Dataset Information

An investigation of the impact of futility analysis in publicly funded trials.

ABSTRACT: Publicly funded trials regularly fail to recruit their target sample size or find a significant positive result. Adaptive clinical trials which may partly mediate against the problems are not often applied. In this paper we investigate the potential of a form of adaption in a clinical trial - a futility analysis - to see if it has potential to improve publicly funded trials.Outcome data from trials funded by two UK bodies, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and the UK Medical Research Council (MRC), were collected. These data were then used to simulate each trial with a single futility analysis using conditional power, undertaken after 50% to 90% of the patients had been recruited. Thirty-three trials recruiting between 2002 and 2008 met the inclusion criteria. Stopping boundaries of conditional powers of 20%, 30% and 40% were considered and outcomes included the number of trials successfully stopped and number of patients saved.Inclusion of a futility analysis after 75% of the patients had been recruited would have potentially resulted in 10 trials, which went on to have negative results, correctly stopping for futility using a stopping boundary of 30%. A total of 807 patients across all the trials would potentially have been saved using these futility parameters. The proportion of studies successfully recruiting would also have increased from 45% to 64%.A futility assessment has the potential to increase efficiency, save patients and decrease costs in publicly funded trials. While there are logistical issues in undertaking futility assessments we recommend that investigators should aim to include a futility analysis in their trial design wherever possible.

SUBMITTER: Sully BG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3945066 | biostudies-other | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An investigation of the impact of futility analysis in publicly funded trials.

Sully Benjamin G O BG Julious Steven A SA Nicholl Jon J

Trials 20140217

<h4>Background</h4>Publicly funded trials regularly fail to recruit their target sample size or find a significant positive result. Adaptive clinical trials which may partly mediate against the problems are not often applied. In this paper we investigate the potential of a form of adaption in a clinical trial - a futility analysis - to see if it has potential to improve publicly funded trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Outcome data from trials funded by two UK bodies, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) ...[more]

PMID: 24533447

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS:Randomized clinical trials are widely recognized as essential to address worldwide clinical and public health research questions. However, their size and duration can overwhelm available public and private resources. To remain competitive in international research settings, advocates and practitioners of clinical trials must implement practices that reduce their cost. We identify approaches and practices for large, publicly funded, international trials that reduce cost without compromising data integrity and recommend an approach to cost reporting that permits comparison of clinical trials. METHODS:We describe the organizational and financial characteristics of The International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials, an infectious disease research network that conducts multiple, large, long-term, international trials, and examine challenges associated with simple and streamlined governance and an infrastructure and financial management model that is based on performance, transparency, and accountability. RESULTS:It is possible to reduce costs of participants' follow-up and not compromise clinical trial quality or integrity. The International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials network has successfully completed three large HIV trials using cost-efficient practices that have not adversely affected investigator enthusiasm, accrual rates, loss-to-follow-up, adherence to the protocol, and completion of data collection. This experience is relevant to the conduct of large, publicly funded trials in other disease areas, particularly trials dependent on international collaborations. CONCLUSION:New approaches, or creative adaption of traditional clinical trial infrastructure and financial management tools, can render large, international clinical trials more cost-efficient by emphasizing structural simplicity, minimal up-front costs, payments for performance, and uniform algorithms and fees-for-service, irrespective of location. However, challenges remain. They include institutional resistance to financial change, growing trial complexity, and the difficulty of sustaining network infrastructure absent stable research work. There is also a need for more central monitoring, improved and harmonized regulations, and a widely applied metric for measuring and comparing cost efficiency in clinical trials. ClinicalTrials.gov is recommended as a location where standardized trial cost information could be made publicly accessible.

Project description:ImportanceFor findings from clinical trials to be actionable, outcomes measured in trials must be fully defined and, when appropriate, defined consistently across trials. Otherwise, it is difficult to compare findings between trials, combine results in meta-analyses, or leverage findings collectively to inform health care decision-making.ObjectiveTo identify and characterize outcomes specified in ClinicalTrials.gov records for publicly funded clinical trials for 3 high-burden, high-prevalence eye conditions.Design, setting, and participantsClinicalTrials.gov, a registry of publicly and privately supported clinical studies, was searched on January 31, 2019, for records of clinical trials for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), dry eye, or refractive error. The search was limited to trials funded by the National Eye Institute but did not impose a date restriction. Five elements of a well-specified outcome were extracted from each outcome stated in each record, including the domain, method of measurement, metric, method of aggregation, and time points.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of outcome domains specified for trials for AMD, dry eye, and refractive error and the number of trial records specifying each unique domain.ResultsA total of 49 unique outcome domains specified across 39 records of trials were identified. The median (interquartile range) number of records specifying each unique outcome domain was 1 (1-3), 1.5 (1-2), and 1 (1-1) for AMD, dry eye, and refractive error, respectively. Even when the same domains were registered across multiple trials, the time point, specific metric, and method of aggregation were specified in multiple ways.Conclusions and relevanceThere were too many outcomes with too little overlap in the sample of trials that were examined. Differences in how outcomes are measured across trials make it difficult to compare results, even for well-established domains, such as visual acuity. To reduce this waste in eye and vision research, the time is ripe for agreeing on what outcomes to measure.

Dataset Information

An investigation of the impact of futility analysis in publicly funded trials.

Publications

An investigation of the impact of futility analysis in publicly funded trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets