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 in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0256994
Author(s):  
Corey A. Kalbaugh ◽  
Julianne M. Kalbaugh ◽  
Lisa McManus ◽  
Jill A. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Sociodemographic Characteristics ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Over Time

Background Increasing the diversity of research participants is an important focus of clinical trials. However, little is known regarding who enrolls as healthy volunteers in Phase I clinical trials, which test the safety and tolerability of investigational new drugs. Despite the risk, healthy volunteers can derive no medical benefit from their participation, and they are financially compensated for enrolling. Objective This study’s purpose is to describe sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial participation histories of healthy people who enroll in US Phase I trials. Methods The HealthyVOICES Project (HVP) is a longitudinal study of healthy individuals who have enrolled in Phase I trials. We describe self-reported sociodemographic information and Phase I trial history from HVP recruitment (May-December 2013) through the project’s end three years later (December 2016). Trial experiences are presented as medians and quartiles. Results The HVP included 178 participants. Nearly three-fourths of participants were male, and two-thirds were classified as racial and ethnic minorities. We found that some groups of participants were more likely to have completed a greater number of clinical trials over a longer timeframe than others. Those groups included participants who were male, Black, Hispanic, 30-39-years-old, unemployed, had received vocational training in a trade, or had annual household incomes of less than $25,000. Additionally, the greater the number of clinical trials participants had completed, the more likely they were to continue screening for new trials over the course of three years. Participants who pursued clinical trials as a full-time job participated in the greatest number of trials and were the most likely to continuing screening over time. Implications Participation as a healthy volunteer in US Phase I trials is driven by social inequalities. Disadvantaged groups tend to participate in a greater number of clinical trials and participate longer than more privileged groups.

scholarly journals Appraising Harm in Phase I Trials: Healthy Volunteers' Accounts of Adverse Events

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa McManus ◽  
Arlene Davis ◽  
Rebecca L. Forcier ◽  
Jill A. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Trial Participation ◽  
Trial Participant ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Investigational Drugs ◽  
Motivation To Participate

While risk of harm is an important focus for whether clinical research on humans can and should proceed, there is uncertainty about what constitutes harm to a trial participant. In Phase I trials on healthy volunteers, the purpose of the research is to document and measure safety concerns associated with investigational drugs, and participants are financially compensated for their enrollment in these studies. In this article, we investigate how characterizations of harm are narrated by healthy volunteers in the context of the adverse events (AEs) they experience during clinical trials. Drawing upon qualitative research, we find that participants largely minimize, deny, or re-attribute the cause of these AEs. We illustrate how participants' interpretations of AEs may be shaped both by the clinical trial environment and their economic motivation to participate. While these narratives are emblematic of the larger ambiguity surrounding harm in the context of clinical trial participation, we argue that these interpretations also problematically maintain the narrative of the safety of clinical trials, the ethics of testing investigational drugs on healthy people, and the rigor of data collected in the specter of such ambiguity.

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.

Conclusion

2020 ◽  
pp. 253-258
Author(s):  
Jill A. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Drug Development ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Healthy Volunteers ◽  
Social Inequalities ◽  
The Political ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Financial Compensation ◽  
Economic Context

The book’s conclusion reflects on the political and economic context of US Phase I trials. A society characterized by deeply imbricated stigmas ensures that there will always be healthy volunteers willing to enroll in Phase I trials, whether these are the same or new participants who need the financial compensation. Ultimately, attending to the underlying social inequalities animating the Phase I industry is critical to understand what is at stake when healthy volunteers are used in drug development.

Immuno-oncology and the elderly: A comparative analysis of participation and toxicities of senior adults aged 65 years and above vs mid age and adolescent/young adult patients on immunotherapy-based phase I clinical trials.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10034-10034
Author(s):  
Ishwaria Mohan Subbiah ◽  
Kenneth R. Hess ◽  
Takeo Fujii ◽  
Anas Alshawa ◽  
Anna Lui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Young Adult ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Senior Adults ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials

10034 Background: Senior adults ≥ 65 yrs remain underrepresented in early phase clinical trials in particular trials with novel immunotherapies. One general limitation to enrollment is the concern for immune-related toxicities in the context of older age and comorbidities. We analyzed the enrollment and incidence of toxicities of seniors in comparison to mid age and adolescent/young adult (AYA) pts enrolled in phase 1 immunotherapy trials. Methods: We identified 422 consecutive pts w advanced cancer treated on immunotherapy-based phase I trials bw 04/2009-09/2015. We divided pts into 3 cohorts based on age at start of trial (AYA 15-39y, mid age 40-64y, seniors 65y+) and collected pt/disease characteristics and immune-related adverse events (irAE) including endocrinopathies, diarrhea/colitis, pneumonitis, constitutional (eg fatigue, fever, anorexia), myalgia, and dermatitis. Results: Of 422 patients treated, 116 were seniors (27%, median 70y), 50 AYA (12%, median 30y), 256 mid age (61%, median 56y). Most common cancers were GI (n = 108, 26%), thoracic/head/neck (n = 84, 20%), GU (n = 54, 13%), and GYN (n = 47, 11%). Median PFS was comparable in all 3 cohorts (2.4m seniors, 2.1m AYA, 2.1m mid age). The incidence of irAE was higher in elderly than mid age or AYA (low grade [G1/2] 49% vs 34% vs 34%, p 0.02; high grade [G3/4] 19% vs 11% vs 12%. p 0.14). When comparing irAE rates of seniors to AYA and mid age pts, the odds ratio of high grade events was 1.81 (95% CI 1.01, 3.24; p 0.05) and low grade events was 1.85 (95% CI 1.20, 2.85; p 0.0055). Most common G1/2 irAE among all cohorts was fatigue (n = 76, 18%), dermatitis (n = 59, 14%), fever (n = 29, 7%) and anorexia (n = 28, 7%) with seniors having a greater incidence of low grade fatigue (25% vs 15%, OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.09, 3.10, p 0.025). Conclusions: Senior adults accounted for < 1/3 of pts on immunotherapy-based phase I trials. When compared to mid age and AYA pts, seniors had a higher likelihood of experiencing a toxicity. Early phase immunotherapy trials may be an option for older adults but with a particular vigilance for adverse events in this population.

Integration of supportive care in immuno-oncology trials: Investigating the incidence and severity of immune-related toxicities among older adults versus mid-age patients on immunotherapy-based phase I clinical trials.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 152-152
Author(s):  
Ishwaria Mohan Subbiah ◽  
Kenneth R. Hess ◽  
Takeo Fujii ◽  
Anna Lui ◽  
Vivek Subbiah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials

152 Background: Older adults (65y+) with cancer are underrepresented in trials of novel drugs notably in phase I clinical trials with immunotherapies. The trepidation over immune-related toxicities in the context of older age and associated comorbidities may function as a barrier to participation. To that end, we investigated the enrollment and incidence of immune related adverse events of older adults enrolled in phase 1 immunotherapy trials. Methods: We identified 422 consecutive pts w advanced cancer treated on immunotherapy-based phase I trials bw 04/2009-09/2015, and collected pt/disease characteristics and immune-related adverse events (irAE) such as endocrinopathies, diarrhea/colitis, pneumonitis, constitutional (fatigue, fever, anorexia), myalgia, and dermatitis. Results: Older adults comprised 27% of trial participants (116 of 422 pts, median age 70y) while 256 pts were mid age (61%, median 56y). Most common cancers were GI (n = 108, 26%), thoracic/head/neck (n = 84, 20%), GU (n = 54, 13%), and GYN (n = 47, 11%). Median PFS was comparable among older pts (2.4m) and mid age (2.1m). Older adults had a higher incidence of irAE than mid age (low grade [G1/2] 49% vs 34%, p 0.02; high grade [G3/4] 19% vs 11%. p 0.14). The odds ratio of high grade events among older adults vs mid age pts was 1.81 (95% CI 1.01, 3.24; p 0.05) and low grade events was 1.85 (95% CI 1.20, 2.85; p 0.0055). Most common G1/2 irAE among all patients was fatigue (n = 76, 18%), dermatitis (n = 59, 14%), fever (n = 29, 7%) and anorexia (n = 28, 7%) with older adults having a greater incidence of low grade fatigue (25% vs 15%, OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.09, 3.10, p 0.025). Conclusions: Older adult participation remained under 30% for immunotherapy-based phase I trials. This early analysis suggests a higher incidence of toxicities among older adults, which calls for the urgent integration of comprehensive supportive care strategy to guide seniors through therapy. This work lays the foundation for future studies investigating the early involvement of supportive care through treatment on early phase clinical trials with immunotherapeutic agents.

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.

scholarly journals Underreporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Phase I Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary W Veitch ◽  
Daniel Shepshelovich ◽  
Christina Gallagher ◽  
Lisa Wang ◽  
Albiruni R Abdul Razak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Reporting Rate ◽  
Phase I Trials ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Limb Edema ◽  
Reporting Frequency

Abstract Background Clinician reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in phase I trials uses the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The utility of the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) in this setting is unknown. This prospective, observational study compared patient- and clinician-reported symptomatic AEs in phase I patients. Methods Phase I study–eligible patients at Princess Margaret were surveyed with the PRO-CTCAE full-item library (78 symptomatic AEs) at baseline (BL), mid-cycle 1, and mid-cycle 2 (C2). Patient and trial characteristics, best response, and survival data were collected. Presence or absence of patient- (PRO-CTCAE) or clinician-reported symptomatic AEs were compared (kappa) at defined timepoints and overall (BL+ mid-cycle 1 + C2). Results Of 292 patients approached from May 2017 to January 2019, a total of 265 (90.8%) were consented, with 243 (91.7%) evaluable and 552 PRO-CTCAE surveys (completion rate = 98.7%) included in analyses. Evaluation of overall patient-reported symptomatic AEs identified 50 PRO-CTCAE and 11 CTCAE items with 10% or greater reporting frequency. Nineteen CTCAE items were reported as 1% or less despite matched PRO-CTCAE items reporting as 10% or greater. Underreported categories included sexual health, bodily emissions, and cognition. Clinician- relative to patient-reporting frequency (ratio) demonstrated 9 symptomatic AEs with a 50-fold or more lower clinician reporting rate. Overall patient–clinician agreement for individual symptomatic AEs ranged from poor (κ = 0.00-0.19) to moderate (κ = 0.40-0.59), with discordance driven by lack of clinician reporting. Dyspnea (κ = 0.54) and peripheral neuropathy (κ = 0.63) at BL and limb edema (κ = 0.55) at C2 demonstrated the highest patient–clinician agreement. Conclusions Poor to moderate patient–clinician agreement for symptomatic AEs suggests clinician underreporting in phase I trials. Analyses of severity and interference PRO categories are ongoing.

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document