scholarly journals Gendered Logics of Biomedical Research: Women in U.S. Phase I Clinical Trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marci D Cottingham ◽  
Jill A Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Gendered Organizations ◽  
Public Consumption ◽  
Participation Of Women ◽  
Investigational Drugs

Abstract Despite the importance of including diverse populations in biomedical research, women remain underrepresented as healthy volunteers in the testing of investigational drugs in Phase I trials. Contributing significantly to this are restrictions that pharmaceutical companies place on the participation of women of so-called childbearing potential. These restrictions have far-reaching effects on biomedical science and public health. Using 191 interviews collected over three years, this article explores the experiences of 47 women who navigate restrictions on their participation in U.S. Phase I trials. Women in this context face a number of contradictory criteria when trying to enroll, which can curtail their participation, justify additional surveillance, and deny pregnant women reproductive agency. The pharmaceutical industry’s putative protections for hypothetical fetuses exacerbate inequalities and attenuate a thorough investigation of the safety of their drugs for public consumption. We use the framework of “anticipatory motherhood” within a gendered organizations approach to make sense of women’s experiences in this context.

Adverse Events

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill A. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Social Inequalities ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Racial Inequalities ◽  
Investigational Drugs ◽  
The Social

Phase I clinical trials test the safety and tolerability of new pharmaceuticals and typically pay healthy people to enroll as research participants. In addition to being exposed to the risks of taking investigational drugs, healthy volunteers are confined to residential research facilities for some portion of the clinical trial. Most healthy volunteers are African American and Hispanic men in their late twenties to early forties. Motivated by pervasive economic insecurity and racial discrimination, these individuals often enroll serially in Phase I trials to stay afloat or to get ahead. This book reveals not only the social inequalities on which Phase I trials rest, but also depicts the important validity concerns inherent in this mode of testing new pharmaceuticals. Healthy volunteers are enrolled in highly controlled studies that bear little resemblance to real-world conditions. Moreover, in these studies everyone—from the pharmaceutical companies sponsoring the studies, to the clinics conducting them, and the healthy volunteers paid to participate—is incentivized to game the system, with the effect that new drugs appear safer than they really are. Providing an unprecedented view of the intersection of US racial inequalities with pharmaceutical testing, Adverse Events calls attention to the dangers of this research enterprise to social justice and public health.

scholarly journals Healthy Volunteers’ Perceptions of the Benefits of Their Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 494-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill A. Fisher ◽  
Lisa McManus ◽  
Megan M. Wood ◽  
Marci D. Cottingham ◽  
Julianne M. Kalbaugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Financial Compensation ◽  
Trial History

Other than the financial motivations for enrolling in Phase I trials, research on how healthy volunteers perceive the benefits of their trial participation is scant. Using qualitative interviews conducted with 178 U.S. healthy volunteers enrolled in Phase I trials, we investigated how participants described the benefits of their study involvement, including, but not limited to, the financial compensation, and we analyzed how these perceptions varied based on participants’ sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial history. We found that participants detailed economic, societal, and noneconomic personal benefits. We also found differences in participants’ perceived benefits based on gender, age, ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status, and number of clinical trials completed. Our study indicates that many healthy volunteers believe they gain more than just the financial compensation when they accept the risks of Phase I participation.

scholarly journals Race and ethnicity representation in clinical trials: findings from a literature review of Phase I oncology trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
D Ross Camidge ◽  
Haeseong Park ◽  
Karen E Smoyer ◽  
Ira Jacobs ◽  
Lauren J Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Predominantly White ◽  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Minimal Representation ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Demographic Representation ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Race Ethnicity

Aim: To provide an assessment of published literature on the demographic representation in Phase I trials of biopharmaceutical oncology agents. Materials & methods: We conducted a rapid evidence assessment to identify demographic representation reported in Phase I clinical trials for biopharmaceutical oncology agents published in 2019. Results: Globally, the population was predominantly White/Caucasian (62.2%). In the USA, the distribution was heavily skewed toward White/Caucasian (84.2%), with minimal representation of Blacks/African–Americans (7.3%), Asians (3.4%), Hispanics/Latinos (2.8%) or other race/ethnicity groups. Conclusion: Our data highlight that Phase I oncology trials do not reflect the population at large, which may perpetuate health disparities. Further research is needed to understand and address barriers to participation, particularly among under-represented groups

scholarly journals Investigator Disclosure and Advanced Cancer Patient Understanding of Informed Consent and Prognosis in Phase I Clinical Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. e357-e367 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Nancy E. Kass ◽  
Debra Roter ◽  
Susan Larson ◽  
Kristen E. Wroblewski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Interaction Analysis ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Benefits

Purpose: Advanced cancer patients (ACPs) who participate in phase I clinical trials often report a less-than-ideal understanding of the required elements of informed consent (IC) and unrealistic expectations for anticancer benefit and prognosis. We examined phase I clinical trial enrollment discussions and their associations with subsequent ACP understanding. Methods: Clinical encounters about enrollment in phase I trials between 101 ACPs and 29 oncologists (principal investigators [PIs] and fellows) at three US academic medical institutions were recorded. The Roter Interaction Analysis System was used for analysis. ACPs completed follow-up questionnaires to assess IC recall. Results: PIs disclosed the following phase I IC elements to ACPs in encounters: trial purpose in 40%; specific physical risks in 60%; potential specific medical benefits gained by trial participation (eg, disease stabilization) in 48.2%; and alternatives to phase I trial participation in 47.1%, with 1.1% of encounters containing palliative and 2.3% hospice information. PIs provided ACP-specific prognoses in 29.0% of encounters but used precise terms of death in only 4.7% and terminal in 1.2%. A significant association existed between PI disclosure of the trial purpose as dosage/toxicity, and ACPs subsequently correctly recalled trial purpose versus PIs who did not disclose it (85% v 13%; P < .05). Conclusion: Many oncologists provide incomplete disclosures about phase I trials to ACPs. When disclosure of certain elements of IC occurs, it seems to be associated with better recall, especially with regard to the research purpose of phase I trials.

scholarly journals Informal professionalization of healthy participants in phase I clinical trials in Russia

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 563-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Zvonareva ◽  
Igor Pimenov ◽  
Natalia Kutishenko ◽  
Igor Mareev ◽  
Sergey Martsevich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase I Trial ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Skilled Workers ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Trial Participants ◽  
Healthy Participants

Background: Previous social science research has shown how some healthy phase I trial participants identify themselves as workers and rely on trials as a major source of income. The term “professionalization” has been used to denote this phenomenon. Purpose: We aim to examine a component of healthy trial participants’ professionalization that has not yet been systematically studied: how repeat phase I trial participants develop and claim expertise that distinguishes them from others and makes them uniquely positioned to perform high-quality clinical trial labor. We also aim to explain the significance of these research results for protection of healthy participants in phase I trials. Methods: This qualitative exploratory study was conducted in Russia, in two phase I trial units. It involved semi-structured interviews with 28 healthy trial participants with varying lengths of experience in trials, observations of work done in trial units, and interpretive conversations with investigative staff. Results: Interviewed healthy individuals who repeatedly participate in phase I trials describe developing knowledge and skills that involve appreciating the meaning of trial procedures, coming up with techniques to efficiently follow them, organizing themselves and others in the course of a trial, and sharing tacit ways of doing trial work well with other less experienced participants. Our results suggest that a prerequisite for such expertise-centered professionalization is the emergence of a positive identity linked to seeing value in trial participation work. A crucial component of professionalization thus understood is the development of a work ethic that entails caring about results and being reliable partners for investigators. Limitations: The attitudes and behaviors presented in this article are not suggested to be universally shared among healthy trial participants, but rather represent a particular instance of professionalization that coexists with other views and tactics. Conclusions: A way of better protecting healthy trial participants begins with recognizing their skills, knowledge, and the centrality of the contribution they are making to pharmaceutical research. Currently, the expertise of experienced trial participants is recognized on the work floor only; therefore, the professionalization we described is informal. Yet, the informal professionalization process is inherently risky as it does not involve any change in the formal conditions of trial participants’ work. Instituting formal measures for protecting healthy trial participants as skilled workers combined with recognition of their expertise is essential.

scholarly journals Do Patients With Advanced Cancer Have the Ability to Make Informed Decisions for Participation in Phase I Clinical Trials?

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (24) ◽  
pp. 2483-2491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fay J. Hlubocky ◽  
Greg A. Sachs ◽  
Eric R. Larson ◽  
Halla S. Nimeiri ◽  
David Cella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Executive Function ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Trail Making Test ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Trail Making

