Impact assessment of the European Clinical Trials Directive: a longitudinal, prospective, observational study analyzing patterns and trends in clinical drug trial applications submitted since 2001 to regulatory agencies in six EU countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Shifts in clinical trial application rates over time indicate if the attractiveness of a country or region for the conduct of clinical trials is growing or decreasing. The purpose of this observational study was to track changes in drug trial application patterns across several EU countries in order to analyze the medium-term impact of the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC on the conduct of drug trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Rates of Clinical Trial Applications (CTA) for studies with medicinal products in those six countries in the EU, which authorize on average more than 500 trials per year, were analyzed. Publicly available figures on the number of annually submitted CTA, the distribution of trials per phase and the type of sponsorship were tracked; missing data were provided by national drug agencies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Since 2001, the number of CTA in Italy and Spain increased significantly (5.0 and 2.5% average annual growth). For Italy, the gain was driven by a strong increase of applications from academic trial sponsors; Spain's growth was due to a rise in trials run by commercial sponsors. The Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK saw a decline (1.9, 2.3, 3.0 and 5.3% average annual diminution; significant (<it>P </it>< 0.05) except for Germany) in clinical drug trials. The decrease in the UK was caused by a sharp fall in academic trial activities. Across the six analyzed countries, no EU-wide trial-phase-specific patterns or trends were observed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC did not achieve the harmonization of clinical trial requirements across Europe. Rather, it resulted in the leveling of clinical trial activities caused by a continuing decrease in CTA rates in the Netherlands, Germany, France and the UK. Southern European countries, Italy and Spain, benefited to some extent from policy changes introduced by the Directive. In Italy's case, national funding measures helped to considerably promote the conduct of non-commercial trials. On the other hand, the EU Directive-driven transition from liberal policy environments, based on non-explicit trial approval through notifications, towards red-taped processes of trial authorization, contributed to the decreases in trial numbers in Germany and the UK. In the latter case, national research governance concerns had a share in the country's marked decline. However, different EU member states successfully developed best practices, which a new European legislation should take into consideration to resume Europe's attractiveness and international competitiveness for the conduct of clinical trials.</p

A comparison of two methods for expert elicitation in health technology assessments.

BACKGROUND: When data needed to inform parameters in decision models are lacking, formal elicitation of expert judgement can be used to characterise parameter uncertainty. Although numerous methods for eliciting expert opinion as probability distributions exist, there is little research to suggest whether one method is more useful than any other method. This study had three objectives: (i) to obtain subjective probability distributions characterising parameter uncertainty in the context of a health technology assessment; (ii) to compare two elicitation methods by eliciting the same parameters in different ways; (iii) to collect subjective preferences of the experts for the different elicitation methods used. METHODS: Twenty-seven clinical experts were invited to participate in an elicitation exercise to inform a published model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative treatments for prostate cancer. Participants were individually asked to express their judgements as probability distributions using two different methods - the histogram and hybrid elicitation methods - presented in a random order. Individual distributions were mathematically aggregated across experts with and without weighting. The resulting combined distributions were used in the probabilistic analysis of the decision model and mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and the expected values of perfect information (EVPI) were calculated for each method, and compared with the original cost-effectiveness analysis. Scores on the ease of use of the two methods and the extent to which the probability distributions obtained from each method accurately reflected the expert's opinion were also recorded. RESULTS: Six experts completed the task. Mean ICERs from the probabilistic analysis ranged between £162,600-£175,500 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) depending on the elicitation and weighting methods used. Compared to having no information, use of expert opinion decreased decision uncertainty: the EVPI value at the £30,000 per QALY threshold decreased by 74-86 % from the original cost-effectiveness analysis. Experts indicated that the histogram method was easier to use, but attributed a perception of more accuracy to the hybrid method. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of expert elicitation can decrease decision uncertainty. Here, choice of method did not affect the overall cost-effectiveness conclusions, but researchers intending to use expert elicitation need to be aware of the impact different methods could have.This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West Peninsula