Choosing inclusion criteria that minimize the time and cost of clinical trials

Abstract

AIM:To present statistical tools to model and optimize the cost of a randomized clinical trial as a function of the stringency of patient inclusion criteria. METHODS:We consider a two treatment, dichotomous outcome trial that includes a proportion of patients who are strong responders to the tested intervention. Patients are screened for inclusion using an arbitrary number of test results that are combined into an aggregate suitability score. The screening score is regarded as a diagnostic test for the responsive phenotype, having a specific cutoff value for inclusion and a particular sensitivity and specificity. The cutoff is a measure of stringency of inclusion criteria. Total cost is modeled as a function of the cutoff value, number of patients screened, the number of patients included, the case occurrence rate, response probabilities for control and experimental treatments, and the trial duration required to produce a statistically significant result with a specified power. Regression methods are developed to estimate relevant model parameters from pilot data in an adaptive trial design. RESULTS:The patient numbers and total cost are strongly related to the choice of the cutoff for inclusion. Clear cost minimums exist between 5.6 and 6.1 on a representative 10-point scale of exclusiveness. Potential cost savings for typical trial scenarios range in millions of dollars. As the response rate for controls approaches 50%, the proper choice of inclusion criteria can mean the difference between a successful trial and a failed trial. CONCLUSION:Early formal estimation of optimal inclusion criteria allows planning of clinical trials to avoid high costs, excessive delays, and moral hazards of Type II errors.© 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.Key words: Adaptive trial designs; Biomarkers; Clinical trials; Device; Drug therapy; Ethics; Methodology; Optimal allocation; Personalized medicine; Sequential design Core tip: This paper presents statistical tools to model and optimize the cost of a randomized clinical trial as a function of the stringency of patient inclusion criteria. The patient numbers and total cost are strongly related to the choice of the cutoff for inclusion. Clear cost minimums exist for many realistic scenarios. Potential cost savings for typical trial scenarios range in millions of dollars. Early formal estimation of optimal inclusion criteria allows planning of clinical trials to avoid high costs, excessive delays, and moral hazards of type Ⅱ errors.Babbs CF. Choosing inclusion criteria that minimize the time and cost of clinical trials. World

Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review

“…It is clear that the choice of inclusion and exclusion criteria can affect the duration and cost of a clinical trial [ 4 ], as well as the likelihood of the trial meeting desired enrollment levels and retaining sufficient participants to have an opportunity to meet a statistical endpoint. Getz et al [ 44 ] noted that across 3400 clinical trials, more than 40% had amended protocols prior to the first subject visit, delaying trials by 4 months.…”

Considerations and recommendations for selection and utilization of upper extremity clinical outcome assessments in human spinal cord injury trials

“…Adaptive trial design may be one way to address the challenges associated with recruitment, and should be considered in the context of enrollment and clinical trial progression in order to find the “most direct route to a statistically significant result using the smallest number of subjects” [ 32 ]. Adaptive trial design allows for modification of a trial based on incoming data without impacting the validity of the trial.…”

Sample enrichment for clinical trials to show delay of onset in huntington disease

“…Based on current knowledge of premanifest natural history, measures of disease progression are often nonlinear, particular to one component or phase of the disease, and reflect wide variability secondary to heterogeneity. Although searches for new biomarkers and refined clinical markers are beneficial (and necessary), currently available candidates are not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) qualified or psychometrically validated for implementation in prodromal HD . Preventive treatments in prodromal participants delivered using outcomes that have not yet been vetted to demonstrate robust intra‐ or interrater reliability, cross‐site reliability, or cross‐platform reliability (in the cases in which imaging scanners or computers are involved) or not yet validated with participant‐reported or meaningful outcomes could challenge interpretation of findings.…”

“…Although searches for new biomarkers and refined clinical markers are beneficial (and necessary), currently available candidates are not US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) qualified 47 or psychometrically validated for implementation in prodromal HD. [7][8][9]48,49 Preventive treatments in prodromal participants delivered using outcomes that have not yet been vetted to demonstrate robust intra-or interrater reliability, cross-site reliability, or cross-platform reliability (in the cases in which imaging scanners or computers are involved) or not yet validated with participantreported or meaningful outcomes could challenge interpretation of findings. Preventive clinical trials without recommended methodological scrutiny may simply extend the litany of disappointing trials or result in incomplete findings requiring further study prior to FDA approval.…”

“…7,8 One significant limitation of disease modification trials is the assumption that intervention(s) effective at one stage of a disease are equally applicable at other points in the disease course, yet many evidence-based treatment guidelines vary by disease stage, risk, and severity. Hence, a frequently cited complexity in clinical trials involves the properties of inclusion criteria to capture heterogeneity 1,[9][10][11][12][13][14] while maximizing efficiencies in statistical power, time, and cost. The purpose of this study was to consider feasible approaches to CNS disease modification trials throughout the disease course.…”