{"id":17573,"date":"2011-12-23T00:13:00","date_gmt":"2011-12-23T05:13:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=17573"},"modified":"2011-12-23T00:20:17","modified_gmt":"2011-12-23T05:20:17","slug":"real-patients","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/12\/23\/real-patients\/","title":{"rendered":"real patients&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<br \/>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/ajp.psychiatryonline.org\/article.aspx?articleid=181045\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Antidepressant Clinical Trials and Subject Recruitment: Just Who Are Symptomatic Volunteers?<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a><br \/>         <sup>by Benjamin Brody, M.D., Andrew C. Leon, Ph.D., and James H. Kocsis, M.D.<\/sup><br \/>         <strong><font color=\"#004400\">American Journal of Psychiatry<\/font><\/strong> 2011 168:1245-1247.<br \/>        [<strong><font color=\"#200020\">full text on-line<\/font><\/strong>]<\/div>\n<p>      <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>&#8230; Why are placebo response rates so high?  Some portion of the increase may be attributable to the broadening of  inclusion criteria &mdash; subjects who are less depressed may be more likely to  respond to placebos. Industry-sponsored trials that pay investigators  incrementally by subject incentivize raters to inflate symptoms at  screening visits preferentially over symptoms at midtrial visits. The  incremental payments also discourage careful screening for exclusion  criteria. Participation that is induced by cash payments may lead  subjects to exaggerate their symptoms. Clinical trials have also become  longer in duration, giving nonspecific factors more chance to  accumulate. Another contributing factor to high placebo response rates  may be the extent to which the volunteers in antidepressant trials are  really generalizable to patients in clinical practice. Since the initial  antidepressant trials in the 1960s, participants have gone from being  patients who were recruited primarily from inpatient psychiatric  populations to outpatient volunteers who are often recruited by  advertisements.  At times, these symptomatic volunteers have participated in other  trials. When we contact potential participants to schedule screening,  they often ask to be reminded which trial we are screening for or  mistake our research trial for a different protocol in which they  recently participated. The following stories illuminate some of the  other problems we have recently encountered using symptomatic  volunteers.<\/p>\n<p>        &ldquo;Mr. A&rdquo; participated in a trial of a  biological marker for selecting medications in the treatment of  depression. He improved over the course of the study, so it was  surprising when he decided to discontinue his medication when the study  concluded. A year later, he responded to an advertisement recruiting  depressed subjects for a new clinical trial for an experimental  antidepressant with a novel mechanism. But after we enrolled Mr. A in  this new trial, the study monitor informed us that a subject with the  identical birth date and initials had just completed the same trial at  another local institution. Mr. A claimed that this was an honest  mistake, but we were skeptical. Our suspicions were confirmed when we  learned by happenstance that he was also enrolled in a trial as a  healthy comparison subject at a neighboring institution.<\/p>\n<p>        &ldquo;Ms. B&rdquo; is another symptomatic volunteer  who responded to an advertisement and enrolled in one of our trials.  Three weeks later, we received a call from a colleague across town  saying that Ms. B was already a subject in a trial at that site. This  double enrollment was discovered when a pharmacy called the second site  to verify a duplicate prescription for a controlled substance. Mr. A and  Ms. B are two problematic volunteers whom we have identified in our own  clinical trial program over the past year. We worry, however, that  there may be similar subjects we are not aware of. In a fall 2009  article about the U.S. pharmaceutical industry moving clinical trials  overseas, a Wyeth executive noted that &ldquo;the trend toward placebo results  and so-called failed trials is increasing in the United States. That  means we are getting &#8216;fake&#8217; patients, treatment-resistant patients, or  patients who have been recycled from other studies&rdquo;. Shiovitz et al. recently described similar cases of &ldquo;professional subjects&rdquo; and were  told anonymously by trial sponsors that duplicate subjects in some  protocols have been as high as 5%&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>        While it is always assumed that patients  seen in clinical practice are seeking relief from suffering, the motives  of the symptomatic volunteer are inherently more opaque. On the  altruistic end of the spectrum, many may experience gratification from  participating in biomedical research that contributes to our collective  evidence base and will provide better treatments for future patients.  