The Costs of Industry-Sponsored Drug Trials in Canada.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tran DT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7248139 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The Costs of Industry-Sponsored Drug Trials in Canada.
Tran Dat T DT Akpinar Ilke I Jacobs Philip P
PharmacoEconomics - open 20200601 2
<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to estimate the provincial and nationwide costs of industry-sponsored drug clinical trials (CTs) in Canada.<h4>Methods</h4>We used the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) database, and included all industry-sponsored drug CTs that were conducted in Canada and completed in 2016. We estimated the costs of the study drugs using the market price. Estimates of the costs of management and patient services were based on industry contracts.<h ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMapping the international landscape of clinical trials may inform global health research governance, but no large-scale data are available. Industry or non-industry sponsorship may have a major influence in this mapping. We aimed to map the global landscape of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical trials and its evolution over time.MethodsWe analyzed clinical trials initiated between 2006 and 2013 and registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We mapped single-country and international trials by World Bank's income groups and by sponsorship (industry- vs. non- industry), including its evolution over time from 2006 to 2012. We identified clusters of countries that collaborated significantly more than expected in industry- and non-industry-sponsored international trials.Results119,679 clinical trials conducted in 177 countries were analysed. The median number of trials per million inhabitants in high-income countries was 100 times that in low-income countries (116.0 vs. 1.1). Industry sponsors were involved in three times more trials per million inhabitants than non-industry sponsors in high-income countries (75.0 vs. 24.5) and in ten times fewer trials in low- income countries (0.08 vs. 1.08). Among industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials, 30.3% and 3.2% were international, respectively. In the industry-sponsored network of collaboration, Eastern European and South American countries collaborated more than expected; in the non-industry-sponsored network, collaboration among Scandinavian countries was overrepresented. Industry-sponsored international trials became more inter-continental with time between 2006 and 2012 (from 54.8% to 67.3%) as compared with non-industry-sponsored trials (from 42.4% to 37.2%).ConclusionsBased on trials registered in the WHO ICTRP we documented a substantial gap between the globalization of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical research. Only 3% of academic trials but 30% of industry trials are international. The latter appeared to be conducted in preferentially selected countries.
| S-EPMC4681996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo quantify the carbon footprint from a sample of pharma industry sponsored phase III trials. To develop an approach that can readily be applied to future trials by AstraZeneca and other trial sponsors.DesignLife cycle assessment including all the sources of carbon emissions associated with a completed, an ongoing and a planned clinical trial. The methodology followed the guidance on appraising the sustainability of Care Pathways, developed by the UK National Health Service in collaboration with parties across the healthcare system.SettingThree multicentre late phase trials. One completed heart failure trial, one ongoing oncology trial and one asthma trial with the addition of devices to be representative of current practice.ParticipantsThe three trials had a total number of 7412 participants.Main outcome measuresTotal carbon emissions from each trial, the drivers of those emissions and the emissions per patient.ResultsThe total carbon footprint for the cardiovascular trial was calculated as 2498 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), the first 3 years of the oncology trial resulted in 1632 tonnes CO2e and the respiratory trial 1437 tonnes CO2e.ConclusionsWe have shown that it is feasible to perform a retrospective life cycle assessment to appraise the carbon footprint of large clinical trials and confirmed that phase III trials result in significant emissions. Having identified all the drivers of emissions and their magnitude, we are well placed to develop a plan for achieving net-zero carbon clinical trials. Now it is possible to expand the use of life cycle assessment to planned studies so that scientific aims can be achieved with a minimum of carbon emissions. We encourage other trialists to apply the same methodology as a necessary first step in reducing the carbon footprint of clinical trials.
| S-EPMC10445340 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Industry-sponsored clinical trials produce high-quality data sets that can be used by researchers to generate new knowledge. We assessed the availability of individual participant-level data (IPD) from large cardiovascular trials conducted by major pharmaceutical companies and compiled a list of available trials. METHODS AND RESULTS:We identified all randomized cardiovascular interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with >5000 enrollment, sponsored by 1 of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies by 2014 global sales. Availability of IPD for each trial was ascertained by searching each company's website/data-sharing portal. If availability could not be determined, each company was contacted electronically. Of 60 included trials, IPD are available for 15 trials (25%) consisting of 204 452 patients. IPD are unavailable for 15 trials (25%). Reasons for unavailability were: cosponsor did not agree to make IPD available (4 trials) and trials were not conducted within a specific time (5 trials); for the remaining 6 trials, no specific reason was provided. For 30 trials (50%), availability of IPD could not be definitively determined either because of no response or requirements for a full proposal (23 trials). CONCLUSIONS:IPD from 1 in 4 large cardiovascular trials conducted by major pharmaceutical companies are confirmed available to researchers for secondary research, a valuable opportunity to enhance science. However, IPD from 1 in 4 trials are not available, and data availability could not be definitively determined for half of our sample. For several of these trials, companies require a full proposal to determine availability, making use of the IPD by researchers less certain.
