Clinical trial metadata: defining and extracting metadata on the design, conduct, results and costs of 125 randomised clinical trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Abstract

BackgroundBy 2011, the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme had published the results of over 100 trials with another 220 in progress. The aim of the project was to develop and pilot ‘metadata’ on clinical trials funded by the HTA programme.ObjectivesThe aim of the project was to develop and pilot questions describing clinical trials funded by the HTA programme in terms of it meeting the needs of the NHS with scientifically robust studies. The objectives were to develop relevant classification systems and definitions for use in answering relevant questions and to assess their utility.Data sourcesPublished monographs and internal HTA documents.Review methodsA database was developed, ‘populated’ using retrospective data and used to answer questions under six prespecified themes. Questions were screened for feasibility in terms of data availability and/or ease of extraction. Answers were assessed by the authors in terms of completeness, success of the classification system used and resources required. Each question was scored to be retained, amended or dropped.ResultsOne hundred and twenty-five randomised trials were included in the database from 109 monographs. Neither the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number nor the term ‘randomised trial’ in the title proved a reliable way of identifying randomised trials. Only limited data were available on how the trials aimed to meet the needs of the NHS. Most trials were shown to follow their protocols but updates were often necessary as hardly any trials recruited as planned. Details were often lacking on planned statistical analyses, but we did not have access to the relevant statistical plans. Almost all the trials reported on cost-effectiveness, often in terms of both the primary outcome and quality-adjusted life-years. The cost of trials was shown to depend on the number of centres and the duration of the trial. Of the 78 questions explored, 61 were well answered, 33 fully with 28 requiring amendment were the analysis updated. The other 17 could not be answered with readily available data.LimitationsThe study was limited by being confined to 125 randomised trials by one funder.ConclusionsMetadata on randomised controlled trials can be expanded to include aspects of design, performance, results and costs. The HTA programme should continue and extend the work reported here.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Doxycycline compared with prednisolone therapy for patients with bullous pemphigoid: cost-effectiveness analysis of the BLISTER trial

“…Assuming the findings affected care for 10 years the population affected might number 7270, taking an EVPI of £242 per patient. The population EVPI is £176 000, a fraction of the average cost of a nationally recruiting multicentre clinical trial (undiscounted costs) . Taking into consideration the particular difficulties of conducting trials in this patient group, there may not be scope to conduct a further definitive trial in patients with mild‐to‐moderate disease.…”

Current status and perspectives of interventional clinical trials for glioblastoma – analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

“…Glioblastoma is also an attractive target from a clinical trial workflow perspective. Short term follow-up is certainly reducing the overall cost of the trial [58]. …”

Ciclosporin compared with prednisolone therapy for patients with pyoderma gangrenosum: cost-effectiveness analysis of the STOP GAP trial

“…Within the trial, 64% of patients presented with smaller lesions: if generalizable then the treatment of 370 patients a year might be affected by greater certainty about treatment. Assuming the findings affected care for 10 years the population affected might number 3700; taking the upper bound of £336/patient, the population EVPI is £1·24 million, similar to the average cost of a nationally recruiting multicentre clinical trial (undiscounted costs) . However, taking into consideration the particular difficulties of conducting trials in this patient group, there may not be scope to conduct further definitive trial in patients with smaller lesions, and efforts might be better placed in investigating new interventions or topical treatments.…”