Clinical trials are considered to be the largest contributor to pharmaceutical development costs. However, public disclosure of the costs of individual clinical trials is rare. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) sponsored a phase 2b-3 randomised controlled trial (TB-PRACTECAL), which identified a new treatment regimen for drug-resistant TB. We aimed to analyse the costs of undertaking a pivotal clinical trial conducted in relatively low-resource health settings and to demonstrate the feasibility of reporting clinical trial costs. TB-PRACTECAL trial costs were analysed using MSF accounting documents. Costs were broken down by cost category, year, and trial site. Total costs for TB-PRACTECAL were €33.9 million and the average cost per patient was €61,460. Twenty-six percent of total costs represented central activities (e.g. trial planning, trial management) and 72% represented trial site activities, with 2% uncategorizable. Within trial site costs, personnel costs were the largest cost (43%) followed by external diagnostic services (11%), medicines (9%), and other medical consumables (7%). Cost variation across trial sites was driven by different varying levels of pre-existing trial infrastructure. A review of previous studies yielded a wide range of cost estimates for clinical trials (ranging US$7–221 million/trial for pharmaceutical phase 2 and 3 trials). Nearly all previous estimates derive from industry reporting that is neither standardized nor auditable; to our knowledge, this is the first published comprehensive analysis of direct expenditures of a specific clinical trial including detailed cost breakdowns. The €34 million cost of TB-PRACTECAL included investments in developing clinical trial infrastructure, the complexity of managing six sites across three health systems, and medical expenditures that are not typical of standard clinical trials. Greater transparency in drug development costs can inform medicine pricing negotiations and is a key element in the design and implementation of more equitable systems of biomedical research and development.
Clinical trials are a cornerstone of medical innovation. Nonetheless, little information on the cost of conducting clinical trials is available, especially for clinical trials in the global south. This lack of data and transparency hinders the creation of reliable cost estimates and adequate funding of clinical trials in resource- limited settings. Following the recent adoption of the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Clinical Trial Transparency Policy, we present a detailed cost report for TB-PRACTECAL.
METHODS
TB-PRACTECAL was an open-label, phase 2–3, multicentre randomised trial of all-oral regimens for the treatment of drug- resistant tuberculosis. Trial planning began in 2013 and work on publications continued into 2023. The trial took place in six sites across Belarus, South Africa, and Uzbekistan, and enrolled 552 patients. We analysed accounting data for the TB-PRACTECAL project, comprehensively including different costs, presented into 27 categories, by site, and by year, and at the per-patient level.
RESULTS
Total costs for TB-PRACTECAL were €33.9 million, of which 26% were at central level (costs incurred by the UK clinical trial team including trial planning, management, quality assurance, and analysis of results), while 72% were at the trial site level (across all six sites) and 2% were uncategorisable. At trial sites, the largest cost category was staff (43%), followed by external diagnostic services (11%), medicines (9%), other medical consumables (7%), external non-medical services (6%), and transport and travel (6%). Among medicines, the costliest were bedaquiline (46% of medicine costs), linezolid (16%), imipenem/ cilastatin (10%), and delamanid (9%). The mean cost per patient enrolled was €61,460 across the whole trial (including trial management overhead). When only site-level costs were considered, per-patient costs ranged between €19,998 and €45,942 across the six sites.
CONCLUSION
The costs of TB-PRACTECAL were similar to previously reported estimates for comparable clinical trials. However, TB- PRACTECAL included additional costs that would not typically be incurred in a commercial trial, such as investments in clinical research infrastructure and purchase of investigative medical products. To our knowledge, this is the first time MSF, or any other entity, published and analysed the disaggregated costs of a specific clinical trial. These data could help generate reliable predictions for future clinical trials and support planning and involvement, particularly in low-resource settings. Additionally, this study highlights the role of clinical trial cost disclosure in supporting both practical and policy discussions around the development of a more equitable system of biomedical R&D and fairer medicine pricing. Additionally, we developed a financial reporting template to facilitate future reporting of clinical trial cost by MSF and other entities investing in research.
⇒ The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how current international laws and practices fail to ensure medical countermeasures (i.e., vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and personal protective equipment) are
equitably distributed in a global health crisis.
⇒ In 2021, the 194 Member States of the World Health Organization agreed to begin negotiations towards an international instrument that would better position the world to prevent, respond and prepare for future pandemics (often called a ‘pandemic treaty’.)
⇒ A pandemic treaty presents an opportunity to address these challenges in international law, and craft a better system, based on solidarity, for the global development and distribution of medical countermeasures.
⇒ We recommend that a pandemic treaty ensure sufficient financing for biomedical research and development (R&D), creates conditions for licensing government-funded R&D, mandates technology transfer, shares intellectual property, data and knowledge needed for the production and supply of products, and streamlines regulatory standards and procedures to market medical countermeasures.
⇒ We also recommend that a pandemic treaty ensures greater transparency and inclusive governance of these systems.
⇒ The aim of these components in a pandemic treaty should be to craft a better collective response to global health threats, consistent with existing international law, political commitments and sound public health practice.