» Articles » PMID: 32223593

The Inclusion of Economic Endpoints As Outcomes in Clinical Trials Reported to ClinicalTrials.gov

Overview
Specialties Pharmacology
Pharmacy
Date 2020 Apr 1
PMID 32223593
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: As medication expenditures rise, payers are increasingly demanding evidence of economic value for new medications. The 2015 Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force on Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside Clinical Trials noted that clinical trials are increasingly including health care utilization endpoints to address this rising interest in economic information.

Objectives: To (a) describe the prevalence of economic endpoints in clinical trials submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov and (b) examine associations between trial characteristics and the inclusion of economic endpoints.

Methods: This retrospective review of ClinicalTrials.gov data extracted the characteristics of clinical trials that were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2004 to December 2018; studied a drug and/or biological; and had a recruitment status of not yet recruiting, recruiting, active but not recruiting, or completed. Studies were classified as containing an economic endpoint based on 2 independent evaluations of the inclusion of endpoints relevant to costs, resource utilization, cost-effectiveness, productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism, or unemployment. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize trial characteristics, and chi-square analyses were used to evaluate differences in characteristics between trials with and without economic endpoints.

Results: Of the 104,885 trials included in the study, 1,437 (1.37%) included an economic endpoint; among later phase (phase 2/3, 3, 4) trials, 939 (2.54%) included economic endpoints. Compared with studies that did not include economic endpoints, those that did were less often industry funded (48.0% vs. 52.0%, < 0.001) and were for a high-spend specialty condition (24.1% vs. 27.4%, < 0.001). The proportion of trials that included economic endpoints increased by a small but significant amount over the time period studied, from 1.2% (2004-2008) to 1.6% (2014-2018; < 0.001).

Conclusions: A small but growing number of clinical trials are including economic endpoints. This finding may reflect continued industry concerns surrounding the cost and logistical challenges of piggybacking economic data collection alongside clinical trials and/or manufacturers' preferences for modeling for value demonstration. Future research is needed to better understand barriers to the inclusion of economic endpoints as well as the degree to which incorporating health care resource utilization collected during clinical trials into early economic modeling may reduce payer concerns about model transparency and bias.

Disclosures: No outside funding supported this study. Patterson reports past employment by Indivior, unrelated to this study. Mitchell has nothing to disclose. The research included in this study was presented as a nonreviewed student pharmacist poster at AMCP Nexus 2019; October 30-November 1, 2019; National Harbor, MD.

Citing Articles

Interventions and impact of pharmacist-delivered services in perioperative setting on clinically important outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Naseralallah L, Koraysh S, Aboujabal B, Alasmar M Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2024; 15:20420986241260169.

PMID: 39091467 PMC: 11292727. DOI: 10.1177/20420986241260169.


Cost assessment in melanoma clinical trials: A cross-sectional study.

Goodman R, Garner D, Koester S, Patrinely Jr J, Dewan A, Johnson D JAAD Int. 2023; 12:139-141.

PMID: 37409320 PMC: 10319333. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdin.2023.05.005.


Point estimation for adaptive trial designs II: Practical considerations and guidance.

Robertson D, Choodari-Oskooei B, Dimairo M, Flight L, Pallmann P, Jaki T Stat Med. 2023; 42(14):2496-2520.

PMID: 37021359 PMC: 7614609. DOI: 10.1002/sim.9734.


Real-World Evidence: Bridging Gaps in Evidence to Guide Payer Decisions.

Roberts M, Ferguson G Pharmacoecon Open. 2020; 5(1):3-11.

PMID: 32557235 PMC: 7895868. DOI: 10.1007/s41669-020-00221-y.

References
1.
Ramsey S, Willke R, Glick H, Reed S, Augustovski F, Jonsson B . Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials II-An ISPOR Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2015; 18(2):161-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.02.001. View

2.
Bourgeois F, Murthy S, Mandl K . Comparative effectiveness research: an empirical study of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. PLoS One. 2012; 7(1):e28820. PMC: 3253780. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028820. View

3.
Alexander K, Kong D, Starr A, Kramer J, Chiswell K, Tasneem A . Portfolio of clinical research in adult cardiovascular disease as reflected in ClinicalTrials.gov. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013; 2(5):e000009. PMC: 3835214. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000009. View

4.
Adam G, Springs S, Trikalinos T, Williams Jr J, Eaton J, von Isenburg M . Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series. Syst Rev. 2018; 7(1):59. PMC: 5902969. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5. View

5.
Zarin D, Tse T, Williams R, Califf R, Ide N . The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(9):852-60. PMC: 3066456. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012065. View