Darlene R Kitterman1, Steven K Cheng, David M Dilts, Eric S Orwoll. 1. Investigator Support and Integration Services, Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, USA. kitterma@ohsu.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The authors assessed the prevalence and associated economic impact of low-enrolling clinical studies at a single academic medical center. METHOD: The authors examined all clinical studies receiving institutional review board (IRB) review between FY2006 and FY2009 at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) for recruitment performance and analyzed them by type of IRB review (full-board, exempt, expedited), funding mechanism, and academic unit. A low-enrolling study included those with zero or one participant at the time of study termination. The authors calculated the costs associated with IRB review, financial setup, contract negotiation, and department study start-up activities and the total economic impact on OHSU of low-enrolling studies for FY2009. RESULTS: A total of 837 clinical studies were terminated during the study period, 260 (31.1%) of which were low-enrolling. A greater proportion of low-enrolling studies were government funded than industry funded (P=.006). The authors found significant differences among the various academic units with respect to percentages of low-enrolling studies (from 10% to 67%). The uncompensated economic impact of low-enrolling studies was conservatively estimated to be nearly $1 million for FY2009. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of clinical studies incurred high institutional and departmental expense but resulted in little scientific benefit. Although a certain percentage of low-enrolling studies can be expected in any research organization, the overall number of such studies must be managed to reduce the aggregate costs of conducting research and to maximize research opportunities. Effective, proactive interventions are needed to address the prevalence and impact of low enrollment.
PURPOSE: The authors assessed the prevalence and associated economic impact of low-enrolling clinical studies at a single academic medical center. METHOD: The authors examined all clinical studies receiving institutional review board (IRB) review between FY2006 and FY2009 at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) for recruitment performance and analyzed them by type of IRB review (full-board, exempt, expedited), funding mechanism, and academic unit. A low-enrolling study included those with zero or one participant at the time of study termination. The authors calculated the costs associated with IRB review, financial setup, contract negotiation, and department study start-up activities and the total economic impact on OHSU of low-enrolling studies for FY2009. RESULTS: A total of 837 clinical studies were terminated during the study period, 260 (31.1%) of which were low-enrolling. A greater proportion of low-enrolling studies were government funded than industry funded (P=.006). The authors found significant differences among the various academic units with respect to percentages of low-enrolling studies (from 10% to 67%). The uncompensated economic impact of low-enrolling studies was conservatively estimated to be nearly $1 million for FY2009. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of clinical studies incurred high institutional and departmental expense but resulted in little scientific benefit. Although a certain percentage of low-enrolling studies can be expected in any research organization, the overall number of such studies must be managed to reduce the aggregate costs of conducting research and to maximize research opportunities. Effective, proactive interventions are needed to address the prevalence and impact of low enrollment.
Authors: Anneke T Schroen; Gina R Petroni; Hongkun Wang; Robert Gray; Xiaofei F Wang; Walter Cronin; Daniel J Sargent; Jacqueline Benedetti; Donald L Wickerham; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Craig L Slingluff Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Steven E Reis; Lars Berglund; Gordon R Bernard; Robert M Califf; Garret A Fitzgerald; Peter C Johnson Journal: Acad Med Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: David M Dilts; Steven K Cheng; Joshua S Crites; Alan B Sandler; James H Doroshow Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: S Shea; J T Bigger; J Campion; J L Fleiss; L M Rolnitzky; E Schron; L Gorkin; K Handshaw; M R Kinney; M Branyon Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 1992-12
Authors: Caroline S Bennette; Scott D Ramsey; Cara L McDermott; Josh J Carlson; Anirban Basu; David L Veenstra Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Blair Gonsenhauser; Rose Hallarn; Daniel Carpenter; Michael F Para; Carson R Reider Journal: J Investig Med Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: George Z Retsch-Bogart; Jill M Van Dalfsen; Bruce C Marshall; Cynthia George; Joseph M Pilewski; Eugene C Nelson; Christopher H Goss; Bonnie W Ramsey Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Scott R Rosas; Jeffrey T Schouten; Dennis Dixon; Suresh Varghese; Marie T Cope; Joe Marci; Jonathan M Kagan Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-30 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Holly A Massett; Grace Mishkin; Larry Rubinstein; S Percy Ivy; Andrea Denicoff; Elizabeth Godwin; Kate DiPiazza; Jennifer Bolognese; James A Zwiebel; Jeffrey S Abrams Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Rebecca S Usadi; Michael P Diamond; Richard S Legro; William D Schlaff; Karl R Hansen; Peter Casson; Gregory Christman; G Wright Bates; Valerie Baker; Aimee Seungdamrong; Mitchell P Rosen; Scott Lucidi; Tracey Thomas; Hao Huang; Nanette Santoro; Esther Eisenberg; Heping Zhang; Ruben Alvero Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Dorothy F Edwards; Ravi Menon; Ali Fokar; Christopher Gibbons; Jeffrey Wing; Brisa Sanchez; Chelsea S Kidwell Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2013-02
Authors: Maija Holsti; Kathleen M Adelgais; Leah Willis; Kammy Jacobsen; Edward B Clark; Carrie L Byington Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 4.689