (45.0%) where it was not (P = 0.788)., Conclusions: The reporting of coenrolment in protocols of publicly funded RCTs is infrequent, and where present, the approach to decision-making is widely variable. In this study, policies of coenrolment were not associated with gains in trial recruitment., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fetal growth restriction is a major risk factor for stillbirth. A routine late-pregnancy ultrasound scan could help detect this, allowing intervention to reduce the risk of stillbirth. Such a scan could also detect fetal presentation and predict macrosomia. A trial powered to detect stillbirth differences would be extremely large and expensive., Objectives: It is therefore critical to know whether this would be a good investment of public research funds. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various late-pregnancy screening and management strategies based on current information and predict the return on investment from further research., Methods: Synthesis of current evidence structured into a decision model reporting expected costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and net benefit over 20 years and value-of-information analysis reporting predicted return on investment from future clinical trials., Results: Given a willingness to pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the most cost-effective strategy is a routine presentation-only scan for all women. Universal ultrasound screening for fetal size is unlikely to be cost-effective. Research exploring the cost implications of induction of labor has the greatest predicted return on investment. A randomized, controlled trial with an endpoint of stillbirth is extremely unlikely to be a value for money investment., Conclusion: Given current value-for-money thresholds in the United Kingdom, the most cost-effective strategy is to offer all pregnant women a presentation-only scan in late pregnancy. A randomized, controlled trial of screening and intervention to reduce the risk of stillbirth following universal ultrasound to detect macrosomia or fetal growth restriction is unlikely to represent a value for money investment., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Oral mucositis (OM) is an oral toxicity caused by cancer treatment, found often in patients with head and neck cancer. Low-intensity laser therapy for OM has anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and tissue reparative properties., Objective: The objective of this work is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials of OM laser therapy in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancers, followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis of the therapy., Method: The search terms, mucositis and phototherapy, laser therapy and mucositis, photobiomodulation and mucositis, and low-level laser therapy and mucositis, were used to search the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. Randomized clinical trials were divided into two groups: one treated with laser therapy and the other given a placebo. Only 13 studies were included in the systematic review, and 6 studies in the meta-analysis., Results: The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis show that the laser therapy presented good results in clinical improvement and pain reduction, decreasing the patients' likelihood of developing OM, with degrees of debilitating lesions, to 64% (RR = 0.36 [95% CI = 0.29-0.44]). The cost-effectiveness analysis revealed an incremental cost of R$ 3687.53 for the laser group, with an incremental effectiveness of 132.2. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 27.89, for the severe OM cases that were avoided., Conclusion: It was concluded, therefore, that photobiomodulation for OM in patients receiving head and neck cancer treatment was clinically effective and cost-effective.

Background: The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is designed to implement and evaluate the Communities That HEAL (CTH) intervention, a conceptually driven framework to assist communities in selecting and adopting evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths. The goal of the HCS is to produce generalizable information for policy makers and community stakeholders seeking to implement CTH or a similar community intervention. To support this objective, one aim of the HCS is a health economics study (HES), the results of which will inform decisions around fiscal feasibility and sustainability relevant to other community settings., Methods: The HES is integrated into the HCS design: an unblinded, multisite, parallel arm, cluster randomized, wait list-controlled trial of the CTH intervention implemented in 67 communities in four U.S. states: Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio. The objectives of the HES are to estimate the economic costs to communities of implementing and sustaining CTH; estimate broader societal costs associated with CTH; estimate the cost-effectiveness of CTH for overdose deaths avoided; and use simulation modeling to evaluate the short- and long-term health and economic impact of CTH, including future overdose deaths avoided and quality-adjusted life years saved, and to develop a simulation policy tool for communities that seek to implement CTH or a similar community intervention., Discussion: The HCS offers an unprecedented opportunity to conduct health economics research on solutions to the opioid crisis and to increase understanding of the impact and value of complex, community-level interventions., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: RCTs provide the scientific basis upon which treatment decisions are made. To facilitate critical review, it is important that methods and results are reported transparently. The aim of this study was to explore transparency in surgical RCTs with respect to trial registration, disclosure of funding sources, declarations of investigator conflicts and data-sharing., Methods: This was a cross-sectional review of published surgical RCTs. Ten high-impact journals were searched systematically for RCTs published in years 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018. Four domains of transparency were explored: trial registration, disclosure of funding, disclosure of investigator conflicts, and a statement relating to data-sharing., Results: Of 611 RCTs, 475 were eligible for analysis. Some 397 RCTs (83.6 per cent) were registered on a trial database, of which 190 (47·9 per cent) had been registered prospectively. Prospective registration increased over time (26 per cent in 2009, 33·0 per cent in 2012, 54 per cent in 2015, and 72·7 per cent in 2018). Funding disclosure was present in 55·0, 65·0, 69·4 and 75·4 per cent of manuscripts respectively. Conflict of interest disclosure was present in 49·5, 89·1, 94·6 and 98·3 per cent of manuscripts across the same time periods. Data-sharing statements were present in only 15 RCTs (3·2 per cent), 11 of which were published in 2018., Conclusion: Trial registration, disclosure of funding and disclosure of investigator conflicts in surgical RCTs have improved markedly over the past 10 years. Disclosure of data-sharing plans is exceptionally low. This may contribute to research waste and represents a target for improvement., (© 2020 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Journal of Surgery Society.)

Background: Central adjudication of outcomes is common for randomised trials and should control for differential misclassification. However, few studies have estimated the cost of the adjudication process., Methods: We estimated the cost of adjudicating the primary outcome in nine randomised stroke trials (25,436 participants). The costs included adjudicators' time, direct payments to adjudicators, and co-ordinating centre costs (e.g. uploading cranial scans and general set-up costs). The number of events corrected after adjudication was our measure of benefit. We calculated cost per corrected event for each trial and in total., Results: The primary outcome in all nine trials was either stroke or a composite that included stroke. In total, the adjudication process associated with this primary outcome cost in excess of £100,000 for a third of the trials (3/9). Mean cost per event corrected by adjudication was £2295.10 (SD: £1482.42)., Conclusions: Central adjudication is a time-consuming and potentially costly process. These costs need to be considered when designing a trial and should be evaluated alongside the potential benefits adjudication brings to determine whether they outweigh this expense.

The Health and Disability Code precludes any research involving a competent patient without the informed consent of the participant. A learning health system requires rigorous evaluation of both new and established clinical practice, including low-risk components of usual care pathways. When comparing two accepted practices, the only way to control for unknown confounders is by randomisation. In some limited circumstances, particularly when comparing groups or clusters of patients, this comparison can only practicably be undertaken without consent. The current Code impedes a learning health system and is detrimental to the health of New Zealanders. It urgently needs updating., Competing Interests: Dr Webster reports grants from Green Lane Research and Educational Fund during the conduct of the study.

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., (© Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2020.)

Background: Funders are key players in supporting randomized controlled trial (RCT) data-sharing. This research aimed to describe commercial and non-commercial funders' data-sharing policies and to assess the compliance of funded RCTs with the existing data-sharing policies., Methods and Findings: Funders of clinical research having funded at least one RCT in the years 2016 to 2018 were surveyed. All 78 eligible non-commercial funders retrieved from the Sherpa/Juliet Initiative website and a random sample of 100 commercial funders selected from pharmaceutical association member lists (LEEM, IFPMA, EFPIA) and the top 100 pharmaceutical companies in terms of drug sales were included. Thirty (out of 78; 38%) non-commercial funders had a data-sharing policy with eighteen (out of 30, 60%) making data-sharing mandatory and twelve (40%) encouraging data-sharing. Forty-one (out of 100; 41%) of commercial funders had a data-sharing policy. Among funders with a data-sharing policy, a survey of two random samples of 100 RCTs registered on Clinicaltrial.gov, data-sharing statements were present for seventy-seven (77%, 95% IC [67%-84%]) and eighty-one (81% [72% - 88%]) of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively. Intention to share data was expressed in 12% [7%-20%] and 59% [49%- 69%] of RCTs funded by non-commercial and commercial funders respectively., Conclusions: This survey identified suboptimal performances of funders in setting up data-sharing policies. For those with a data-sharing policy, the implementation of the policy in study registration was limited for commercial funders and of concern for non-commercial funders. The limitations of the present study include its cross-sectional nature, since data-sharing policies are continuously changing. We call for a standardization of policies with a strong evaluation component to make sure that, when in place, these policies are effective., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: FN received funding from the French National Research Agency for this project. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background/aims: Prediabetes and diabetes disproportionately impact Latino youth, yet few diabetes prevention programs have prioritized inclusion of this underrepresented population. This report describes the recruitment process, yields, associated costs, and phenotypic characteristics of Latino youth with obesity and prediabetes enrolled in a randomized controlled diabetes prevention study in the USA., Methods: Recruitment efforts included referrals from clinics, community outlets, local media, and word of mouth with the goal of enrolling 120 Latino adolescents aged 12-16 with obesity (BMI > 95th percentile) and prediabetes. Prediabetes eligibility was determined by any of the following: HbA1c between 5.7 and 6.5%, fasting glucose between 100 and 125 mg/dL, or a 2-h glucose between 120 and 199 mg/dL following a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), but not meeting any of the diagnostic criteria for diabetes. Eligible participants were randomized 2:1 to either a 6-month community-based lifestyle intervention that included group nutrition and health education classes (1 day/week) and group exercise classes (2 days/week) or usual care control arm. Recruitment yields were determined by review of referral source in the study screening database. Recruitment costs were determined by an after-the-fact financial review of actual and in-kind costs. Participant phenotypic characteristics (i.e., demographics, anthropometrics, and biochemical data) were compared by recruitment strategy using a one-way ANOVA., Results: Recruitment efforts covered 160 mile 2 (414 km 2 ) across 26 ZIP codes (postcode) in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area and yielded 655 referrals from clinics (n = 344), community (n = 143), media (n = 137), and word-of-mouth (n = 31). From this pool, 26% (n = 167) did not meet general, pre-screening eligibility criteria; 29% (n = 187) declined participation; and 10% (n = 64) were unable to be contacted. A total of 237 youth were invited to the clinical research unit to determine final eligibility. Following the OGTT, 52% (n = 122) met prediabetes criteria and 117 were subsequently randomized. Clinical recruitment yielded the highest number of referrals (53%; n = 344) while word-of-mouth yielded the highest proportion (35%; n = 11) of randomized participants per referred youth. There were no significant differences in anthropometric or biochemical measures among youth by recruitment strategy. Based upon final enrollment numbers, community recruitment was the costliest approach ($486/randomized participant) followed by clinical ($248/randomized participant) and media ($236/randomized participant)., Conclusions: The ability to meet enrollment goals for a clinical trial of an underrepresented population required multiple recruitment strategies. Although strategies vary in yields and costs, it appears they produce similar phenotypical risk profiles of eligible youth., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02615353 . Registered on 26 November 2015.

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., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest., (Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.)

