Resource use and costs of investigator-sponsored randomised clinical trials in Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom: a meta-research study

  • Alexandra Griessbach* (Corresponding Author)
  • , Benjamin Speich
  • , Alain Amstutz
  • , Lena Hausheer
  • , Manuela Covino
  • , Hillary Wnfried Ramirez
  • , Stefan Schandelmaier
  • , Ala Taji Heravi
  • , Shaun Treweek
  • , Matthias Schwenkglenks
  • , Matthias Briel
  • , MAking Randomized Trials Affordable (MARTA) Group
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conducting high-quality randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging and resource intensive. Funders and academic investigators depend on limited financial resources and, therefore, need empirical data for optimal budget planning. However, current literature lacks detailed empirical data on resource use and costs of investigator-sponsored RCTs. The aim of this study is to systematically collect cost data from investigator-sponsored RCTs from Switzerland, Germany, and the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS: Principal investigators were asked to share their RCT cost and resource use data and enter it into an online case report form. We assessed cost patterns, cost drivers, and specific cost items, examined costs by study phase (planning-, conduct-, and finalisation phase), compared planned with actual RCT costs, and explored differences in cost patterns across countries, medical fields, and intervention types.

RESULTS: We included 93 RCTs which were initiated in Switzerland (n=53; including 8 conducted in low- and lower middle-income countries), Germany (n=22), and the UK (n=18). The median total trial cost in our RCT sample was $645,824 [Interquartile range (IQR), $269,846 to $1,577,924]. The median proportion of the total costs spent for planning phase was 27.5% [IQR, 20.6 to 39.7%], for conduct phase 57.3% [IQR, 44.4%-66.3%], and for finalisation phase 12.7% [IQR, 8.5% to 19.3%] with little variation across countries. The items that contributed most to the total costs were protocol writing (7.2%; IQR 3.8% to 10.6%), data management (5.0%; IQR 2.2% to 8.1%) and follow up (4.5%; IQR 2.3% to 8.4%). Of the 66 RCTs with an available original budget, 46 (69.7%) exceeded the budget by over 50%. Use of routinely collected data to assess primary outcomes was independently associated with lower per patient- and lower total trial costs.

CONCLUSIONS: Over a quarter of total trial costs were incurred in the planning phase, which is typically not fully funded. Two thirds of RCTs exceeded their budget by more than 50%. Investigators and funders should consider empirical cost data to improve budgeting and funding practices.

Original languageEnglish
Article number111536
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume176
Early online date21 Sept 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2024

Data Availability Statement

The data that has been used is confidential.

Funding

This study was supported by a project grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 320030_188802/1).

FundersFunder number
Swiss National Science Foundation320030_188802/1

    Keywords

    • Costs
    • Clinical trials
    • Randomized controlled trials
    • Budget
    • Funding
    • Resource-use

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Resource use and costs of investigator-sponsored randomised clinical trials in Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom: a meta-research study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this