A significant barrier to conducting clinical trials is their high cost, which is driven primarily by the time and resources required to activate trials and reach accrual targets. The high cost of running trials has a substantial impact on their long-term feasibility and the type of clinical research undertaken.
Methods
A scoping review of the empirical literature on the costs associated with conducting clinical trials was undertaken for the years 2001–2015. Five reference databases were consulted to elicit how trials costs are presented in the literature. A review instrument was developed to extract the content of in-scope papers. Findings were characterized by date and place of publication, clinical disease area, and network/cooperative group designation, when specified. Costs were captured and grouped by patient accrual and management, infrastructure, and the opportunity costs associated with industry funding for trials research. Cost impacts on translational research and health systems were also captured, as were recommendations to reduce trial expenditures. Since articles often cited multiple costs, multiple cost coding was used during data extraction to capture the range and frequency of costs.
Results
A total of 288 empirical articles were included. The distribution of reported costs was: patient management and accrual costs (132 articles), infrastructure costs (118 articles) and the opportunity costs of industry sponsorship (72 articles). 221 articles reported on the impact of undertaking costly trials on translational research and health systems; of these, the most frequently reported consequences were to research integrity (52% of articles), research capacity (36% of articles) and running low-value trials (34% of articles). 254 articles provided recommendations to reduce trial costs; of these, the most frequently reported recommendations related to improvements in: operational efficiencies (33% of articles); patient accrual (24% of articles); funding for trials and transparency in trials reporting (18% of articles, each).
Conclusion
Key findings from the review are: 1) delayed trial activation has costs to budgets and research; 2) poor accrual leads to low-value trials and wasted resources; 3) the pharmaceutical industry can be a pragmatic, if problematic, partner in clinical research; 4) organizational know-how and successful research collaboration are benefits of network/cooperative groups; and 5) there are spillover benefits of clinical trials to healthcare systems, including better health outcomes, enhanced research capacity, and drug cost avoidance. There is a need for more economic evaluations of the benefits of clinical research, such as health system use (or avoidance) and health outcomes in cities and health authorities with institutions that conduct clinical research, to demonstrate the affordability of clinical trials, despite their high cost.
BertagnolliMMCanettaRNassSJ. Expanding public-private collaborations to enhance cancer drug development: a report of the Institute of Medicine’s workshop series, “Implementing a National Cancer Clinical Trials System for the 21st Century.” Oncologist2014; 19: 1179–1185.
2.
KasendaBSchandelmaierSSunX, et al. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications. BMJ2014; 349: g4539.
3.
SeowHYWhelanPLevineMN, et al. Funding oncology clinical trials: are cooperative group trials sustainable?J Clin Oncol2012; 30: 1456–1461.
4.
DiltsDMSandlerAB.Invisible barriers to clinical trials: the impact of structural, infrastructural, and procedural barriers to opening oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol2006; 24: 4545–4552.
5.
DiltsDMSandlerABChengSK, et al. Steps and time to process clinical trials at the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. J Clin Oncol2009; 27: 1761–1766.
6.
ChakmaJSunGHSteinbergJD, et al. Asia’s ascent—global trends in biomedical R&D expenditures. N Engl J Med2014; 370: 3–6.
7.
MosesH3rdMathesonDHCairns-SmithS, et al. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA2015; 313: 174–189.
8.
NassSJMosesHLMendelsohnJ (eds). A national cancer clinical trials system for the 21st century: reinvigorating the NCI Cooperative Group Program. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2010, https://doi.org/10.17226/12879
ArkseyHO’MalleyL.Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol2005; 8: 19–32.
11.
LevacDColquhounHO’BrienKK.Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci2010; 5: 69.
12.
SchroenATPetroniGRWangH, et al. Preliminary evaluation of factors associated with premature trial closure and feasibility of accrual benchmarks in phase III oncology trials. Clin Trials2010; 7: 312–321.
13.
StenslandKDMcBrideRBLatifA, et al. Adult cancer clinical trials that fail to complete: an epidemic?J Natl Cancer Inst2014; 106: dju229.
14.
KasendaBVon ElmEYouJ, et al. Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. JAMA2014; 311: 1045–1051.
15.
AtassiNYerramilli-RaoPSzymonifkaJ, et al. Analysis of start-up, retention, and adherence in ALS clinical trials. Neurology2013; 81: 1350–1355.
16.
De FeoGChiabrandoGCannovoN, et al. Harmonization of the practice of independent ethics committees in Italy: project E-submission. PLoS ONE2012; 7: e48906.
17.
FlaccoMEManzoliLBocciaS, et al. Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor. J Clin Epidemiol2015; 68: 811–820.
18.
RoperNZhangNKorensteinD.Industry collaboration and randomized clinical trial design and outcomes. JAMA Intern Med2014; 174: 1695–1696.
19.
DunnAGMandlKDCoieraE, et al. The effects of industry sponsorship on comparator selection in trial registrations for neuropsychiatric conditions in children. PLoS ONE2013; 8: e84951.
20.