IMPACT-AFib was an 80,000-patient randomized clinical trial implemented by five US insurance companies (health plans) aimed at increasing the use of oral anticoagulants by individuals with atrial fibrillation who were at high risk of stroke and not on treatment. The underlying thesis was that patients could be change agents to initiate prescribing discussions with their providers. We tested the effect of mailing information to both patients and their providers. We used administrative medical claims and pharmacy dispensing data to identify eligible patients, to randomize them to an early or delayed intervention, and to assess clinical outcomes. The core data were analysis-ready datasets each site had created and curated for the FDA's Sentinel System, supplemented by updated "fresh" pharmacy and enrollment data to ensure eligibility at the time of intervention. Following mutually agreed upon procedures, sites linked to additional internal source data to implement the intervention-educational information mailed to patients and their providers in the early intervention arm, and to providers of patients in the delayed intervention arm approximately 12 months later. The primary analysis compares the early intervention arm to the delayed intervention arm, prior to the delayed intervention being conducted (i.e. compares intervention to non-intervention). The endpoints of interest were evidence of initiation of anticoagulation (primary) as well as clinical endpoints, including stroke and hospitalization for bleeding. Major challenges, some unanticipated, identified during the planning phase include convening multi-stakeholder investigator teams and advisors, addressing ethical concerns about not intervening in a usual care comparison group, and identifying and avoiding interference with sites' routine programs that were similar to the intervention. Needs and challenges during the implementation phase included the fact that even limited site-specific programming greatly increased time and effort, the need to refresh research data extracts immediately before outreach to patients and providers, potential difficulty identifying low-cost medications such as warfarin that may not be reimbursed by health plans and so not discoverable in dispensing data, the need to develop workarounds when "providers" in claims data were facilities, difficulty addressing clustering of patients by provider because providers can have multiple identifiers within and between health plans, and the need to anticipate loss to follow up because of health plan disenrollment or change in benefits. As pragmatic trials begin to shape evidence generation within clinical practice, investigators should anticipate issues inherent to claims data and working with multiple large sites. In IMPACT-AFib, we found that investing in collaboration and communication among all parties throughout all phases of the study helped ensure common understanding, early identification of challenges, and streamlined actual implementation.

Background: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory condition associated with significant direct and indirect costs. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. Economic evaluations, alongside clinical data, help inform papers and formulary decisions in the United States., Objective: To evaluate outcomes and costs of including tofacitinib in treatment strategies for PsA from a third-party U.S. payer perspective, using a health economic model., Methods: A decision tree model was developed to evaluate treatment sequences (up to 4 lines of advanced PsA therapy) with or without tofacitinib. Patients included in the model had active PsA and a previous inadequate response (IR) to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapy. The analysis time horizon was 2 years; decision points for continuing/switching treatments occurred quarterly, based on clinical response (assessed using the primary rheumatoid measure of efficacy, American College of Rheumatology [ACR]20 response only) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Costs included those related to ADRs and drug acquisition, monitoring, and administration. Other endpoints of PsA, such as assessment of enthesitis and dactylitis, were not integrated into the model., Results: Treatment strategies including tofacitinib were associated with cost savings versus strategies without tofacitinib across all modeled scenarios, with an estimated 2-year cost saving of up to $8,454,858, based on 1 million insurants. Similarly, costs per member per month and per ACR20 responder were lower for sequences including tofacitinib versus sequences without. These savings arose because of lower ADR and drug acquisition/administration costs for sequences including tofacitinib. Deterministic sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust., Conclusions: This analysis suggests that including tofacitinib in the treatment of active PsA in csDMARD-IR or TNFi-IR patients is a cost-saving alternative to sequences without tofacitinib, potentially reducing costs for PsA advanced therapies by up to $8.4 million over 2 years for payers insuring 1 million individuals., Disclosures: This work was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Bungey is an employee of Decision Resources Group, which received financial support from Pfizer Inc to develop the treatment-cost model used in the development of this manuscript. Chang-Douglass was an employee of Decision Resources Group at the time of the analysis. During development of this publication, Chang-Douglass started a role at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The publication only reflects her views and does not reflect the views of NICE. Hsu, Cappelleri, Young, and Woolcott are employees of Pfizer Inc and own stock or stock options in Pfizer Inc. The data reported in this manuscript have been previously presented at the American College of Rheumatology Annual Scientific Meeting; October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, IL, and the AMCP Annual Meeting and Expo; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

Despite the achieved advancement in pharmacological cancer treatments, the majority of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) will experience disease progression. Research into alternative therapies with improved efficacy and reduced side effects has led to the development of a new class of oral anticancer medications, the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors, which include palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib. Nonetheless, there is growing evidence that the effectiveness of oral anticancer medications is sub-optimal, being influenced by low adherence, sociodemographic factors, and adverse effect profiles. In addition, there is a disconnect between the high price tags of CDK 4/6 inhibitors and their observed effectiveness, raising questions about their value. Currently, the existing knowledge base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of newer oral anticancer medications in understudied populations with possible health disparities is scant. This commentary discusses what is known about palbociclib's clinical effectiveness, safety, and adherence and suggests the need for further studies of real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to help establish the value of newer oncologic drugs, such as palbociclib. DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this article. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Importance: Changes in evidence-based practice and guideline recommendations depend on high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Commercial device and pharmaceutical manufacturers are frequently involved in the funding, design, conduct, and reporting of trials, the implications of which have not been recently analyzed., Objective: To evaluate the design, outcomes, and reporting of contemporary randomized clinical trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions and their association with the funding source., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed published RCTs between January 1, 2008, to May 31, 2019. The trials included those involving coronary, vascular and structural interventional cardiology, and vascular and cardiac surgical procedures., Main Outcomes and Measures: We assessed (1) trial characteristics, (2) finding of a statistically significant difference in the primary end point favoring the experimental intervention, (3) reporting of implied treatment advantage in trials without significant differences in primary end point, (4) existence of major discrepancies between registered and published primary outcomes, (5) number of patients whose outcomes would need to switch from a nonevent to an event to convert a significant difference in primary end point to nonsignificant, and (6) association with funding source., Results: Of the 216 RCTs analyzed, 115 (53.2%) reported having commercial sponsorship. Most trials had 80% power to detect an estimated treatment effect of 30%, and 128 trials (59.3%) used composite primary end points. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) sample size was 502 (204-1702) patients, and the median (IQR) follow-up duration was 12 (1.0-14.4) months. Overall, 123 trials (57.0%) reported a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome favoring the experimental intervention; reporting strategies that implied an advantage were identified in 55 (65.5%) of 84 trials that reported nonsignificant differences. Commercial sponsorship was associated with a statistically significantly greater likelihood of favorable outcomes reporting (exponent of regression coefficient β, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.09-7.18; P = .03) and with the reporting of findings that are inconsistent with the trial results. Discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes were found in 82 trials (38.0%), without differences in trial sponsorship. A median (IQR) number of 5 (2.8-12.5) patients experiencing a different outcome would have change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. Commercial sponsorship was associated with a greater number of patients (exponent of regression coefficient β, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.66; P = .04)., Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest that contemporary RCTs of invasive cardiovascular interventions are relatively small and fragile, have short follow-up, and have limited power to detect large treatment effects. Commercial support appeared to be associated with differences in trial design, results, and reporting.

