Within minutes after the previous post went live, I was contacted on Twitter by another patient advocate, Willow, also known as Serious Skeptic. She* expressed another wide area of patient concerns about clinical trials, ones that were new to me, and which deserve representation in this post, even if they aren’t from the official public #PatientChat event. Because Willow has a locked account, and I respect that, I asked her permission to share the links and the essence of some of her private tweets. The following is posted with her consent, but represents my words and distillation of what I learned from her.
Willow was concerned about ethical breaches in clinical trials, especially:
– trials that are designed specifically to promote use of a drug (marketing);
– trials that suppress undesired findings or which fail to publish or share negative findings;
– trials that don’t share their data;
– trials that don’t make relevant or useful findings available to all trial participants.
I had the impression she’d kind of like the research studies to also notify trial participants of publications that do result from their participation. I know, I do, myself, and being a medical librarian, I take notes on my research participation, the names of studies, the names of the PI, and I stalk their publications for years until I see the research in which I participated. I often ask to be alerted, and usually received some sort of polite demurral, and nothing else. I wish they had an email list I could just subscribe to for alerts from their lab.
Anyway, when Willow described clinical trials that are actually marketing ruses, my reaction was, “Whoa! Not really? Doesn’t the IRB process protect against that?” Evidently not. The concept she was describing most is called seeding trials. Here are some links she shared with me, or quotes and/or resources from those articles.
A physician is invited by a pharmaceutical company to take part in a study involving an FDA-approved drug. The physician’s responsibilities entail prescribing the drug for patients and then completing three questionnaires about each patient’s experience with the drug. The questionnaires are quite short and will take about 20 minutes each to complete. The sponsor will pay $1,500 for each completed questionnaire. The physician is very interested in participating because it looks like a great way to increase practice revenues.
Rusczek JP, Rusczek AM. Fraud and Abuse in Clinical Research: Three Case Studies. ABA Health eSource June 2010 6(10). American Bar Association. http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/Rusczek.html
– Research Involving Non-Employed Physician Investigators
– Marketing Disguised as Research
– Double Billing
The public has lacked convincing documentary evidence of a long-suspected drug company practice: promoting a new drug by sponsoring a randomized trial in which participating physicians use the drug as they follow the trial protocol. This practice—a seeding trial—is marketing in the guise of science. The apparent purpose is to test a hypothesis. The true purpose is to get physicians in the habit of prescribing a new drug.
Sox HC. Seeding Trials: Just Say “No.” Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(4):279-280. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-4-200808190-00012 http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=742309
Seeding trials are designed to appear as if they answer a scientific question but primarily fulfill marketing objectives. Kessler and colleagues (3) portrayed seeding trials as “attempts to entice doctors to prescribe a new drug being marketed by the company” while the company puts its product in the hands of practicing physicians, hoping that the experience of treating patients with the study drug and a pleasant, even profitable, interaction with the company will result in more loyal physicians who prescribe the drug (4).
Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial: A Review of Internal Documents. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:251-258. https://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/39thparl/session-4/health/submissions/Hill_The_Advantage_Seeding_Trial_2008.pdf
“Merck’s marketing division handled both the scientific and the marketing data, including collection, analysis, and dissemination; and Merck hid the marketing nature of the trial from participants, physician investigators, and institutional review board members.”
Keim B. Merck Vioxx Study Disguised Marketing as Science. Wired 08.19.08 1:22 PM. http://www.wired.com/2008/08/merck-vioxx-stu/
Merck minimized the true risks of Vioxx (Apr 17, 2008) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQYxZSUDnqI
The maker of Neurontin disguised an effort to promote the anti-seizure drug to physicians as a clinical trial and failed to inform involved physicians and patients, according to a new analysis published Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine journal.
Girion L. Neurontin study was a sham designed to boost drug sales, researchers say in medical journal. Los Angeles Times June 27, 2011. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/27/news/la-heb-neuronton-seeding-trial-20110627
Seeding trials are an unethical, dangerous way to market a product. The IRB needs to become a better-equipped committee that can identify seeding trial practices from honest clinical trials, and the FDA needs to demand more transparency from companies sponsoring clinical trials, to better protect public health and the integrity of clinical research.
Varga M. Are Seeding Trials Ethical? Kulkarni Law Firm Blog June 11, 2012 11:11. https://www.conformlaw.com/blog/are-seeding-trials-ethical/
Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships. American Association of University Professors. University of Illinois Press, Jan 25, 2014. See the endnotes on pages 341-2. https://books.google.com/books?id=lFSNAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=drug+seeding+trials&source=bl&ots=AEZ1Xa7NUS&sig=W_nCm_h2w7Uhtf5tWd4V6sf5ggI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAzgeahUKEwjw9JWVyovGAhWjWowKHTvgAJQ#v=onepage&q=drug%20seeding%20trials&f=false
Because of the risks and distrust generated by the practice of seeding trials, Willow suggested that it might be wiser to wait to test new meds on your own body until they’ve been out for a few years, unless you are so ill that you have no alternatives. Now, of course, if everyone does that, then there are NO NEW DRUGS because we can’t test them! And that is a situation in which we all lose.
My own choices? I take risks that I won’t ask others to take. I try to be informed about the risks I take. When I participate in a research study, I ask a lot of questions, and I pay very close attention to my body. If my canary-in-the-mine body complains, I withdraw from the study. Well, I would. So far, I’ve never actually needed to withdraw from a research study, but I have ceased taking actual FDA-approved meds prescribed for me that my body couldn’t handle. I’m hoping that the #bioethx chat group will pick up on this topic next, and hoping they can find an invited speaker to talk about what IRB committees have done and are doing to try to address this, to build confidence in medical research.
* I am assuming Willow is a she because I interpret the name Willow as a female name. I have no knowledge or confirmation of that, and it isn’t any of my business anyway. I am using the female pronoun to describe her simply for convenience, and intend no disrespect.
ADDENDUM TWO, June 13
A few clarifications and corrections from the ever thoughtful Willow.
Willow feels my concern about limiting drug discovery isn’t valid, since seeding trial occur for drugs that are already patented. My concern is that fear of seeding trials will scare some participants off of drug trials entirely. Drug discovery trials are legitimate, but the problem remains that it can be difficult to distinguish discovery trials from seeding trials, since the physicians and patients are both kept in the dark by the drug manufacturers.