Cargando…

Is more research always needed? Estimating optimal sample sizes for trials of retention in care interventions for HIV-positive East Africans

INTRODUCTION: Given the serious health consequences of discontinuing antiretroviral therapy, randomised control trials of interventions to improve retention in care may be warranted. As funding for global HIV research is finite, it may be argued that choices about sample size should be tied to maxim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Uyei, Jennifer, Li, Lingfeng, Braithwaite, R Scott
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Global Health 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5656134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29081993
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000195
_version_ 1783273664659062784
author Uyei, Jennifer
Li, Lingfeng
Braithwaite, R Scott
author_facet Uyei, Jennifer
Li, Lingfeng
Braithwaite, R Scott
author_sort Uyei, Jennifer
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Given the serious health consequences of discontinuing antiretroviral therapy, randomised control trials of interventions to improve retention in care may be warranted. As funding for global HIV research is finite, it may be argued that choices about sample size should be tied to maximising health. METHODS: For an East African setting, we calculated expected value of sample information and expected net benefit of sampling to identify the optimal sample size (greatest return on investment) and to quantify net health gains associated with research. Two hypothetical interventions were analysed: (1) one aimed at reducing disengagement from HIV care and (2) another aimed at finding/relinking disengaged patients. RESULTS: When the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was within a plausible range (1–3 × GDP; US$1377–4130/QALY), the optimal sample size was zero for both interventions, meaning that no further research was recommended because the pre-research probability of an intervention's effectiveness and value was sufficient to support a decision on whether to adopt the intervention and any new information gained from additional research would likely not change that decision. In threshold analyses, at a higher WTP of $5200 the optimal sample size for testing a risk reduction intervention was 2750 per arm. For the outreach intervention, the optimal sample size remained zero across a wide range of WTP thresholds and was insensitive to variation. Limitations, including not varying all inputs in the model, may have led to an underestimation of the value of investing in new research. CONCLUSION: In summary, more research is not always needed, particularly when there is moderately robust prestudy belief about intervention effectiveness and little uncertainty about the value (cost-effectiveness) of the intervention. Users can test their own assumptions at http://torchresearch.org.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5656134
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Global Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56561342017-10-27 Is more research always needed? Estimating optimal sample sizes for trials of retention in care interventions for HIV-positive East Africans Uyei, Jennifer Li, Lingfeng Braithwaite, R Scott BMJ Glob Health Research INTRODUCTION: Given the serious health consequences of discontinuing antiretroviral therapy, randomised control trials of interventions to improve retention in care may be warranted. As funding for global HIV research is finite, it may be argued that choices about sample size should be tied to maximising health. METHODS: For an East African setting, we calculated expected value of sample information and expected net benefit of sampling to identify the optimal sample size (greatest return on investment) and to quantify net health gains associated with research. Two hypothetical interventions were analysed: (1) one aimed at reducing disengagement from HIV care and (2) another aimed at finding/relinking disengaged patients. RESULTS: When the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold was within a plausible range (1–3 × GDP; US$1377–4130/QALY), the optimal sample size was zero for both interventions, meaning that no further research was recommended because the pre-research probability of an intervention's effectiveness and value was sufficient to support a decision on whether to adopt the intervention and any new information gained from additional research would likely not change that decision. In threshold analyses, at a higher WTP of $5200 the optimal sample size for testing a risk reduction intervention was 2750 per arm. For the outreach intervention, the optimal sample size remained zero across a wide range of WTP thresholds and was insensitive to variation. Limitations, including not varying all inputs in the model, may have led to an underestimation of the value of investing in new research. CONCLUSION: In summary, more research is not always needed, particularly when there is moderately robust prestudy belief about intervention effectiveness and little uncertainty about the value (cost-effectiveness) of the intervention. Users can test their own assumptions at http://torchresearch.org. BMJ Global Health 2017-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5656134/ /pubmed/29081993 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000195 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Research
Uyei, Jennifer
Li, Lingfeng
Braithwaite, R Scott
Is more research always needed? Estimating optimal sample sizes for trials of retention in care interventions for HIV-positive East Africans
title Is more research always needed? Estimating optimal sample sizes for trials of retention in care interventions for HIV-positive East Africans
title_full Is more research always needed? Estimating optimal sample sizes for trials of retention in care interventions for HIV-positive East Africans
title_fullStr Is more research always needed? Estimating optimal sample sizes for trials of retention in care interventions for HIV-positive East Africans
title_full_unstemmed Is more research always needed? Estimating optimal sample sizes for trials of retention in care interventions for HIV-positive East Africans
title_short Is more research always needed? Estimating optimal sample sizes for trials of retention in care interventions for HIV-positive East Africans
title_sort is more research always needed? estimating optimal sample sizes for trials of retention in care interventions for hiv-positive east africans
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5656134/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29081993
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000195
work_keys_str_mv AT uyeijennifer ismoreresearchalwaysneededestimatingoptimalsamplesizesfortrialsofretentionincareinterventionsforhivpositiveeastafricans
AT lilingfeng ismoreresearchalwaysneededestimatingoptimalsamplesizesfortrialsofretentionincareinterventionsforhivpositiveeastafricans
AT braithwaiterscott ismoreresearchalwaysneededestimatingoptimalsamplesizesfortrialsofretentionincareinterventionsforhivpositiveeastafricans