Background: Recruiting and retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Digital tools, such as social media, data mining, email or text-messaging, could improve recruitment or retention, but an overview of this research area is lacking. We aimed to systematically map the characteristics of digital recruitment and retention tools for RCTs, and the features of the comparative studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of these tools during the past 10 years., Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, other databases, the Internet, and relevant web sites in July 2018 to identify comparative studies of digital tools for recruiting and/or retaining participants in health RCTs. Two reviewers independently screened references against protocol-specified eligibility criteria. Included studies were coded by one reviewer with 20% checked by a second reviewer, using pre-defined keywords to describe characteristics of the studies, populations and digital tools evaluated., Results: We identified 9163 potentially relevant references, of which 104 articles reporting 105 comparative studies were included in the systematic map. The number of published studies on digital tools has doubled in the past decade, but most studies evaluated digital tools for recruitment rather than retention. The key health areas investigated were health promotion, cancers, circulatory system diseases and mental health. Few studies focussed on minority or under-served populations, and most studies were observational. The most frequently-studied digital tools were social media, Internet sites, email and tv/radio for recruitment; and email and text-messaging for retention. One quarter of the studies measured efficiency (cost per recruited or retained participant) but few studies have evaluated people's attitudes towards the use of digital tools., Conclusions: This systematic map highlights a number of evidence gaps and may help stakeholders to identify and prioritise further research needs. In particular, there is a need for rigorous research on the efficiency of the digital tools and their impact on RCT participants and investigators, perhaps as studies-within-a-trial (SWAT) research. There is also a need for research into how digital tools may improve participant retention in RCTs which is currently underrepresented relative to recruitment research., Registration: Not registered; based on a pre-specified protocol, peer-reviewed by the project's Advisory Board.

Background: Patient outcomes can depend on the treating centre, or health professional, delivering the intervention. A health professional's skill in delivery improves with experience, meaning that outcomes may be associated with learning. Considering differences in intervention delivery at trial design will ensure that any appropriate adjustments can be made during analysis. This work aimed to establish practice for the allowance of clustering and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised multicentre trials., Methods: A survey that drew upon quotes from existing guidelines, references to relevant publications and example trial scenarios was delivered. Registered UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units were invited to participate., Results: Forty-four Units participated (N = 50). Clustering was managed through design by stratification, more commonly by centre than by treatment provider. Managing learning by design through defining a minimum expertise level for treatment provider was common (89%). One-third reported experience in expertise-based designs. The majority of Units had adjusted for clustering during analysis, although approaches varied. Analysis of learning was rarely performed for the main analysis (n = 1), although it was explored by other means. The insight behind the approaches used within and reasons for, or against, alternative approaches were provided., Conclusions: Widespread awareness of challenges in designing and analysing multicentre trials is identified. Approaches used, and opinions on these, vary both across and within Units, indicating that approaches are dependent on the type of trial. Agreeing principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios should be considered.

Reliable assessment of the effects of an intervention usually requires large randomised trials but such studies are becoming increasingly complex and costly to run. 'Streamlined' trials are needed in which every aspect of the trial design and conduct is simplified, retaining only those elements needed to answer the research question and ensure the safety of the individual participants. In this review we discuss how the trial 'A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes' (ASCEND) was streamlined. The study included a two-by-two factorial design: it assessed the effects of low-dose aspirin and, separately, supplementation with n-3 fatty acids on serious vascular events in 15,480 people with diabetes but no overt cardiovascular disease. Other key streamlined design features, such as mail-based recruitment and follow-up, mainly by post, with no in-person visits and use of a run-in period, are also described. We go on to discuss the success of the study and other studies that have employed a similar mail-based approach, and the type of clinical trials that are suitable for mail-based design. Finally, we consider the limitations of the study, and how these could be circumvented in future studies. ASCEND randomised large numbers of eligible participants, achieved good adherence rates and almost complete follow-up at a fraction of the cost of traditional clinic-based trials. Such studies are necessary if researchers are to address the important clinical questions most relevant to improving health.