| S-EPMC4859296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.MethodsWe examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial's impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions.ResultsFor 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs.ConclusionAn encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.
| S-EPMC8406615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess if commercially sponsored trials are associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials.Study design and settingsWe undertook a systematic review of all consecutive, published and unpublished phase III cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG). We included all phase III cancer RCTs assessing treatment superiority from 1980 to 2010. Three metrics were assessed to determine treatment successes: (1) the proportion of statistically significant trials favouring the experimental treatment, (2) the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior according to the investigators, and (3) quantitative synthesis of data for primary outcomes as defined in each trial.ResultsGSK conducted 40 cancer RCTs accruing 19,889 patients and CTG conducted 77 trials enrolling 33,260 patients. 42% (99%CI 24 to 60) of the results were statistically significant favouring experimental treatments in GSK compared to 25% (99%CI 13 to 37) in the CTG cohort (RR = 1.68; p = 0.04). Investigators concluded that new treatments were superior to standard treatments in 80% of GSK compared to 44% of CTG trials (RR = 1.81; p<0.001). Meta-analysis of the primary outcome indicated larger effects in GSK trials (odds ratio = 0.61 [99%CI 0.47-0.78] compared to 0.86 [0.74-1.00]; p = 0.003). However, testing for the effect of treatment over time indicated that treatment success has become comparable in the last decade.ConclusionsWhile overall industry sponsorship is associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials, the difference seems to have disappeared over time.
| S-EPMC3605423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated large research programs to foster high quality clinical research in the academic area. These investigator initiated trials (IITs) cover important areas of medical research and often go beyond the scope of industry sponsored trials (ISTs). The purpose of this project was to understand to what extent results of randomized controlled IITs and ISTs have an impact on medical practice, measured by their availability for decisions in healthcare and their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to determine study characteristics influencing a trial's impact such as type of sponsor and place of conduct. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of this project and present the characteristics of the trials included in our study cohort.MethodsThe research impact of the following sub-cohorts was compared: German IITs (funded by DFG and BMBF or by other German non-commercial organizations), international IITs (without German contribution), German ISTs, and international ISTs. Trials included were drawn from the DFG-/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov . Research impact was measured as follows: 1) proportion of published trials, 2) time to publication, 3) proportion of publications appropriately indexed in biomedical databases, 4) proportion of openly accessible publications, 5) broadness of publication's target group, 6) citation of publications by systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 7) appearance of publications or citing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines. We also aimed to identify study characteristics associated with the impact of trials.ResultsWe included 691 trials: 120 German IITs, 200 International IITs, 171 German ISTs and 200 International ISTs. The median number of participants was 150, 30% were international trials and 70% national trials, 48% drug-trials and 52% non-drug trials. Overall, 72% of the trials had one pre-defined primary endpoint, 28% two or more (max. 36).ConclusionsThe results of this project deepen our understanding of the impact of biomedical research on clinical practice and healthcare policy, add important insights for the efficient allocation of scarce research resources and may facilitate providing accountability to the different stakeholders involved.
| S-EPMC7532587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve to capture vital patient information not otherwise obtained by primary study endpoints. This paper examines how PROs are utilized as endpoints in industry-sponsored metastatic breast cancer clinical trials.MethodsA search was conducted in the clinicaltrials.gov web site for trials involving common treatments for metastatic breast cancer. Thirty-eight clinical trials were identified which included a PRO endpoint in the study, and data were extracted and summarized.ResultsOverall, 17 unique PRO questionnaires and 14 concepts of measurement were identified as secondary or exploratory endpoints. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast was the most frequently utilized questionnaire, commonly implemented to assess quality of life. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was also frequently used to measure quality of life or pain.ConclusionThis review shares insights into the role of PROs in trials for metastatic breast cancer from which treatment developers and other stakeholders can enhance successful implementation of the patient voice into future trials.
