Uptake of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in Australia: an observational study.

Abstract

Australia's clinical trials sector is highly productive with continued sector investment needed to enhance research impact. Generating economic evidence alongside trials has the potential to facilitate the implementation of trial results into practice. Ascertaining the use of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials can assist in determining whether clinical trials fully realize and operationalize their potential to change policy and practice. The aims of this study were to ascertain the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials and explore associations between uptake and trial characteristics. This observational study comprised a descriptive analysis of clinical trials registries, a cross-sectional survey of Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA) networks, and a subgroup analysis of completed acute care trials. Descriptive analyses of trial registrations were conducted, with logistic regressions used to identify predictors of proposing and subsequently publishing a health economic evaluation alongside acute care trials. Few randomized Australian-led clinical trials (11% of 9251) and ACTA network trials (43% of 227) proposed a health economic evaluation. In the subgroup analysis, 22% of the 324 acute care trials and 53% of the 38 ACTA network acute care trials proposed a health economic evaluation. Acute care trials funded by government bodies were significantly more likely to propose and publish a health economic evaluation than those funded by hospitals, universities, and other funders, after adjusting for phase, registration year, primary sponsor type, and comparator. Current uptake of health economic evaluations alongside Australian-led clinical trials is low, with uptake higher among the subset of ACTA network trials. This is despite economic evidence playing an increasingly prominent role in health system management, as well as rising health expenditure, limited budgets, and competing demands. There is significant opportunity to embed health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, to increase research outputs and optimize research translation. Investing in clinical trial networks that support funding for a health economist or a health economic evaluation may be an effective strategy to increase the uptake of health economic evaluations alongside trials.