Purpose Patients with advanced cancer (ACPs) participating in phase I clinical trials inadequately understand many elements of informed consent (IC); however, the prevalence and impact of cognitive impairment has not been described. Patients and Methods ACPs enrolled onto phase I trials underwent neuropsychological assessment to evaluate cognitive functioning (CF) covering the following domains: memory (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test), executive functioning (Trail Making Test B), language (Boston Naming Test-Short Version and Controlled Oral Word Association Test), attention (Trail Making Test A and Wechsler Adult Intelligenence Scale-IV Digit Span), comprehension (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV), and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Cognitive Function). Structured interviews evaluated IC and decisional capacity. Psychological measures included distress (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II). Results One hundred eighteen ACPs on phase I trials were evaluated, with CF ranging from mild impairment to superior performance. Only 45% of ACPs recalled physician disclosure of the phase I trial purpose. The 50% of ACPs who correctly identified the phase I research purpose had greater CF compared with ACPs who did not, as revealed by the mean T scores for memory (37.2 ± 5.6 v 32.5 ± 5.1, respectively; P = .001), attention (29 ± 2.7 v 26.9 ± 2.4, respectively; P < .001), visual attention (35.2 ± 6.6 v 31.5 ± 6.2, respectively; P = .001), and executive function (38.9 ± 7.5 v 34 ± 7.1, respectively; P < .001). Older ACPs (≥ 60 years) were less likely to recall physician disclosure of phase I purpose than younger ACPs (30% v 70%, respectively; P = .02) and had measurable deficits in total memory (34.2 ± 5.0 v 37.3 ± 5.6, respectively; P = .002), attention (24.5 ± 2.6 v 28 ± 2.8, respectively; P < .001), and executive function (32.8 ± 7.3 v 36.4 ± 7.6, respectively; P = .01). Older ACPs, compared with younger ACPs, also had greater depression scores (10.6 ± 9.2 v 8.1 ± 5.2, respectively; P = .03) and lower quality-of-life scores (152 ± 29.6 v 167 ± 20, respectively; P = .03). After adjustment by age, no psychological or neuropsychological variable was further significantly associated with likelihood of purpose identification. Conclusion CF seems to play a role in ACP recall and comprehension of IC for early-phase clinical trials, especially among older ACPs.

New requirements for phase I trials: a challenge for Italian clinical research

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuela Marchesi ◽  
Manuela Monti ◽  
Oriana Nanni ◽  
Lisette Bassi ◽  
Martina Piccinni-Leopardi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Standard Operating ◽  
Near Future

Background: In 2015, the Italian Medicines Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco; AIFA) issued the Determination 809/2015 with new requirements for phase I clinical trials. Before it came into force, we explored the extent to which several Italian oncology centers were working to implement it. Methods: A survey was conducted among 80 Italian centers involved in clinical trials. Investigators and research coordinators were surveyed. Results: Answers from 42 institutions were collected: among them 88.1% were involved in oncology research. In the last 5 years, 55% had conducted from 1 to 5 phase I trials, and only 16.7% more than 5. A third were involved in not-first-in-human research and none with healthy volunteers. The majority (57.1%) of the centers did not run any projects and trials are non-commercial, and about 35%, no more than 2. While 9.5% already met the standards for self-certification, 71.4% were working to achieve them. Standard operating procedures dedicated to research and the required good clinical practice training had been established by 57.1% and 76.2%, respectively. Fifty percent of laboratories were almost compliant with the Determination. After 10 months from its coming into force, 98 sites had applied for certification, of which 34 were oncology units. Conclusions: The new AIFA Determination imposes a certified organizational model on units and laboratories involved in phase I trials. Our results showed that great efforts were made to qualify for phase I research suggesting that other oncology units will apply for certification in the near future. Predictably, Italy will set the pace as a highly qualified country in which to conduct early-phase research.

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of an educational DVD on cancer patients considering participation in a phase I clinical trial

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6011-6011
Author(s):  
E. L. Strevel ◽  
C. Newman ◽  
G. R. Pond ◽  
M. Maclean ◽  
L. L. Siu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Clinic Appointment ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Self Administered Questionnaire

6011 Background: Informed consent for phase I trials is controversial; gaps in patient (pt) knowledge regarding the purpose of these studies are central to this debate. This study assessed the impact of viewing an educational DVD on pt knowledge and satisfaction in cancer pts newly referred to a phase I trials clinic. Methods: Prior to physician (MD) appointment, 49 pts were randomly assigned to view either an educational DVD (n = 22) which provided information about phase I trials, or a placebo DVD (n = 27) which described research achievements by local scientists. Upon completion of DVD viewing, pts completed a self-administered questionnaire addressing their understanding of phase I trials (knowledge) and their satisfaction with the DVD (perception). The interviewing MD (n = 8), who was blinded to the intervention, also rated the pt’s understanding of phase I trials upon completion of the clinic appointment. Results: The mean pt age was 56 and 61% were male. Prior to attending the phase I clinic, most pts (86%) had previously heard of clinical trials, but only 49% were aware of phase I trials. Pts who viewed the educational DVD were less likely to believe that the goal of phase I trials is to determine the efficacy of a new drug (p = 0.019), more likely to correctly assess that drugs undergoing phase I evaluations have not been thoroughly studied in humans (p = 0.003), and less likely to believe that phase I drugs have proven activity against human cancers (p = 0.008). More pts who viewed the educational DVD than the placebo DVD agreed/strongly agreed that the DVD provided useful information (p < 0.001), believed that they had a good knowledge of phase I trials (p = 0.031), felt that the DVD helped them decide whether to enter a phase I trial (p = 0.011), and perceived that they would have more questions for their physicians as a result of watching the DVD (p = 0.017). No statistically significant differences in MD satisfaction was observed. Conclusions: Exposure to an educational DVD increased both objective measures of pt knowledge as well as pt satisfaction regarding participation in phase I clinical trials. The educational DVD did not significantly impact MD perception of pt understanding. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Analysis of renal function in patients entered onto CTEP-sponsored phase I studies since 1979

