IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0314593.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving patient recruitment to randomised trials can be cost-effective: A case-study of dexamethasone from the RECOVERY trial

Author

Listed:
  • Athanasios Gkekas
  • Sarah J Ronaldson
  • Adwoa Parker
  • David J Torgerson

Abstract

Background: The RECOVERY trial assessed the effectiveness of treatments on preventing severe outcomes from COVID-19 disease in hospitalised patients from 176 NHS hospitals. Clinical benefits of Dexamethasone were observed for hospitalised COVID-19 patients. About 15% of all eligible patients were recruited into the trial. Had patient recruitment been higher the study would have been completed more rapidly. Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of improving recruitment to the RECOVERY trial from 15% to 50%, by employing or redeploying two research nurses to each hospital participating in the RECOVERY trial. The analysis is restricted to the evaluation of Dexamethasone versus No Dexamethasone. Methods: A decision tree model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Dexamethasone, against No Dexamethasone. Probability, utility, and cost inputs were used for each pathway and treatment. Then, a cost-utility analysis of clinical practice post-RECOVERY trial (83% Dexamethasone, 17% No Dexamethasone) versus previous clinical practice (100% No Dexamethasone) was undertaken; this analysis was aggregated at the population level and the cost of employing or redeploying two research nurses at each hospital was added, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of faster recruitment to the RECOVERY trial. Results: Faster recruitment to the RECOVERY trial could have generated an incremental net benefit of £13,955,476 related to the evaluation of Dexamethasone against No Dexamethasone, thus highlighting the magnitude of the foregone incremental net benefit due to not adopting a more cost-effective clinical practice (83% Dexamethasone, 17% No Dexamethasone) earlier. The findings remain robust following variations in the model’s parameters, with a 85% and 94% probability of faster recruitment being cost-effective given a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 and £30,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year respectively. Conclusion: Slow recruitment to randomised trials can have huge implications for healthcare systems as a result of not introducing a more cost-effective treatment earlier through faster patient recruitment.

Suggested Citation

  • Athanasios Gkekas & Sarah J Ronaldson & Adwoa Parker & David J Torgerson, 2025. "Improving patient recruitment to randomised trials can be cost-effective: A case-study of dexamethasone from the RECOVERY trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0314593
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314593
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314593
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314593&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0314593?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ricardo Águas & Adam Mahdi & Rima Shretta & Peter Horby & Martin Landray & Lisa White, 2021. "Potential health and economic impacts of dexamethasone treatment for patients with COVID-19," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Ricardo Águas & Adam Mahdi & Rima Shretta & Peter Horby & Martin Landray & Lisa White, 2021. "Author Correction: Potential health and economic impacts of dexamethasone treatment for patients with COVID-19," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-1, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0314593. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.