In the December 2010 issue of PLoS One, a diverse group of authors from Brazil, Singapore, India and the US published a paper entitled: So Different, yet So Similar: Meta-Analysis and Policy Modeling of Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials among Brazilians and Indians. Their objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta analysis (SRMA) of the literature to determine a model for predicting willingness of Brazilian patients to participate in clinical trials,and then compare the findings regarding Indian patients' willingness to participate in clinical trials. The results if validated could be useful for sponsors and CROs planning studies to avoid wasting time and money in the wrong country and to better design protections for vulnerable patients.
The findings are based on a rather small sample of only five papers, narrowed down via various factors from 28119 (that's the systematic review part), and the authors grouped their results into two broad groups: factors favoring participation in clinical trials and factors presenting a barrier to that same end. Interestingly, and again based on a relatively small sample, the researchers found that the most commonly cited reason for participating in clinical trials among Brazilian patients was altruism, at 55%. Personal health benefits (30%), convenience (11%), and monetary reimbursement (6%) completed the list of favoring factors. The barrier factors amongst Brazilian patients were: fear of adverse events (12%), mistrust (6%), lack of knowledge (4%) and inconvenience (2%).
By modeling this information to a previous systematic review of literature pertaining to Indian patients, the authors discovered a significant difference in Indian patients' motivations to participate in clinical trials. The leading factors for Indian patients were: personal health benefits (48%), altruism (43%), monetary reimbursement (31%), and trust in their physician (8%). Convenience did not factor at all for Indian patients according to these findings. The factors representing barriers to participation for Indian patients were: fear of side effects (27%), mistrust of drug companies or researchers (26%), dependency issues (19%), loss of confidentiality (17%), and inconvenience (11%).
The authors also conclude from their research that Brazilian patients are more likely to participate in clinical trials than their Indian counterparts. I think we can also draw from this the inherent vulnerability of clinical trial participants, especially in the developing and emerging regions,and use the factors favoring and inhibiting participation to help protect and reassure patients as they come into trials.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
WikiLeaks and Trovan
If you thought the WikiLeaks story had nothing for you, think again. Today's New York Times discusses a State Department cable, made available via recent the WikiLeaks dump, alleging Pfizer's attempt to disrupt the Nigerian lawsuit following several deaths after the experimental use of Trovan in Kano in 1996. According to the Times story, the State department accused Pfizer of hiring investigators " 'to uncover corruption links' to Nigeria’s former attorney general and apply pressure to drop lawsuits against the company." Nigeria's former attorney general, Michael K. Aondoakaa, was quoted in the piece saying he knew nothing of any Pfizer attempt to investigate him. Pfizer denied the allegations as "simply preposterous". This is just the latest in the continuing saga of Trovan in Nigeria, which we have talked about here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)