I spent most of today discussing ethics in clinical trials at a conference produced by Leo Intelligence in San Diego with a fascinating group of people from IRBs, sponsor companies, and CROs. It was a really good small meeting, and I hope they put it on again next year and give it a chance to grow.
In the morning we reviewed how the relentless drive for new, willing, and preferably treatment naive patients is pushing clinical research out to farther and farther away places, countries that may have weak, stressed or crumbling health care delivery systems that struggle to serve their citizens' basic medical needs. We discussed some of the major ethical policy issues of international clinical research, especially in developing countries, such as placebo controls, clinical trials as treatment or even marketing, and vulnerability and consent. (The slide set for this talk can be found here.) Some countries have legislated and developed and invested, such as India and Brazil (and other South American countries), many countries of the post-WWII east. Some countries have grown a clinical research enterprise out of the opportunism of a health crisis, such as Russia and the Ukraine following the Chernobyl disaster. Even in these countries we see challenges in obtaining truly informed, voluntarily given consent. Cultural differences can take the standard western idea of consent and stand it on its head.
For example, the Belmont Report's first principal of respect for persons, usually defined as the autonomy of the individual, is considered a universal ethical truth, one which even the ethical relativists can accept as valid for all. Except that in many non-Western cultures where the collective is valued above individual - where "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" - the idea of a patient making a decision to participate in a clinical trial based on her self-interest quite stretches the imagination.
Now consider this same patient, who has little experience making a decision that is not at least informed by or simply made outright for her by another member of her family, and add to that the fact that she cannot read; not her own language and certainly not English. Then add finally the factor that her physician is an even more powerful figure in her life than her husband or father, and whatever he (or she) says has the weight of the voice of God himself. Now the idea of slapping a 19 page consent form in front of that patient, getting her signature or mark, and going to sleep at night believing that we have met our obligation to obtain true, voluntary informed consent to participate in a study is truly laughable.
And yet that's what we do.
And this is not all. This afternoon's keynote speaker was Andy Mikulak, of Max's Ring of Fire, who gave a patient's perspective of participating in clinical trials. Andy is not a researcher, or IRB member. He is a father, and his son Max taught Andy much about participating in clinical trials - right up until the time he died of neuroblastoma at age 7. Since Max's death Andy has coped with his grief by becoming a patient advocate and raising money and awareness for pediatric cancer research. Check out the website and click on a couple of videos. Your eyes will not stay dry.
Andy gave a short talk intended to explain to us why patients go into clinical trials, and what we could do to make the experience better and more useful for patients. He said patients go into trials to live, to survive, and sometimes because they cannot get treatment for their serious disease any other way. He suggested to researchers that if they meet their patients' needs, their own needs for data and results will be met. He also admonished us for making informed consent forms too complicated. He said that he and other patient families routinely seek out other patients for 'true' information' about trials, because the sponsor/IRB provided documents are written "to protect the institution first, and inform the patient second". He said the language used in consents did not meet his needs or those of other patient families: the language was too obtuse and not intended to inform. There is too much protectionist, defensive language. And this is not a guy who cannot read beyond the 6th grade level; Andy had no problem discussing the preclinical data of various chemo agents his son was treated with, so the issue was not the level of the language, but that the language was not intended to inform.
This got a big response from the IRB members in the room, whose nominal role is protect patients, yet some IRBs seem to be a driving force behind the ever-lengthening consents in recent decades. When I have asked them why, the most prevalent reason seems to be: "we want to anticipate patient questions so in case they don't know what to ask, it's all there in the document." Fair enough; many patients don't know what to ask or are too timid to ask. But why then do we not train and then empower the investigator to provide information, to anticipate questions and prompt for them? Have we completely abandoned the investigator's role in providing risks and other information to patients? (For information about the learned intermediary and its rise and fall in the pharmaceutical world, as well as clues as to how we became so protectionist, see Perez v Wyeth Labs.) It seems that instead of using the consent form as the documentation of the consent conversation, and the basis for discussion, we are allowing the form to replace the process almost entirely.
And in the end, studies show that many patients - western and non-western alike - do not understand that they are involved in a study, that they have right to withdraw, what the risks are and that they may receive treatment with a comparator (or placebo). So clearly the answer isn't to be found by adding more pages to the consent form other than to make the institution's lawyers feel better.
The plane is boarding. Next post, some thoughts about where the low hanging fruit might be found; how we can minimize the mistakes that we make and better protect the patients we study.
