Financial management of large, multi-center trials in a challenging funding milieu

Trials. 2018 May 3;19(1):267. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2638-z.

Abstract

Background: Randomized clinical trials that have public health implications but no or low potential for commercial gain are predominantly funded by governmental (e.g., National Institutes of Health (NIH)) and not-for-profit organizations. Our objective was to develop an alternative clinical trial site funding model for judicious allocation of declining public research funds.

Methods: In the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study, an NIH-supported, large clinical trial testing the effect of vitamin D supplementation on incident diabetes in 2423 participants at high risk for diabetes, a hybrid financial management model for supporting collaborating clinical sites was developed and applied. The funding model employed two reimbursement components: Core (for study start-up and partial efforts throughout the study, ~40% of the total site budget), invoiced by sites, and Performance-Based Payments (for successful enrollment of participants and completion of follow-up visits, ~60% of the total site budget), automatically issued to the sites by the Coordinating Center based on actual recruitment and visits conducted. Underperforming sites transitioned to Performance-Based Payments only.

Results: Recruitment occurred from October 2013 through December 2016, requiring one additional year than the 2-year projection. Median enrollment at each site was 88 participants (range 29-318; 20 to 205% of the site target). At the end of year 1, study-wide recruitment was at 12% of the target (vs. 50% projected) and 12% of the total grant award was invested. The model constantly evaluated sites' needs and re-allocated resources to meet the study enrollment goal. If D2d had issued cost reimbursement subaward agreements and sites invoiced for their entire budget, 83% of the award would have been spent for all study activities over the first 4 years of the trial compared to 65% of the award spent (US$26M) under the hybrid model used by D2d.

Conclusions: It is feasible to foster a hybrid financial management approach to steward limited available public funds for research in a dynamic and consistent way that does not compromise the trial's scientific integrity and ensures conservation of funds to complete recruitment and continue to follow up participants.

Keywords: Budget; Clinical trial; Diabetes; Financial management; Hybrid; National Institutes of Health.

MeSH terms

  • Budgets
  • Cholecalciferol / administration & dosage*
  • Cholecalciferol / adverse effects
  • Cholecalciferol / economics
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / diagnosis
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / economics
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / epidemiology
  • Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / prevention & control*
  • Dietary Supplements* / adverse effects
  • Dietary Supplements* / economics
  • Financing, Government / economics*
  • Financing, Government / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Government Regulation
  • Health Care Costs
  • Humans
  • Incidence
  • Models, Economic
  • Multicenter Studies as Topic / economics*
  • Multicenter Studies as Topic / legislation & jurisprudence
  • National Institutes of Health (U.S.) / economics*
  • National Institutes of Health (U.S.) / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Patient Selection
  • Public Sector / economics*
  • Public Sector / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / economics*
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / legislation & jurisprudence
  • Reimbursement Mechanisms
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome
  • United States / epidemiology

Substances

  • Cholecalciferol