Bayesian Clinical Trials.

The following is an introduction from the guest editors for the Bayesian Clinical Trials series.

Why are not There More Bayesian Clinical Trials? Perceived Barriers and Educational Preferences Among Medical Researchers Involved in Drug Development.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: The clinical trials community has been hesitant to adopt Bayesian statistical methods, which are often more flexible and efficient with more naturally interpretable results than frequentist methods. We aimed to identify self-reported barriers to implementing Bayesian methods and preferences for becoming comfortable with them. METHODS: We developed a 22-question survey submitted to medical researchers (non-statisticians) from industry, academia, and regulatory agencies. Question areas included demographics, experience, comfort levels with Bayesian analyses, perceived barriers to these analyses, and preferences for increasing familiarity with Bayesian methods. RESULTS: Of the 323 respondents, most were affiliated with pharmaceutical companies (33.4%), clinical research organizations (29.7%), and regulatory agencies (18.6%). The rest represented academia, medical practice, or other. Over 56% of respondents expressed little to no comfort in interpreting Bayesian analyses. "Insufficient knowledge of Bayesian approaches" was ranked the most important perceived barrier to implementing Bayesian methods by a plurality (48%). Of the approaches listed, in-person training was the most preferred for gaining comfort with Bayesian methods. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these survey results, we recommend that introductory level training on Bayesian statistics be presented in an in-person workshop that could also be broadcast online with live Q&A. Other approaches such as online training or collaborative projects may be better suited for higher-level trainings where instructors may assume a baseline understanding of Bayesian statistics. Increased coverage of Bayesian methods at medical conferences and medical school trainings would help improve comfort and overcome the substantial knowledge barriers medical researchers face when implementing these methods.

Improving economic evaluations in stroke: A report from the ESO Health Economics Working Group.

INTRODUCTION: Approaches to economic evaluations of stroke therapies are varied and inconsistently described. An objective of the European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Health Economics Working Group is to standardise and improve the economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. METHODS: The ESO Health Economics Working Group and additional experts were contacted to develop a protocol and a guidance document for data collection for economic evaluations of stroke therapies. A modified Delphi approach, including a survey and consensus processes, was used to agree on content. We also asked the participants about resources that could be shared to improve economic evaluations of interventions for stroke. RESULTS: Of 28 experts invited, 16 (57%) completed the initial survey, with representation from universities, government, and industry. More than half of the survey respondents endorsed 13 specific items to include in a standard resource use questionnaire. Preferred functional/quality of life outcome measures to use for economic evaluations were the modified Rankin Scale (14 respondents, 88%) and the EQ-5D instrument (11 respondents, 69%). Of the 12 respondents who had access to data used in economic evaluations, 10 (83%) indicated a willingness to share data. A protocol template and a guidance document for data collection were developed and are presented in this article. CONCLUSION: The protocol template and guidance document for data collection will support a more standardised and transparent approach for economic evaluations of stroke care.