Patients Want Their Data Shared

Patients also want to be:

  • Respected for their contributions to science and medical advances. Those contributions include samples from their bodies (biospecimens), information (data), experiences (input), and sometimes their very lives.
  • Protected from harm and misuse of sensitive data about themselves, their family, and/or their culture or ethnicity.

As long as we are respected and protected, we will participate in clinical research and learning healthcare systems so researchers can find better ways to treat and prevent diseases and medical conditions.

What & Who

This post focuses on data from past “legacy” cancer clinical trials. The Patient AdvocateProtectionCommittee in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology drafted a resolution to add the patient voice to the groundswell of support for data sharing.

Why?

  1. People who join cancer clinical trials are often asked to donate their tissue and data for future research.
  2. When patients give consent for research, they expect their information to be shared.
  3. Unfortunately, many hospitals, clinics, academic centers, or research groups will not release information to other researchers, even though patients gave their consent.
  4. This does not honor or respect patients who want to contribute to research.

Your Call to Action

  • Please read the resolution, sign on, and share it with your networks and organizations. While this resolution deals with cancer, its intent is to help all medical conditions.
  • Include patients in data sharing activities.

“Today, oncologists and cancer researchers realize that they can’t [advance cancer progress] alone… What’s required today extends beyond any individual or any individual discipline, beyond medicine itself… It requires somewhat of a change in mindset. It requires a lot more openness – open data, open collaboration and above all, open minds.

– Vice President Joe Biden, ASCO Speech

Thank you!

A Clinical Trial Failed Patients

Something horrible happened – a clinical trial failed, causing one unexpected death and seriously injuring 5 people. And instead of dealing with a dysfunctional research system, “experts” are spouting off on their own. The few articles written to date focus on the drug (aka the money), not on what people want to know.

My Initial Thoughts

high wire climbing in the wood

ClinicalTrialsArena asked me to comment, due to my unique expertise that straddles the patient and research worlds. After researching the topic,* here are my concerns – most of which have not been discussed yet.

This poses a much larger question – why am I the one bringing these up?

Fact 1: Something really bad happened – the first 6 people to get “repeated higher doses” died or were seriously damaged. This is a clear sign of system failure (e.g. approval, protocol, procedures, formulation, PharmcoDynamics).

Fact 2: A phase 1 clinical trial means it is the first time a drug is studied this way in people. 127 people in the trial is far larger than classic phase 1, and most don’t have placebos. Isn’t this more like a phase 2, or the new-fangled phase 1-2 trial? If so, what happened to the rules?

Fact 3: The drug showed activity in laboratory dishes and animals first. We don’t know what mouse-realtesting was done, or for how long. How realistic are the animal models, and how closely do they relate to humans?

Fact 4: Existing articles stress the need for more ‘transparency’ to share the drug’s molecular structure. Patients want honesty first, which in this case may mean, who screwed up?

Fact 5: I’m a big believer (and trail blazer) in presenting trial results, but that’s when we have results. NOT during an ongoing, active clinical trial. Why aren’t we calling for the protocol to be publicly published immediately?

medical_1000006456-120613intFact 6: Healthy volunteers joined this trial after reading an ‘informed consent’ form about its procedures and risks, and they were paid well. Why isn’t the consent form (for every trial) publicly available once the trial is approved?

Fact 7: In the U.S., the Institutional Review Board (IRB) would be shut down and investigated before any new trials could be opened.

Fact 8: A thorough investigation on all parts of this system failure is obvious. This, too, should be open and as public as soon as possible, and at all times.

Fact 9: Risk is an inherent part of clinical trials because risk is part of everyday life. Even when rules are followed, bad things can still happen. Patients aren’t stupid, so there is no need to shut down other clinical trials.

A Setback for Other Clinical Trials?

Amazing we even have to ask this question, right? Of course it will!

Only other researchers may think their trial will be ok because, oh let’s see, because that trial was different – yes, that’s it! That trial (take your pick):

  •  was in a different disease
  •  was in a different country
  •  was run by a company I don’t know
  •  had a different study design
  •  was a horrible accident that would never happen to me
  •  add your own excuse

But patients won’t care about any of that. They’ll steer away from danger or discomfort. And let’s face it, anything called a “clinical trial” isn’t comforting. And as far as whether the rule were (or weren’t) followed – that doesn’t matter either. The rules in the case of a clinical trial include the protocol, of course.

I am firmly in the patient/participant camp. Some may call this a bias, but I consider it the only worthwhile endpoint. I know patients want better answers NOW, and I know people in research deal daily with regulations and hubris.

