Challenge and Yield of Enrolling Racially and Ethnically Diverse Patient Populations in Low Event Rate Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We report patient enrollment and retention by race and ethnicity in the CREST (Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stent Trial) and assess potential effect modification by race/ethnicity. In addition, we discuss the challenge of detecting differences in study outcomes when subgroups are small and the event rate is low. METHODS: We compared 2502 patients by race, ethnicity, baseline characteristics, and primary outcome (any periprocedural stroke, death, or myocardial infarction and subsequent ipsilateral stroke up to 10 years). RESULTS: Two hundred forty (9.7%) patients were minority by race (6.1%) or ethnicity (3.6%); 109 patients (4.4%) were black, 32 (1.3%) Asian, 2332 (93.4%) white, 11 (0.4%) other, and 18 (0.7%) unknown. Ninety (3.6%) were Hispanic, 2377 (95%) non-Hispanic, and 35 (1.4%) unknown. The rate of the primary end point for all patients was 10.9%±0.9% at 10 years and did not differ by race or ethnicity (Pinter>0.24). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of minorities recruited to CREST was below their representation in the general population, and retention of minority patients was lower than for whites. Primary outcomes did not differ by race or ethnicity. However, in CREST (like other studies), the lack of evidence of a racial/ethnic difference in the treatment effect should be interpreted with caution because of low statistical power to detect such a difference. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732.

Financial management of a large multisite randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) received five years' funding ($21 112 866) from the National Institutes of Health to compare carotid stenting to surgery for stroke prevention in 2500 randomized participants at 40 sites. AIMS: Herein we evaluate the change in the CREST budget from a fixed to variable-cost model and recommend strategies for the financial management of large-scale clinical trials. METHODS: Projections of the original grant's fixed-cost model were compared to the actual costs of the revised variable-cost model. The original grant's fixed-cost budget included salaries, fringe benefits, and other direct and indirect costs. For the variable-cost model, the costs were actual payments to the clinical sites and core centers based upon actual trial enrollment. We compared annual direct and indirect costs and per-patient cost for both the fixed and variable models. Differences between clinical site and core center expenditures were also calculated. RESULTS: Using a variable-cost budget for clinical sites, funding was extended by no-cost extension from five to eight years. Randomizing sites tripled from 34 to 109. Of the 2500 targeted sample size, 138 (5·5%) were randomized during the first five years and 1387 (55·5%) during the no-cost extension. The actual per-patient costs of the variable model were 9% ($13 845) of the projected per-patient costs ($152 992) of the fixed model. CONCLUSIONS: Performance-based budgets conserve funding, promote compliance, and allow for additional sites at modest additional cost. Costs of large-scale clinical trials can thus be reduced through effective management without compromising scientific integrity.