GlickmanSWMcHutchisonJGPetersonED, et al. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N Engl J Med2009; 360: 816–823.
21.
KamatVR.Fast, cheap, and out of control? Speculations and ethical concerns in the conduct of outsourced clinical trials in India. Soc Sci Med2014; 104: 48–55.
22.
DavidsonRMMcNeerJFLoganL, et al. A cooperative network of trained sites for the conduct of a complex clinical trial: a new concept in multicenter clinical research. Am Heart J2006; 151: 451–456.
23.
JonesBSymeREliasziwM, et al. Incremental costs of prostate cancer trials: are clinical trials really a burden on a public payer system?Can Urol Assoc J2013; 7: E231–E236.
24.
LinikerEHarrisonMWeaverJM, et al. Treatment costs associated with interventional cancer clinical trials conducted at a single UK institution over 2 years (2009–2010). Br J Cancer2013; 109: 2051–2057.
25.
BredinCEliasziwMSymeR.Drug cost avoidance resulting from cancer clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials2010; 31: 524–529.
26.
TurnerLShamseerLAltmanDG, et al. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2012; 11: MR000030.
27.
DamenLVan AgtFDe BooT, et al. Terminating clinical trials without sufficient subjects. J Med Ethics2012; 38: 413–416.
28.
LawMRKawasumiYMorganSG. Despite law, fewer than one in eight completed studies of drugs and biologics are reported on time on ClinicalTrials.gov. Health Aff2011; 30: 2338–2345.
29.
TamVCTannockIFMasseyC, et al. Compendium of unpublished phase III trials in oncology: characteristics and impact on clinical practice. J Clin Oncol2011; 29: 3133–3139.
30.
McAlearneyASSongPHReiterKL.Why providers participate in clinical trials: considering the National Cancer Institute’s Community Clinical Oncology Program. Contemp Clin Trials2012; 33: 1143–1149.
31.
BoazAHanneySJonesT, et al. Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open2015; 5: e009415.
32.
WeinerBJJacobsSRMinasianLM, et al. Organizational designs for achieving high treatment trial enrollment: a fuzzy-set analysis of the community clinical oncology program. J Oncol Pract2012; 8: 287–291.
33.
ClarkeMLoudonK.Effects on patients of their healthcare practitioner’s or institution’s participation in clinical trials: a systematic review. Trials2011; 12: 16.
34.
KilburnLSBanerjiJBlissJM.The challenges of long-term follow-up data collection in non-commercial, academically-led breast cancer clinical trials: the UK perspective. Trials2014; 15: 379.
35.
SerugaBSadikovACazapEL, et al. Barriers and challenges to global clinical cancer research. Oncologist2014; 19: 61–67.
36.
LunGAtenafuEGKnoxJJ, et al. Use of a clinical assistant to screen patients with genitourinary cancer to encourage entry into clinical trials and use of supportive medication: a pilot project at a Canadian cancer center. Clin Genitourin Cancer2013; 11: 342–345.e1.
37.
RochonJdu BoisALangeT.Mediation analysis of the relationship between institutional research activity and patient survival. BMC Med Res Methodol2014; 14: 9.
38.
MajumdarSRRoeMTPetersonED, et al. Better outcomes for patients treated at hospitals that participate in clinical trials. Arch Intern Med2008; 168: 657–662.
39.
WissingMDKluetzPGNingYM, et al. Under-representation of racial minorities in prostate cancer studies submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration to support potential marketing approval, 1993–2013. Cancer2014; 120: 3025–3032.
40.
GerberDELakodukAMPriddyLL, et al. Temporal trends and predictors for cancer clinical trial availability for medically underserved populations. Oncologist2015; 20: 674–682.
41.
LimayeDLangerJMRuhlingT, et al. A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa. BMJ Open2015; 5: e007304.
42.
DiltsDMChengSKCritesJS, et al. Phase III clinical trial development: a process of chutes and ladders. Clin Cancer Res2010; 16: 5381–5389.
43.
SnooksHHutchingsHSeagroveA, et al. Bureaucracy stifles medical research in Britain: a tale of three trials. BMC Med Res Methodol2012; 12: 122.
44.
Metzger-FilhoOde AzambujaEBradburyI, et al. Analysis of regional timelines to set up a global phase III clinical trial in breast cancer: the adjuvant lapatinib and/or trastuzumab treatment optimization experience. Oncologist2013; 18: 134–140.
45.
KiriakisJGaichNJohnstonSC, et al. Observational study of contracts processing at 29 CTSA sites. Clin Transl Sci2013; 6: 279–285.
46.
WagnerTHMurrayCGoldbergJ, et al. Costs and benefits of the National Cancer Institute central institutional review board. J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 662–666.
47.
AllenDRipleyECoeA, et al. Reorganizing the General Clinical Research Center to improve the clinical and translational research enterprise. Eval Health Prof2013; 36: 492–504.
48.
PanJJNahmMWakimP, et al. A centralized informatics infrastructure for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network. Clin Trials2009; 6: 67–75.
49.
HvenegaardAJuhlHHHabichtA.Does participation in clinical trials influence the costs of future management of patients?Eur J Health Econ2012; 13: 569–574.
50.
WeissJPParsonsLSEveryNR, et al. Does enrollment in a randomized clinical trial lead to a higher cost of routine care?Am Heart J2002; 143: 140–144.
51.
GoldmanDPBerrySHMcCabeMS, et al. Incremental treatment costs in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials. JAMA2003; 289: 2970–2977.
52.
JohnstonSCRootenbergJDKatrakS, et al. Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. Lancet2006; 367: 1319–1327.
53.
RothJAEtzioniRWatersTM, et al. Economic return from the women’s health initiative estrogen plus progestin clinical trial: a modeling study. Ann Intern Med2014; 160: 594–602.
54.
SongPHReiterKLWeinerBJ, et al. The business case for provider participation in clinical trials research: an application to the National Cancer Institute’s community clinical oncology program. Health Care Manage Rev2013; 38: 284–294.
55.
VujanicGMSandstedtBKelseyA, et al. Central pathology review in multicenter trials and studies: lessons from the nephroblastoma trials. Cancer2009; 115: 1977–1983.
56.
KostRGMervin-BlakeSHallarnR, et al. Accrual and recruitment practices at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions: a call for expectations, expertise, and evaluation. Acad Med2014; 89: 1180–1189.
57.
SchroenATPetroniGRWangH, et al. Challenges to accrual predictions to phase III cancer clinical trials: a survey of study chairs and lead statisticians of 248 NCI-sponsored trials. Clin Trials2011; 8: 591–600.
58.
LocockLSmithL.Personal experiences of taking part in clinical trials—a qualitative study. Patient Educ Couns2011; 84: 303–309.
59.
GlasziouPAltmanDGBossuytP, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet2014; 383: 267–276.
60.
BridouxVMoutelGSchwarzL, et al. Disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in phase III surgical trials: survey of ten general surgery journals. World J Surg2014; 38: 2487–2493.
61.
HammMPScottSDKlassenTP, et al. Do health care institutions value research? A mixed methods study of barriers and facilitators to methodological rigor in pediatric randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol2012; 12: 158.
62.
DwanKKirkhamJJWilliamsonPR, et al. Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis. BMJ Open2013; 3: e002709.
63.
GistPPLangleyDP.Application of standard project management tools to research–a case study from a multi-national clinical trial. J Res Adm2007; 38: 51–58.
64.
LynamEBLeawJWienerMB.A patient focused solution for enrolling clinical trials in rare and selective cancer indications: a landscape of haystacks and needles. Drug Inf J2012; 46: 472–478.
65.
RosasSRSchoutenJTDixonD, et al. Evaluating protocol lifecycle time intervals in HIV/AIDS clinical trials. Clin Trials2014; 11: 553–559.
66.
MurthySMandlKDBourgeoisFT.Industry-sponsored clinical research outside high-income countries: an empirical analysis of registered clinical trials from 2006 to 2013. Health Res Policy Syst2015; 13: 28.
67.
LeclercJMLabergeNMarionJ.Metrics survey of industry-sponsored clinical trials in Canada and comparator jurisdictions between 2005 and 2010. Healthc Policy2012; 8: 88–104.
68.
Yun JungCHyeJungJSinaeK, et al. A trial activation initiative to accelerate trial opening in an academic medical center. Ther Innov Regul Sci2015; 49: 234–238.
69.
SchroenATPetroniGRWangH, et al. Achieving sufficient accrual to address the primary endpoint in phase III clinical trials from U.S. Cooperative Oncology Groups. Clin Cancer Res2012; 18: 256–262.
70.
BaerARKellyCABruinoogeSS, et al. Challenges to National Cancer Institute–supported cooperative group clinical trial participation: an ASCO survey of cooperative group sites. J Oncol Pract2010; 6: 114–117.
71.
McCammonMGFoggTTJacobsenL, et al. From free to free market: cost recovery in federally funded clinical research. Sci Transl Med2012; 4: 141cm7.
72.
RawalBDeaneBR.Clinical trial transparency update: an assessment of the disclosure of results of company-sponsored trials associated with new medicines approved in Europe in 2012. Curr Med Res Opin2015; 31: 1431–1435.
73.
RosasSRKaganJMSchoutenJT, et al. Evaluating research and impact: a bibliometric analysis of research by the NIH/NIAID HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks. PLoS ONE2011; 6: e17428.
74.
McCraeNDouglasLBanerjeeS.Contribution of research networks to a clinical trial of antidepressants in people with dementia. J Ment Health2012; 21: 439–447.
75.
LiuGChenGSinowayLI, et al. Assessing the impact of the NIH CTSA program on institutionally sponsored clinical trials. Clin Transl Sci2013; 6: 196–200.
76.
ShenLJChouHHuangCF, et al. Economic benefits of sponsored clinical trials on pharmaceutical expenditures at a medical center in Taiwan. Contemp Clin Trials2011; 32: 485–491.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