There was clearly a system failure here, and people needlessly paid too high a price. Let’s find out why and make the pieces work together so people won’t worry about needlessly putting their lives on the line.

* Online information (as of 1/21/16) about the French clinical trial from a Portuguese company is located on Facebook, at #clinicaltrials on Twitter, and is listed in articles from:

All content © 2016 by Deborah Collyar unless otherwise specified. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided a link back to this page and proper attribution is given to me as the original author.

A Plan for Real Research Improvements

Looks like 1,772 of us posted public comments about medical research informed consents to the NPRM docket! I realize this sounds obtuse, but bear with me through this post – please!

So, What’s the Big Deal?

The final regulation will affect millions of patients, researchers, institutions, and companies. These rules last changed in 1991. You know, before the internet existed for mere mortals. Just after my first cancer, while I was still a Silicon Valley computer executive. When Terminator 2 was new. Before my son was born. But I digress. Background on research informed consents is in this post.

Important Points for Patients

Unfortunately, informing patients about research has too often become a check box as CYA (cover your aspirations) for institutions. Big business. Instead of a straight-forward PROCESS that tells people what to expect so they can agree (consent) to take part in research (or not). Seems simple, right?

Rather than lament, my comments explain how systemic changes should happen. But don’t hold your breath. BTW, I had to write a preamble due to the 5000 character limit. That ticked me off (!), so I wrote this introduction:

“My individual comments are listed in the attached letter, although as founder of Patient Advocates In Research (PAIR), I have helped thousands of patient advocates partner with the research system for over 20 years (and am personally a survivor of multiple cancers).

Since you have received so many concerns from researchers and IRB members, it seems appropriate to add to the sparse patient perspective that appears in the NPRM public comments. Here are a few key points, in addition to my attached letter:

  • It is past time to embrace technology that can help deliver a modern approach to informed consent for trial participants, instead holding fast onto antiquated mindsets, procedures and reliance on paper forms.
  • This is too important to limit comments to 5000 characters, hence the attachment. I have participated in far too many informed consent committees to rely on an ‘executive summary’ approach to comprehensively address the NPRM.
  • Please eliminate the terms “human subject” and “research subject” from all federal regulations. My premise and recommendation is attached.
  • Informed consent is a process, and should be acknowledged as such in federal regulations. The form is a check box.
  • The NPRM, HIPAA, and any other related regulations should NOT be viewed in isolation, but rather WITH the rest of healthcare. Regulations should state that all agencies should work together in an adaptive infrastructure to ensure rules are kept up to date in our changing world.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Common Rule, which is of utmost importance in protecting research participants (i.e. people) while fostering research. In this historic shift to modernize the Common Rule, the NPRM should create an adaptive infrastructure that allows for evolving science while supporting responsible participant partnership, choice, and engagement. Please view my comments in the attached letter as a complete package.”

The Whole Letter

Pages from NPRM public comments 1-6-16PLEASE read the details in this pdf. It’s not long, and posits a new adaptive approach to create an open, welcoming research system. We can actually push this forward with your help!

So, What’s Next?

You can see the 1,772 comments here – if you know the Comment Tracking Number (mine is 1k0-8n8m-6xee), you don’t have to look through all of them.

I have no idea how the comments will be used, but they promise to read and consider them. The research community has waited for years to get changes to the Common Rule. No one knows when the final rule will take effect, but it’s a safe bet it won’t be before 2018.

Please join the discussion about making research accessible and open – make it REAL for PEOPLE!

All content © 2016 by Deborah Collyar unless otherwise specified. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use short quotes provided a link back to this page and proper attribution is given to me as the original author.

Last Chance to Say Your Word on NPRM

I posted “Informed about Changes to Research Consents?” on 11/15/15. You now have until 1/6/2016 at 11:58pm EST to send your comments about the changes that will affect hundreds of thousands of patients, researchers and institutions (at least). PLEASE send in your comments!

Here’s how:

  1. Read my blog post on 11/15/15 to refresh yourself, and feel free to use any part for your comments.
  2. Look at the summary of changes, according to the US Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP).
  3. Read some of the public comments that have already been posted (so far, there are 957 comments). Here is an example of one of them from the Genetic Alliance – feel free to use any part for your comments.
  4. Click if you want Tips for Submitting Comments (go to bottom of page and click on .pdf file).
  5. Post YOUR Comments at this link!
  6. Feel free to share your comments below on this post if you want to discuss them.

I’m finishing my comments now and will post them… but don’t hold your breath – create your own comments NOW! GO FOR IT!