Background: Surgical research is potentially invasive, high-risk, and costly. Research that advances medical dogma must justify both its ends and its means. Although ethical questions do not always have simple answers, it is critically important for the clinician, researcher, and patient to approach these dilemmas and surgical research in a thoughtful, conscientious manner. Methods: We present four ethical issues in surgical research and discuss the opposing viewpoints. These topics were presented and discussed at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society as pro-con debates. The presenters of each opinion developed a succinct summary of their respective reviews for this publication. Results: The key subjects for these pro-con debates were: (1) Should patients be enrolled for time-sensitive surgical infection research using an opt-out or an opt-in strategy? (2) Should patients who are being enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing surgery with a non-operative intervention pay the costs of their treatment arm? (3) Should the scientific community embrace open access journals as the future of scientific publishing? (4) Should the majority of funding go to clinical or basic science research? Important points were illustrated in each of the pro-con presentations and illustrated the difficulties that are facing the performance and payment of infection research in the future. Conclusions: Surgical research is ethically complex, with conflicting demands between individual patients, society, and healthcare economics. At present, there are no clear answers to these and the many other ethical issues facing research in the future. Answers will only come from continued robust dialogue among all stakeholders in surgical research.

Objectives: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by its heterogeneity, with large differences in clinical characteristics between patients. Therefore, a stratified approach to exercise therapy, whereby patients are allocated to homogeneous subgroups and receive a stratified, subgroup-specific intervention, can be expected to optimize current clinical effects. Recently, we developed and pilot tested a model of stratified exercise therapy based on clinically relevant subgroups of knee OA patients that we previously identified. Based on the promising results, it is timely to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual, "nonstratified" exercise therapy., Methods: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including economic and process evaluation, comparing stratified exercise therapy with usual care by physical therapists (PTs) in primary care, in a total of 408 patients with clinically diagnosed knee OA. Eligible physical therapy practices are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to provide the experimental (in 204 patients) or control intervention (in 204 patients), respectively. The experimental intervention is a model of stratified exercise therapy consisting of (a) a stratification algorithm that allocates patients to a "high muscle strength subgroup," "low muscle strength subgroup," or "obesity subgroup" and (b) subgroup-specific, protocolized exercise therapy (with an additional dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup only). The control intervention will be usual best practice by PTs (i.e., nonstratified exercise therapy). Our primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale daily living). Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3-month (primary endpoint), 6-month (questionnaires only), and 12-month follow-up, with an additional cost questionnaire at 9 months. Intention-to-treat, multilevel, regression analysis comparing stratified versus usual care will be performed., Conclusion: This study will demonstrate whether stratified care provided by primary care PTs is effective and cost-effective compared with usual best practice from PTs., (© 2019 The Authors. Physiotherapy Research International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Recently, patients who received induction chemotherapy plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma were found to have survival advantages compared with those receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy alone in two large randomized trials. Based on these two trials, we present a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GP) versus cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel (TPF) for induction chemotherapy to treat locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma., Methods: We constructed a Markov model to compare the cost and effectiveness of GP versus TPF. Clinical data including the frequency of adverse events, recurrence and death obtained from two randomized phase III trials were used to calculate transition probabilities and costs. Health utilities were estimated from the literature. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expressed as dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), were calculated, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios less than $27,534.25/QALY (3 × the per capita GDP of China, 2018) were considered cost-effective. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of the model., Results: Our base case model found that the total cost was $53,082.68 in the GP group and $45,482.66 in the TPF group. The QALYs were 6.82 and 4.11, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favoured the GP regimen, at an incremental cost of $2,804.44 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that treatment with the GP regimen was cost-effective 100% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $27,534.25‬/QALY., Conclusion: In this model, GP was estimated to be cost-effective compared with cisplatin, fluorouracil, and docetaxel for patients with locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma from the payer's perspectives in the China., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All the authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Context: Recently, calls to conduct comparative effectiveness research (CER) in athletic training to better support patient care decisions have been circulated. Traditional research methods (eg, randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational studies) may be ill suited for CER. Thus, innovative research methods are needed to support CER efforts., Objectives: To discuss the limitations of traditional research designs in CER studies, describe a novel methodologic approach called the point-of-care clinical trial (POC-CT), and highlight components of the POC-CT (eg, incorporation of an electronic medical record [EMR], Bayesian adaptive feature) that allow investigators to conduct scientifically rigorous studies at the point of care., Description: Practical concerns (eg, high costs and limited generalizability of RCTs, the inability to control for bias in observational studies) may stall CER efforts in athletic training. In short, the aim of the POC-CT is to embed a randomized pragmatic trial into routine care; thus, patients are randomized to minimize potential bias, but the study is conducted at the point of care to limit cost and improve the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the POC-CT uses an EMR to replace much of the infrastructure associated with a traditional RCT (eg, research team, patient and clinician reminders) and a Bayesian adaptive feature to help limit the number of patients needed for the study. Together, the EMR and Bayesian adaptive feature can improve the overall feasibility of the study and preserve the typical clinical experiences of the patient and clinician., Clinical Advantages: The POC-CT includes the basic tenets of practice-based research because studies are conducted at the point of care, in real-life settings, and during routine clinical practice. If implemented effectively, the POC-CT can be seamlessly integrated into daily clinical practice, allowing investigators to establish patient-reported evidence that may be quickly applied to patient care decisions. This design appears to be a promising approach for CER investigations and may help establish a "learning health care system" in the sports medicine community.