Understandably, some volunteers desire free access to medical care or  cash stipends. On the pernicious end of the spectrum, the &ldquo;job&rdquo; of an  actively fraudulent volunteer is to have the correct diagnosis at study  entry in order to collect a paycheck for answering questions and  completing self-reports. No matter where on the spectrum these  volunteers fall, these motivations and whatever underlying substrate  propels them to pick up a telephone and respond to an advertisement may  make them distinct from patients seen in clinical practice&#8230;<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">Considering my obsession with the Undurraga and Baldessarini article [<strong><font color=\"#200020\">Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials of Antidepressants for Acute Major Depression: Thirty-Year Meta-Analytic Review<\/font><\/strong>] [<u><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/12\/19\/what-was-that-all-about\"><em><font color=\"#200020\">what was that all about?&hellip;<\/font><\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/u>, <u><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/12\/21\/meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta-meta\"><font color=\"#2f1401\">meta<\/font> <font color=\"#7F6F57\">meta<\/font> <font color=\"#8c7461\">meta<\/font> <font color=\"#a99485\">meta<\/font> <font color=\"#c6b4a9\">meta<\/font> <font color=\"#d3d4cd\">meta&hellip;<\/font><\/a><\/strong><\/u>], what could be more timely than this month&#8217;s commentary in the <strong><font color=\"#004400\">American Journal of Psychiatry<\/font><\/strong> about Clinical Trial volunteers? The article documents a few cases of professional patients, people enrolled in several trials at the same time &#8211; even using the term &quot;fake patients.&quot; To use a metaphor I&#8217;ve used before, &quot;For every roach you see, there are a hundred behind the walls.&quot; Of course these studies are filled with &quot;fake patients.&quot; Being in Clinical Trials is no different that being a professional blood donor, just more lucrative [if you want to learn the ropes, just take a look at some of the videos on <a href=\"http:\/\/theclinicaltrialsguru.com\/\" target=\"_blank\"><u><strong><font color=\"#007799\">The Clinical Trials Guru<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a> run by&nbsp;  <em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.southcoastclinicaltrials.com\/index.php\/key-staff\" target=\"_blank\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">South Coast Clinical Trials<\/font><\/strong><\/a><\/em>. Where else could these subjects come from? <\/div>\n<p>  <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">But before indicting the subjects for shopping around for Clinical Trials like it is a business, think about the fact that <u>it is a business<\/u>. The sponsoring drug company is in the business of getting their drug approved. The Clinical Research Center is in the business of enrolling subjects. The Clinical Research Organization is in the business of getting a successful Trial on the books for the FDA for approval. The Medical Writer is in the business of getting a publishable paper written. The guest author is in the business of padding a resume and pulling in some speaker fees. Why shouldn&#8217;t the subjects be in business too? It stands to reason. To expect mentally ill people to seek treatment by looking at newspaper ads and chance getting treated with a sugar pill or an ineffective drug is very unlikely scenario.<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>But it is a more pronounced problem for psychiatry, which lacks  validated biomarkers and often relies on self-report for diagnosis  confirmation.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">It&#8217;s hard to avoid sarcasm here, the point being made is so obvious. But still, I appreciate these investigators writing this commentary, even though it is already obvious in the bizarre graphs that accompany the clinical trials, or the rising placebo responses so nicely documented in the article I&#8217;ve been reviewing recently. The solution would be a radical change in how we evaluate medications:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>Perhaps the most effective way to address these problems is to increase  the number of patients who self-present for treatment in clinical  trials. Using fewer symptomatic volunteers would also mean using fewer  for-profit research organizations, which do not treat patients and  therefore rely heavily on advertisements for recruitment, and would  institute a greater degree of responsible and transparent collaboration  between industry and medical centers where real patients present for  care.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">Note the use of the term &quot;real patients.&quot; If this is to remotely approximate science, it does seem like &quot;real patients&quot; ought to be the object of study instead of &quot;fake patients&quot; like Mr. A and Ms. B&#8230; <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Antidepressant Clinical Trials and Subject Recruitment: Just Who Are Symptomatic Volunteers? by Benjamin Brody, M.D., Andrew C. Leon, Ph.D., and James H. Kocsis, M.D. American Journal of Psychiatry 2011 168:1245-1247. [full text on-line] &#8230; Why are placebo response rates so high? Some portion of the increase may be attributable to the broadening of inclusion criteria [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17573","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17573"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17573\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17578,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17573\/revisions\/17578"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}