Search

Background: The conduct of clinical trials should be an integral part of routine patient care. Treating patients in trials incurs additional costs over and above standard of care (SOC), but the extent of the cost burden is not known. We undertook a retrospective cost attribution analysis to quantitate the treatment costs associated with cancer clinical trial protocols conducted over a 2 year period., Methods: All patients entered into oncology (non-haematology) clinical trials involving investigational medicinal products in 2009 and 2010 in a single UK institution were identified. The trial protocols on which they were treated were analysed to identify the treatment costs for the experimental arm(s) of the trial and the equivalent SOC had the patient not been entered in the trial. The treatment cost difference was calculated by subtracting the experimental treatment cost from SOC cost. For randomised trials, an average treatment cost was estimated by taking into account the number of arms and randomisation ratio. An estimate of the annual treatment costs was calculated., Results: A total of 357 adult oncology patients were treated on 53 different trial protocols: 40 phase III, 2 randomised II/III and 11 phase II design. A total of 27 trials were academic, non-commercial sponsored trials and 26 were commercial sponsored trials. When compared with SOC, the average treatment cost per patient was an excess of £431 for a non-commercial trial (range £6393 excess to £6005 saving) and a saving of £9294 for a commercial trial (range £0 to £71,480). There was an overall treatment cost saving of £388,719 in 2009 and £496,556 in 2010, largely attributable to pharmaceutical company provision of free drug supplies., Conclusion: On an average, non-commercial trial protocols were associated with a small per patient excess treatment cost, whereas commercial trials were associated with a substantially higher cost saving. Taking into account the total number of patients recruited annually, treatment of patients on clinical trial protocols was associated with considerable cost savings across both the non-commercial and commercial portfolio.

Background: Many clinical trials show no overall benefit. We examined futility analyses applied to trials with different effect sizes., Methods: Ten randomised cancer trials were retrospectively analysed; target sample size reached in all. The hazard ratio indicated no overall benefit (n=5), or moderate (n=4) or large (n=1) treatment effects. Futility analyses were applied after 25, 50 and 75% of events were observed, or patients were recruited. Outcomes were conditional power (CP), and time and cost savings., Results: Futility analyses could stop some trials with no benefit, but not all. After observing 50% of the target number of events, 3 out of 5 trials with no benefit could be stopped early (low CP ≤ 15%). Trial duration for two studies could be reduced by 4-24 months, saving £44 000-231 000, but the third had already stopped recruiting, hence no savings were made. However, of concern was that 2 of the 4 trials with moderate treatment effects could be stopped early at some point, although they eventually showed worthwhile benefits., Conclusions: Careful application of futility can lead to future patients in a trial not being given an ineffective treatment, and should therefore be used more often. A secondary consideration is that it could shorten trial duration and reduce costs. However, studies with modest treatment effects could be inappropriately stopped early. Unless there is very good evidence for futility, it is often best to continue to the planned end., (© 2012 Cancer Research UK)

Since the publication of the results of phase I dose-finding studies, an extensive phase II and III clinical study programme has been undertaken to study the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the quinazoline folate analogue raltitrexed ('Tomudex'), a novel direct and specific inhibitor of thymidylate synthase. Two international phase III trials, studies 3 and 12, have compared raltitrexed 3 mg m(-2) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus low-dose leucovorin (LV) (Mayo regimen) or high-dose LV (Machover regimen) respectively. A North American study (study 10) was originally set up to compare two raltitrexed dosage arms (3.0 and 4.0 mg m[-2]) with 5-FU and low-dose LV, but the 4.0 mg m(-2) arm was discontinued prematurely because of excessive toxicity. Minimum follow-up times for studies 3, 10 and 12 were 15.5, 12 and 9 months, respectively (for data other than survival), with corresponding survival follow-up times of 26, 12 and 17 months. Objective response rates were similar for raltitrexed and 5-FU + LV, and palliative improvements were seen to a similar extent with both treatments in all phase III studies. Survival was statistically similar for raltitrexed and 5-FU + LV in both studies 3 and 12. Raltitrexed was, however, associated with inferior survival to 5-FU + low-dose LV in study 10, but there appears to be evidence that this was linked to an unconscious effect on investigator behaviour of early toxicity problems in this trial, in that patients appeared to be withdrawn from raltitrexed treatment without progression or protocolled toxicity. Moreover, it appeared that 5-FU + LV patients were continued on treatment after disease progression. 5-FU-based therapy was associated with a higher incidence of mucositis than raltitrexed in all studies, with the attainment of statistical significance in studies 3 and 12. Elevations in hepatic transaminase levels were seen with raltitrexed, but these are thought to be of no clinical significance. Overall, much greater levels of toxicity were seen with 5-FU + LV than with raltitrexed in early treatment cycles. In addition, retrospective UK audit data have shown the monthly cost of raltitrexed therapy to be similar to that of Mayo and continuous infusion 5-FU regimens, and appreciably lower than that of the de Gramont regimen of 5-FU (bolus + 22-h infusion) + high-dose LV. Thus, raltitrexed is an effective alternative to 5-FU-based therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, with an acceptable and, unlike 5-FU, predictable toxicity profile. In particular, patients receiving raltitrexed may benefit from the minimization or avoidance of mucositis, and both patients and healthcare providers may find the convenient administration schedule of the drug advantageous.