| S-EPMC4946584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this analysis of health economic studies in the field of oncology was to investigate among sponsored studies whether any relationship could be established between the type of sponsorship and (1) type of economic analysis, (2) health technology assessed, (3) sensitivity analysis performed, (4) publication status, and (5) qualitative conclusions about costs. The Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED, version 1995-2000) was searched on the basis of oncological ICD-9 codes, sponsorship, and comparative studies. This search yielded a total of 150 eligible articles. Their evaluations were prepared independently by two investigators, on the basis of specific criteria. When evaluators disagreed, a third investigator provided a deciding evaluation. There was no statistically significant relationship between the type of sponsorship and sensitivity analysis performed (P=0.29) or publication status (P=0.08). However, we found a significant relationship between the types of sponsorship and of economic analysis (P=0.004), the health technology assessed (P<0.0001), and qualitative cost assessment (P=0.002). Studies with industrial sponsorship were 2.56 (99% lower confidence interval (CI)=1.28) times more likely to involve cost-minimisation analyses, were 0.04 (99% higher CI=0.39) times less likely to investigate diagnostic screening methods, and were 1.86 (99% lower CI=1.21) times more likely to reach positive qualitative conclusions about costs than studies supported by nonprofit organisations. In conclusion, our results suggest that there is a greater probability that industry-sponsored economic studies in the field of oncology tend to be cost-minimisation analyses, to investigate less likely diagnostic screening methods, and to draw positive qualitative conclusions about costs, as compared to studies supported by nonprofit organisations.
| S-EPMC2394350 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundUS and EU pediatric laws promote industry-sponsored pediatric studies, based on the therapeutic orphans concept that claims discrimination of children in drug treatment and drug development.ObjectiveWe investigated the medical validity of international pediatric studies with centers in Slovenia, an EU member state, and challenge their medical utility.MethodsWe analyzed international industry-sponsored pediatric studies with centers in Slovenia, listed in www.ClinicalTrials.gov, for their medical value.ResultsMost pediatric studies triggered by the US Food and Drug Administration and by the European Medicines Agency were/are without medical or scientific value. They were/are formally and regulatorily justified, but lack medical sense and thus were/are unethical. Several even harm children and/or adolescents with serious diseases by exposing them to placebo or substandard treatment.ConclusionsPediatric studies triggered by US and EU regulatory demands are a serious abuse of nonneonatal children and adolescents in Slovenia and worldwide. They are medically redundant at best and often deter patients from effective innovative personalized therapy. They also exclude young patients from reasonable studies. Institutional review boards/ethics committees should be alerted, should critically review all ongoing pediatric studies, should suspend those found to be questionable, and should reject newly submitted questionable ones.
| S-EPMC6677645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncreasing costs and complexity in clinical trials requires recruitment of more narrowly defined patient populations. However, recruitment for clinical trials remains a considerable challenge.AimOur overall aim was to quantify recruitment performance in industry-sponsored phase III clinical trials conducted globally during 2008-2019 with primary aim to examine development of overall clinical trial measures (number of trials completed, number of participants enrolled, trial duration in months) and key recruitment metrics (recruitment rate, number of sites, number of patients enrolled per site).MethodsThe publicly available AACT database containing data on all trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov since 2008 was used. The analysis was completed during three time periods from 2008-2019 of 4 years each.Results and conclusionRecruitment duration for industry-sponsored phase III clinical trials have increased significantly during the last 12 years from an average recruitment period of 13 months (IQR 7-23) in 2008-2011 to 18 months (IQR 11-28) in 2016-2019 (p = 0.0068). Further, phase III clinical trials have increased the number of registered sites per clinical trial by more than 30% during the last 12 years from a median number 43 sites (IQR 17-84) in 2012-2015 to 64 sites (IQR 30-118) in 2016-2019 (p = 0.025), and concurrently, the number of participants enrolled in clinical research has decreased significantly from 2012-2015 and 2016-2019 (p = 0.046). We believe that these findings indicate that recruitment for phase III clinical trials is less effective today compared to 12 years ago.
| S-EPMC9321424 | biostudies-literature