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2519-2519 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. McHayleh ◽  
R. Sehgal ◽  
D. M. Potter ◽  
R. B. Royds ◽  
T. G. Nekrassova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Renal Function ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Creatinine Clearance ◽  
Renal Dysfunction ◽  
Antineoplastic Agents ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I Studies ◽  
Administration Methods

2519 Background: The NCI and FDA utilize different criteria for classifying renal dysfunction. We analyzed renal function in all patients entered onto CTEP-sponsored phase I clinical trials since 1979 to evaluate the percentage of patients with acceptable renal function according to criteria utilized by the National Cancer Institute, as compared with those advocated by the Food and Drug Administration. Methods: Data from 12575 patients entered onto CTEP-sponsored phase I studies since 1979 were evaluated. Renal function was characterized by calculating creatinine clearance (CrCl) by three different formulae (Cockroft-Gault, Jelliffe, and Levey), as well as GFR according to MDRD. Results: Of the 12,575 patients, data were available to calculate renal function with all the 4 formulae in 5,177. Distributions of CrCl and GFR were defined, and patients were classified as having normal renal function or severe, moderate, or mild renal dysfunction according to FDA or NCI criteria. The resulting distributions are indicated in the table below. Conclusions: Approximately 40% of patients entered into CTEP-sponsored phase I trials have mild renal dysfunction according to FDA criteria and approximately 95% have CrCls > 50 ml/min. These data imply that moderate and severe are the only renal dysfunction categories that need to be evaluated in renal dysfunction studies of novel antineoplastic agents and that FDA guidelines should be applicable. Whether patients in the NCI database with CrCls of 50–80 ml/min experience more toxicities than those with creatinine clearances > 80 ml/min is undergoing evaluation. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Clinical outcome for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) enrolled in phase I clinical trials: Single institution experience.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13550-e13550
Author(s):  
Umang Shah ◽  
Gopichand Pendurti ◽  
Umang Swami ◽  
Yijuan Hou ◽  
Mohammad Haroon Ghalib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Drug ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I Studies

e13550 Background: Phase I studies are a fundamental step in anti-cancer drug development. Prior meta-analysis looking at phase I studies showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 10.6 % and grade 4 toxicity rate of 14.3 %, and specifically, patients (pts) with mCRC enrolled in phase I trials had an ORR of 1.3 %. Herein, we report the results of a 12-year experience from our institution. Methods: Records from pts with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma enrolled in phase I studies at our institution from January 1999 to December 2010 were reviewed. Recorded data included treatment related responses, survival times and adverse events (AE). Kaplan-Meier analysis, t-test and X2 tests were used to analyze data. A Cox proportional-hazard model using clinical parameters at enrolment was used to predict survival. Results: Our cohort included 141 pts with mCRC (83% colon and 17% rectum) enrolled in 25 unique phase I trials. Median patient age at enrolment was 59 years, 66% were female and 81% had an ECOG PS of 0-1. Pts received a median of 3 lines of chemotherapy prior to enrolment. The median overall survival (OS) was 8.9 months. The ORR was 4.2%. The clinical benefit rate (ORR or stable disease for ≥ 4 months) was 22%. Univariate analysis showed that being female (P=0.02), Hb <12 g/dL (P=0.01), Alb < 4 g/dL (P=<0.001), Alkaline phosphatase > 150 U/L (P=<0.001) and LDH ≥ 300 U/L (P=<0.001) were independently associated with shorter survival. Multivariate analysis showed that females (HR of 2.81 95% CI 1.71-4.59, p= <0.001), Hb ≥ 12 g/dL (1.67, 95%CI 1.03-1.71, p=0.04), Alb < 4 g/dL (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.59-3.98, p= <0.001) and LDH ≥300 U/L (HR 2.59, 95% CI 1.65-4.03, p= <0.001) were associated with shorter survival. Grade 3/4 non-hematological and hematological AE were seen in 25% and 45% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: This cohort of pts that received a median of 3 prior lines of therapy had a median OS and ORR of 8.9 months and 4.2%, respectively. These findings are similar to the ones reported in the recent phase III trial using regorafenib. Interestingly, multivariate analysis showed that a Hb of ≥ 12g/dL was associated with worse survival, in agreement with prior reports in which red cell growth factors were used.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document