Our main goal is to describe how to start and develop a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. The first step is to have an idea that will become the hypothesis and a main objective. A bibliographic search should be done to check for clinical interest and originality. Moreover, the study must be feasible and should be finished within 4 years. In order to start the multicenter study, a protocol should be written (in accordance with the SPIRIT guidelines Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials), including the design type, sample size and participating hospitals. Randomization is key to the design and, therefore, the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines must be followed. However, if the study cannot be randomized, the TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs) guidelines are recommended. When the protocol is approved by the Ethics Committee for Clinical Investigation of the hospital, we ought to create visibility. It is suggested to register the trial on ClincalTrials.gov and submit its publication to indexed magazines. Financial resources are necessary to execute the study and maintain an online database. This allows the registry to be updated and accessible to all the participants in the study. What is more, randomization can be done immediately. And last, but not least, is motivation. Multicentricity equals to participation of all the chosen medical centers. Updating and motivating them by sending a newsletter every 1-3 months keeps participants engaged in the study., (Copyright © 2019 AEC. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical trials often report intervention efficacy in terms of the reduction in all-cause mortality between the treatment and control arms (i.e., an overall hazard ratio [oHR]) instead of the reduction in disease-specific mortality (i.e., a disease-specific hazard ratio [dsHR]). Using oHR to reduce all-cause mortality beyond the time horizon of the trial may introduce bias if the relative proportion of other-cause mortality increases with age. We sought to quantify this oHR extrapolation bias and propose a new approach to overcome this bias., Methods: We simulated a hypothetical cohort of patients with a generic disease that increased background mortality by a constant additive disease-specific rate. We quantified the bias in terms of the percentage change in life expectancy gains with the intervention under an oHR compared with a dsHR approach as a function of the cohort start age, the disease-specific mortality rate, dsHR, and the duration of the intervention's effect. We then quantified the bias in a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators based on efficacy estimates from a clinical trial., Results: For a cohort of 50-year-old patients with a disease-specific mortality of 0.05, a dsHR of 0.5, a calculated oHR of 0.55, and a lifetime duration of effect, the bias was 28%. We varied these key parameters over wide ranges and the resulting bias ranged between 3 and 140%. In the CEA, the use of oHR as the intervention's effectiveness overestimated quality-adjusted life expectancy by 9% and costs by 3%, biasing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio by - 6%., Conclusions: The use of an oHR approach to model the intervention's effectiveness beyond the time horizon of the trial overestimates its benefits. In CEAs, this bias could decrease the cost of a QALY, overestimating interventions' cost effectiveness.

Policy Points For more than 40 years, most research by epidemiologists, social scientists, and alcohol policy experts found that moderate alcohol consumption was cardioprotective. In the early 2000s, that consensus was shaken by new critics who subjected the previous research to vigorous methodological and empirical analysis, precipitating a bitter controversy, seemingly unresolvable despite numerous observational epidemiological studies. The effort to finally put that debate to rest through a large, multiyear randomized controlled trial under the aegis of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, generated external criticism and adverse newspaper coverage, particularly because the trial was largely funded by the alcohol industry, forcing National Institutes of Health leadership to abruptly terminate the study shortly after it started. In the absence of definitive evidence and given the contentious debate over the risks and benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, those who formulate health policy have a responsibility to clearly acknowledge to the public the existence of evidentiary uncertainty when making recommendations., (© 2019 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

For oncology drug development, phase II proof-of-concept studies have played a key role in determining whether or not to advance to a confirmatory phase III trial. With the increasing number of immunotherapies, efficient design strategies are crucial in moving successful drugs quickly to market. Our research examines drug development decision making under the framework of maximizing resource investment, characterized by benefit cost ratios (BCRs). In general, benefit represents the likelihood that a drug is successful, and cost is characterized by the risk adjusted total sample size of the phases II and III studies. Phase III studies often include a futility interim analysis; this sequential component can also be incorporated into BCRs. Under this framework, multiple scenarios can be considered. For example, for a given drug and cancer indication, BCRs can yield insights into whether to use a randomized control trial or a single-arm study. Importantly, any uncertainty in historical control estimates that are used to benchmark single-arm studies can be explicitly incorporated into BCRs. More complex scenarios, such as restricted resources or multiple potential cancer indications, can also be examined. Overall, BCR analyses indicate that single-arm trials are favored for proof-of-concept trials when there is low uncertainty in historical control data and smaller phase III sample sizes. Otherwise, especially if the most likely to succeed tumor indication can be identified, randomized controlled trials may be a better option. While the findings are consistent with intuition, we provide a more objective approach., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: Previous randomized trials found that treating periodontitis improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), thus lowering the risks of developing T2D-related microvascular diseases and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Some payers in the U.S. have started covering nonsurgical periodontal treatment for those with chronic conditions, such as diabetes. We sought to identify the cost-effectiveness of expanding periodontal treatment coverage among patients with T2D., Research Design and Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to estimate lifetime costs and health gains using a stochastic microsimulation model of oral health conditions, T2D, T2D-related microvascular diseases, and CVD of the U.S., Population: Model parameters were obtained from the nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (2009-2014) and randomized trials of periodontal treatment among patients with T2D., Results: Expanding periodontal treatment coverage among patients with T2D and periodontitis would be expected to avert tooth loss by 34.1% (95% CI -39.9, -26.5) and microvascular diseases by 20.5% (95% CI -31.2, -9.1), 17.7% (95% CI -32.7, -4.7), and 18.4% (95% CI -34.5, -3.5) for nephropathy, neuropathy, and retinopathy, respectively. Providing periodontal treatment to the target population would be cost saving from a health care perspective at a total net savings of $5,904 (95% CI -6,039, -5,769) with an estimated gain of 0.6 quality-adjusted life years per capita (95% CI 0.5, 0.6)., Conclusions: Providing nonsurgical periodontal treatment to patients with T2D and periodontitis would be expected to significantly reduce tooth loss and T2D-related microvascular diseases via improved glycemic control. Encouraging patients with T2D and poor oral health conditions to receive periodontal treatment would improve health outcomes and still be cost saving or cost-effective., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: There has been a significant increase in financial support of clinical research by the pharmaceutical industry., Methods: We performed a comprehensive systematic literature review to determine whether there is publication bias for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) studies between industry-funded and non-industry funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and between RCTs with positive results (PRs) and those with negative results (NRs) of FDAapproved biological and small molecule drug therapy for RA. Each RCT was classified as having either a PR or a NR, and as having received commercial funding or not., Results: Most (297/349, 85.18%) of the RCTs were commercially funded. There was no significant difference in PRs or association with publication between commercially and noncommercially funded RCTs. Sample size was significantly larger in commercially funded RCTs and in those with PRs, and it was the only significant parameter that predicted publication in higher impact factor journals in the field of RA., Conclusion: There is no significant association between commercial funding and the publication of positive results or the publication of an RCT in higher impact factor journals., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Costs of supporting prevention program implementation are not well known. This study estimates the societal costs of implementing CHOICE, a voluntary after-school alcohol and other drug prevention program for adolescents, in Boys and Girls Clubs (BGCs) across Southern California with and without an implementation support system called Getting To Outcomes© (GTO). This article uses micro-costing methods to estimate the cost of the CHOICE program and GTO support. Labor and expense data were obtained from logs kept by the BGC staff and by the GTO technical assistance (TA) staff, and staff time was valued based on Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates. From the societal perspective, the cost of implementing CHOICE at BGCs over the 2-year study period was $27 per attendee when CHOICE was offered by itself (all costs incurred by the BGCs) and $177 per attendee when CHOICE was offered with GTO implementation support ($67 cost to the BGCs; $110 to the entity funding GTO). These results were most sensitive to assumptions as to the number of times CHOICE was offered per year. Adding GTO implementation support to CHOICE increased the cost per attendee by approximately $150. For this additional cost, there was evidence that the CHOICE program was offered with more fidelity and offered more often after the 2-year intervention ended. If the long-term benefits of this better and continued implementation are found to exceed these additional costs, GTO could be an attractive structure to support evidence-based substance misuse prevention programs. Trial Registration. This project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with number NCT02135991 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02135991). The trial was registered May 12, 2014.

