Activity ID
12731Expires
August 1, 2025Format Type
Journal-basedCME Credit
1Fee
30CME Provider: JAMA Network Open
Description of CME Course
Importance Platform trial design allows the introduction of new interventions after the trial is initiated and offers efficiencies to clinical research. However, limited guidance exists on the economic resources required to establish and maintain platform trials.
Objective To compare cost (US dollars) and time requirements of conducting a platform trial vs a series of conventional (nonplatform) trials using a real-life example.
Design, Setting, and Participants For this economic evaluation, an online survey was administered to a group of international experts (146 participants) with publication records of platform trials to elicit their opinions on cost and time to set up and conduct platform, multigroup, and 2-group trials. Using the reported entry dates of 10 interventions into Systemic Therapy in Advancing Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy, the longest ongoing platform trial, 3 scenarios were designed involving a single platform trial (scenario 1), 1 multigroup followed by 5 2-group trials (scenario 2), and a series of 10 2-group trials (scenario 3). All scenarios started with 5 interventions, then 5 more interventions were either added to the platform or evaluated independently. Simulations with the survey results as inputs were used to compare the platform vs conventional trial designs. Data were analyzed from July to September 2021.
Exposure Platform trial design.
Main Outcomes and Measures Total trial setup and conduct cost and cumulative duration.
Results Although setup time and cost requirements of a single trial were highest for the platform trial, cumulative requirements of setting up a series of multiple trials in scenarios 2 and 3 were larger. Compared with the platform trial, there was a median (IQR) increase of 216.7% (202.2%-242.5%) in cumulative setup costs for scenario 2 and 391.1% (365.3%-437.9%) for scenario 3. In terms of total cost, there was a median (IQR) increase of 17.4% (12.1%-22.5%) for scenario 2 and 57.5% (43.1%-69.9%) for scenario 3. There was a median (IQR) increase in cumulative trial duration of 171.1% (158.3%-184.3%) for scenario 2 and 311.9% (282.0%-349.1%) for scenario 3. Cost and time reductions in the platform trial were observed in both the initial and subsequently evaluated interventions.
Conclusions and Relevance Although setting up platform trials can take longer and be costly, the findings of this study suggest that having a single infrastructure can improve efficiencies with respect to costs and efforts.
Disclaimers
1. This activity is accredited by the American Medical Association.
2. This activity is free to AMA members.
ABMS Member Board Approvals by Type
ABMS Lifelong Learning CME Activity
Allergy and Immunology
Anesthesiology
Colon and Rectal Surgery
Family Medicine
Medical Genetics and Genomics
Nuclear Medicine
Ophthalmology
Orthopaedic Surgery
Pathology
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Plastic Surgery
Preventive Medicine
Psychiatry and Neurology
Radiology
Thoracic Surgery
Urology
Commercial Support?
NoNOTE: If a Member Board has not deemed this activity for MOC approval as an accredited CME activity, this activity may count toward an ABMS Member Board’s general CME requirement. Please refer directly to your Member Board’s MOC Part II Lifelong Learning and Self-Assessment Program Requirements.
Educational Objectives
To identify the key insights or developments described in this article
Keywords
Coronavirus (COVID-19), Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment, Health Policy, Research, Methods, Statistics, Oncology
Competencies
Medical Knowledge
CME Credit Type
AMA PRA Category 1 Credit
DOI
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2382