Literature DB >> 2161311

Analysis of the costs of a large prevention trial.

N Urban1, S Self, L Kessler, R Prentice, M Henderson, D Iverson, D Thompson, D Byar, W Insull, S L Gorbach.   

Abstract

Total direct costs of the Women's Health Trial (WHT), a large multicenter prevention trial, were reduced by more than 50% by means of research cost analysis conducted during the trial design phase. The unit costs of specific trial activities were estimated so that total direct costs of the trial could be predicted from design parameters. The relative costs of screening, treatment, and follow-up, and the fixed costs associated with each clinical center in a multicenter prevention trial were taken into account. Direct costs of the WHT were reduced from +195 million to +95 million by refinement of the trial protocol, selection of an efficient design, and consideration of trial logistics. The analyses suggest several ways to reduce costs in a prevention trial. Use of the case-cohort approach can reduce costs substantially when the protocol includes collection of specimens or data that are costly to process. When establishing and maintaining a clinical center represents a significant proportion of a clinical center's costs, use of a smaller number of larger clinical centers offers important cost savings. Because restrictive eligibility requirements reduce the recruitment potential of each clinical center, use of high-risk participants may not improve the efficiency of a prevention trial; its favorable impact on sample size may fail to compensate for its cost in terms of additional clinical centers and higher recruitment costs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2161311     DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(90)90006-n

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  9 in total

Review 1.  Optimising the economic efficiency of drug studies.

Authors:  M E Kitler
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Estimating development cost for a tailored interactive computer program to enhance colorectal cancer screening compliance.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Yu-Chia Chang; Judith L Bettencourt; Sally W Vernon; Anthony Greisinger
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2006-06-23       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Perspective: Randomized Controlled Trials Are Not a Panacea for Diet-Related Research.

Authors:  James R Hébert; Edward A Frongillo; Swann A Adams; Gabrielle M Turner-McGrievy; Thomas G Hurley; Donald R Miller; Ira S Ockene
Journal:  Adv Nutr       Date:  2016-05-16       Impact factor: 8.701

4.  Reply to DR Merkle.

Authors:  Ross L Prentice; Aaron K Aragaki; Linda Van Horn; Jacques E Rossouw; Barbara V Howard
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 7.045

5.  Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States.

Authors:  David R Lairson; Wen Chan; Yu-Chia Chang; Deborah J del Junco; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Eval Program Plann       Date:  2010-08-06

6.  Costs and cost-effectiveness of a church-based intervention to promote mammography screening.

Authors:  S E Stockdale; E Keeler; N Duan; K P Derose; S A Fox
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Implementation costs of a multi-component program to increase human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in a network of pediatric clinics.

Authors:  Jarrod S Eska; David R Lairson; L S Savas; Ross Shegog; C Mary Healy; Stanley W Spinner; Maria E Fernandez; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  J Appl Res Child       Date:  2019

8.  The net effect of alternative allocation ratios on recruitment time and trial cost.

Authors:  Ralitza Vozdolska; Mary Sano; Paul Aisen; Steven D Edland
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  Costs of multidisciplinary parenteral nutrition care provided at a distance via mobile tablets.

Authors:  Heejung Kim; Ryan Spaulding; Marilyn Werkowitch; Donna Yadrich; Ubolrat Piamjariyakul; Richard Gilroy; Carol E Smith
Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 4.016

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.