Objective: Catheter ablation is an important treatment for ventricular tachycardia (VT) that reduces the frequency of episodes of VT. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy., Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was used to calculate the costs and health outcomes of catheter ablation or AAD treatment of VT for a hypothetical cohort of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The health states and input parameters of the model were informed by patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) data using randomised clinical trial (RCT)-level evidence wherever possible. Costs were calculated from a 2018 UK perspective., Results: Catheter ablation versus AAD therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £144 150 (€161 448) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, over a 5-year time horizon. This ICER was driven by small differences in patient-reported HRQL between AAD therapy and catheter ablation. However, only three of six RCTs had measured patient-reported HRQL, and when this was done, it was assessed infrequently. Using probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the likelihood of catheter ablation being cost-effective was only 11%, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30 000 used by the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence., Conclusion: Catheter ablation of VT is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with AAD therapy based on the current randomised trial evidence. However, better designed studies incorporating detailed and more frequent quality of life assessments are needed to provide more robust and informed cost-effectiveness analyses., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Randomised controlled trials in healthcare increasingly include economic evaluations. Some show small differences which are not statistically significant. Yet these sometimes come to paradoxical conclusions such as: 'the intervention is not clinically effective' but 'is probably cost-effective'. This study aims to quantify the extent of non-significant results and the types of conclusions drawn from them., Design: Cross-sectional retrospective analysis of randomised trials published by the UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme. We defined as 'doubly null' those trials that found non-statistically significant differences in both primary outcome and cost per patient. Paradoxical was defined as concluding in favour of an intervention, usually compared with placebo or usual care. No human participants were involved. Our sample was 226 randomised trial projects published by the Health Technology Assessment programme 2004 to 2017. All are available free online., Results: The 226 projects contained 193 trials with a full economic evaluation. Of these 76 (39%) had at least one 'doubly null' comparison. These 76 trials contained 94 comparisons. In these 30 (32%) drew economic conclusions in favour of an intervention. Overall report conclusions split roughly equally between those favouring the intervention (14), and those favouring either the control (7) or uncertainty (9)., Discussion: Trials with 'doubly null' results and paradoxical conclusions are not uncommon. The differences observed in cost and quality-adjustedlife year were small and non-statistically significant. Almost all these trials were also published in leading peer-reviewed journals. Although some guidelines for reporting economic results require cost-effectiveness estimates regardless of statistical significance, the interpretability of paradoxical results has nowhere been addressed., Conclusions: Reconsideration is required of the interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses in randomised controlled trials with 'doubly null' results, particularly when economics favours a novel intervention., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors work part-time for the NIHR HTA programme as well as being independent academics. All but HW and AC are current members of the editorial board of the HTA monograph series. HW is director of the HTA programme. AC is a past member of the editorial board of the HTA monograph series. JR is employed part-time as a researcher by NETSCC, the secretariat which manages the NIHR HTA programme. Neither NIHR nor the HTA programme had any role in interpreting the results nor in preparing this paper for publication. NETSCC has taken responsibility for payment of the publication fee., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: We aimed to provide a systematic overview of freely available tools which may help plan or monitor costs for randomized clinical trials (RCTs)., Study Design and Setting: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EconLit and conducted internet searches via Google (last search, October 2018). We included all freely available tools and determined their specific purpose, which parts of clinical trial projects and which types of costs they covered, and if they were user-tested or validated in any form., Results: We identified 25 available tools. Most tools were downloadable on websites from institutions related to clinical research. Seven tools were developed to plan the budget for an entire RCT, 17 tools for calculating budgets of an individual trial center, and one tool for monitoring costs of ongoing RCTs. Eighteen tools considered fixed, variable, and indirect costs. Only two tools were clearly user-tested or validated., Conclusion: Several freely available tools aim to support investigators in planning costs of an entire trial or in planning the budget for a clinical trial site. How valid and useful they are remains to be shown for most of them. Future tools should be openly shared, user-tested, and validated., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs) are increasingly popular in health-related research in both high- and low-resource settings. There may be specific ethical issues that researchers face when designing and conducting SW-CRTs in low-resource settings. Knowledge of these issues can help to improve the ethical conduct of SW-CRTs in a global health context., Methods: We performed an ethical analysis of two studies using SW-CRT designs in low-resource settings: the Que Vivan Las Madres study conducted from 2014 to 2017 in Guatemala and the Atmiyata study conducted from 2017 to 2018 in rural parts of India. For both case studies, we identified and evaluated the classification of the study as research or nonresearch and the ethical issues regarding the justification of the design, including the delayed rollout of an intervention that had a promising effect., Results: In our case studies, some minor ethical issues surfaced about the registration and stakeholder pressure on the order of randomization, but both included good justification for the design and delayed rollout. Our analysis did, however, demonstrate that careful consideration of the role of randomization and registration of the trials is important., Discussion: SW-CRTs can provide an opportunity for rigorous evaluation of interventions destined to be rolled out on the basis of limited evidence. Furthermore, in SW-CRTs, the underlying objective is often to provide a robust evaluation of the effectiveness for generalized dissemination, and this makes the SW-CRT no less a research study than any other form of cluster randomized trial., Conclusion: The design and conduct of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials raises at least two ethical issues that need special consideration in both high- and low-resource settings: the justification for using the design, specifically the delayed rollout of the intervention to the control group, and the classification of the study as research or nonresearch. In our case studies, these issues did not seem to raise special ethical scrutiny in low-resource settings. Further ethical evaluation will hopefully result in specific ethical guidelines for the use of SW-CRTs in both high- and low-resource settings to contribute to responsible functioning of these trials and adequate protection of participants.

