Abstract
Background Demonstrating safety and efficacy of new medical treatments requires clinical trials. But clinical trials are costly and may not provide value proportionate to their costs. In health systems with limited resources, it is important to identify the trials with the highest value. Tools exist to assess elements of a clinical trial such as statistical validity but are not wholistic in their valuation of a clinical trial. This study aims to develop a measure of clinical trials value and provide an online tool for clinical trial prioritisation.
Methods A search of the academic and grey literature and expert consultation was undertaken to identify a set of metrics to aid clinical trial valuation using multi-criteria decision analysis. Swing weighting and ranking exercises were used to calculate appropriate weights of each of the included metrics and to estimate the partial-value function for each underlying metric. The set of metrics and their respective weights were applied to the results of six different clinical trials to calculate their value.
Results Seven metrics were identified: ‘unmet need’, ‘size of target population’, ‘eligible participants can access the trial’, ‘patient outcomes’, ‘total trial cost’, ‘academic impact’ and ‘use of trial results’. The survey had 80 complete sets of responses (51% response rate). A trial designed to address an ‘Unmet Need’ was most commonly ranked as the most important with a weight of 24.4%, followed by trials demonstrating improved ‘Patient Outcomes’ with a weight of 21.2%. The value calculated for each trial allowed for their clear delineation and thus a final value ranking for each of the six trials.
Conclusion We confirmed that the use of the decision tool for valuing clinical trials is feasible and that the results are face valid based on the evaluation of six trials. A proof-of-concept applying this tool to a larger set of trials with an external validation is currently underway.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was initiated at the request of and funded by the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre (VCCC) to improve the outcomes and efficiencies of the clinical trial programs throughout member institutions.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Melbourne School of Population and Global Health Human Ethics Advisory Group of the University of Melbourne gave ethical approval for this work (ID 2056390.3)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Statements and Declarations
Funding This work was initiated at the request of and funded by the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre (VCCC) to improve the outcomes and efficiencies of the clinical trial programs throughout member institutions.
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethics Approval Ethics approval for the study was provided by the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health Human Ethics Advisory Group at the University of Melbourne (ID 2056390.3).
Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to consent being specific to this project with no future use permitted. Data may be made available if consent for release can be reasonably obtained from study participants.
Data Availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to consent being specific to this project with no future use permitted. Data may be made available if consent for release can be reasonably obtained from study participants.