Introduction: Economic evaluations of complex interventions in early child development are required to guide policy and programme development, but a few are yet available., Methods and Analysis: Although significant gains have been made in maternal and child health in resource-constrained environments, this has mainly been concentrated on improving physical health. The Learning Clubs programme addresses both physical and mental child and maternal health. This study is an economic evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial of the impact of the Learning Clubs programme in Vietnam. It will be conducted from a societal perspective and aims to identify the cost-effectiveness and the economic and social returns of the intervention. A total of 1008 pregnant women recruited from 84 communes in a rural province in Vietnam will be included in the evaluation. Health and cost data will be gathered at three stages of the trial and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per percentage point improvement of infant's development, infant's health and maternal common mental disorders expressed in quality-adjusted life years gained. The return on investment will be calculated based on improvements in productivity, the results being expressed as benefit-cost ratios., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial was approved by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Certificate Number 2016-0683), Australia, and approval was extended to include the economic evaluation (Amendment Review Number 2018-0683-23806); and the Institutional Review Board of the Hanoi School of Public Health (Certificate Number 017-377IDD- YTCC), Vietnam. Results will be disseminated through academic journals and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12617000442303., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Investigator-led multicentre randomised trials are essential to generate evidence on the optimal use of medical interventions. These non-commercial trials are often hampered by underfunding, which may lead to difficulties in gathering a team with the necessary expertise, a delayed trial start, slow recruitment and even early trial discontinuation. As a new public funder of pragmatic clinical trials, the KCE Trials programme was committed to correctly pay all trial activities in order to assure timely delivery of high-quality trial results. As no appropriate trial budget tool was readily publicly available that took into account the costs for the sponsor as well as the costs for participating sites, we developed a tool to make the budgeting of a clinical trial efficient, transparent and fair across applicants., Methods: All trial-related activities of the sponsor and sites were categorised, and cost drivers were identified. All elements were included in a spreadsheet tool allowing the sponsor team to calculate in detail the various activities of a clinical trial and to appreciate the budget impact of specific cost drivers, e.g. a delay in recruitment. Hourly fees by role were adapted from published data. Fixed amounts per activity were developed when appropriate., Results: This publicly available tool has already been used for 17 trials funded since the start of the KCE Trials programme in 2016, and it continues to be used and improved. This budget tool is used together with additional risk-reducing measures such as a multistep selection process with advance payments, a recruitment feasibility check by sponsor and funder, a close monitoring of study progress and a milestone-based payment schedule with the last payment made when the manuscript is submitted., Conclusions: The budget tool helps the KCE Trials programme to answer relevant research questions in a timely way, within budget and with high quality, a necessary condition to achieve impact of this programme for patients, clinical practice and healthcare payers.

This study aimed to compare three commonly used analysis methods for clinical trials in epilepsy in terms of statistical efficiency, nonefficacious exposure, and cost. A realistic seizure diary simulator was employed to produce 102 000 trials, which were analyzed by the 50%-responder rate method (RR50), median percentage change (MPC), and time to prerandomization (TTP). Half the trials compared a placebo to a drug that was 20% better, and the other half compared two placebos. The former were used to calculate statistical power; the latter were used for type 1 error rates. Based on the number of patients needed to achieve 90% power, expected number of patient-days of nonefficacious exposures and expected cost were calculated for each method. MPC demonstrated the highest efficacy, lowest exposure, and lowest cost. RR50 demonstrated the lowest efficacy, highest exposure, and highest cost. Costs were: MPC $1 295 000, TTP $1 315 720, and RR50 $2 331 000. Selecting an optimal analysis method for a primary outcome in an epilepsy trial can have consequences in terms of nonefficacious exposure and cost. This study provides evidence supporting the use of MPC (preferred) or TTP, and evidence suggesting that RR50 would incur high costs and excess exposures., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc. © 2019 International League Against Epilepsy.)