{"id":17592,"date":"2011-12-23T17:57:37","date_gmt":"2011-12-23T22:57:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=17592"},"modified":"2011-12-23T18:01:12","modified_gmt":"2011-12-23T23:01:12","slug":"a-better-choice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/12\/23\/a-better-choice\/","title":{"rendered":"a better choice&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<div align=\"justify\">In the fall of 2010, I was on a vacation trip driving through New York State &#8211; an unexplored and previously unknown world for this southern boy who&#8217;d trained in New York City, but was unprepared for the beauty of the rest of the State. It was on that trip that I first read Carl Elliot&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/motherjones.com\/environment\/2010\/09\/dan-markingson-drug-trial-astrazeneca\" target=\"_blank\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">The Deadly Corruption of Clinical Trials<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a> in the <strong><font color=\"#200020\">Mother Jones<\/font><\/strong> magazine &#8211; the story of Dan Markinson&#8217;s suicide during the CAFE Trial, an AstraZeneca funded Trial designed to show the wonders of their Seroquel after its poor showing in the NIMH CATIE Trial. He was floridly psychotic and under a form of commitment, yet he was allowed to volunteer for a study that both inadequately treated him and gave him the freedom to kill himself under the full sway of an intense paranoid psychosis. The story haunted me for the remainder of the trip. While I hadn&#8217;t seen that kind of case in the latter part of my career, I&#8217;d seen plenty enough early on to know what a tragedy that story represented. Those cases are dramatic and once seen, never go away. It was that article that ultimately lead me to begin looking at Seroquel [<u><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/02\/08\/seroquel-i-introduction-of-an-atypical\/\" target=\"_blank\"><font color=\"#200020\">seroquel I: introduction to an &ldquo;atypical&rdquo;&hellip;<\/font><\/a><\/strong><\/u>] last winter and then on to a painful refresher course in what had happened in my specialty, psychiatry, in the modern era. That was less than a year ago, but I was incredibly naive and had no idea about the Contract Research&nbsp; Organizations or the Clinical Trials Industry. I actually wrote a friend asking, &quot;What&#8217;s a CRO?&quot;  <\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">Then earlier this year, I received Carl Elliot&#8217;s book, <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/gp\/product\/0807061441\/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&#038;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&#038;pf_rd_t=201&#038;pf_rd_i=0807061425&#038;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&#038;pf_rd_r=11NN66FT4XCP7H23JYJD\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">White Coat Black Hat<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>. Even though he writes in a easy way, it was hard for me to take it all in. It covers the invasion of the pharmaceutical industry into medicine and research over the last twenty-five years. Before reading that book, I think I had begun to see that medical science had been heavily corrupted by industry, but his book added a level of darkness to the story that took me a while to absorb. I guess I just wasn&#8217;t ready to see all the specifics of the Clinical Research Industry that has replaced clinical research I knew in the past in academic centers. It had been easy for me to see that the &quot;Placebo Effect&quot; was increasing geometrically in studies, but a lot more uncomfortable to look at why. <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">This morning, Carl sent me a link to an earlier article of his in the New Yorker back in 2008 [<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/reporting\/2008\/01\/07\/080107fa_fact_elliott\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Guinea-pigging: Healthy human subjects for drug-safety trials are in demand. But is it a living?<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>] in response to my last post mentioning &quot;fake patients&quot; and professional patients. I hadn&#8217;t read it before. I think I&#8217;d considered Phase III Trials mostly, the trials for efficacy and safety required by the FDA for approval. I hadn&#8217;t thought much about the Phase I and Phase II trials that come earlier and are more dangerous. It is also a difficult story to read &#8211; a seedy story. Here&#8217;s a sampler:<\/div>\n<ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>In May of 2006, Miami-Dade County ordered the  demolition of a former Holiday Inn, citing various fire and safety  violations. It had been the largest drug-testing site in North America,  with six hundred and seventy-five beds. The operation closed down that  year, shortly after the financial magazine <em>Bloomberg Markets<\/em>  reported that the building&rsquo;s owner, SFBC International, was paying  undocumented immigrants to participate in drug trials under ethically  dubious conditions. The medical director of the clinic got her degree  from a school in the Caribbean and was not licensed to practice. Some of  the studies had been approved by a commercial ethical-review board  owned by the wife of an SFBC vice-president. [The company, which has  since changed its name to PharmaNet Development Group, says that it  required subjects to provide proof of their legal status, and that the  practice of medicine wasn&rsquo;t part of the medical director&rsquo;s duties. Last  August, the company paid $28.5 million to settle a class-action  lawsuit.]   <\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;It was a human-subjects bazaar,&rdquo; says Kenneth Goodman, a  bioethicist at the University of Miami who visited the site. The motel  was in a downtrodden neighborhood; according to later reports, paint was  peeling from the walls, and there were seven or eight subjects in a  room. Goodman says that the waiting area was filled with potential  subjects, mainly African-American and Hispanic; administrative staff  members worked behind a window, like gas-station attendants, passing  documents through a hole in the glass.<\/p>\n<p>    The SFBC scandal was not the first of its kind. In 1996, the <em>Wall Street Journal<\/em>  reported that the Eli Lilly company was using homeless alcoholics from a  local shelter to test experimental drugs at budget rates at its testing  site in Indianapolis. [Lilly&rsquo;s executive director of clinical  pharmacology told the <em>Journal<\/em> that the homeless people were  driven by &ldquo;altruism,&rdquo; and that they enrolled in trials because they  &ldquo;want to help society.&rdquo; The company says that it now requires subjects  to provide proof of residence.] The Lilly clinic, the <em>Journal<\/em>  reported, had developed such a reputation for admitting the down-and-out  that subjects travelled to Indianapolis from all over the country to  participate in studies.<\/p>\n<p>    How did the largest clinical-trial unit on the continent recruit  undocumented immigrants to a dilapidated motel for ten years without  anyone noticing? Part of the answer has to do with our system of  oversight. Before the nineteen-seventies, medical research was poorly  regulated; many Phase I subjects were prisoners. Reforms were instituted  after congressional investigations into abuses like the four-decade  Tuskegee syphilis studies, in which researchers studied, instead of  treating, syphilis infections in African-American men. For the past  three decades, institutional review boards, or I.R.B.s, have been the  primary mechanism for protecting subjects in drug trials. F.D.A.  regulations require that any study in support of a new drug be approved  by an I.R.B. Until recently, I.R.B.s were based in universities and  teaching hospitals, and were made up primarily of faculty members who  volunteered to review the research studies being conducted in their own  institutions. Now that most drug studies take place outside academic  settings, research sponsors can submit their proposed studies to  for-profit I.R.B.s, which will review the ethics of a study in exchange  for a fee. These boards are subject to the same financial pressures  faced by virtually everyone in the business. They compete for clients by  promising a fast review. And if one for-profit I.R.B. concludes that a  study is unethical the sponsor can simply take it to another.<\/p>\n<p>    Moreover, because I.R.B.s scrutinize studies only on paper, they are  seldom in a position to comment on conditions at a study site. Most of  the standards that SFBC violated in Miami, for example, would not be  covered in an ordinary off-site ethics review. I.R.B.s ask questions  like &ldquo;Have the subjects been adequately informed of what the study  involves?&rdquo; They do not generally ask if the sponsors are recruiting  undocumented immigrants or if the study site poses a fire hazard. At  some trial sites, guinea pigs are housed in circumstances that would  drive away anyone with better options. Guinea pigs told me about sites  that skimp on meals and hot water, or that require subjects to bring  their own towels and blankets. A few sites have a reputation for  recruiting subjects who are threatening or dangerous but work cheaply&#8230;<\/p>\n<p> <\/sup><\/div>\n<\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\">There are many more [and worse] examples. At every level, the Clinical Research enterprise seems to be a study in illusion. The well coiffed articles appearing in our shiny journals with massaged graphs and tables evoke images far removed from the Bowery-like conditions Elliot describes [that move into areas of exploitation more regularly than we know]. Ultimately, physicians become agents of those illusions when we write the prescriptions for drugs approved based on jury-rigged data from non-patient subjects. Elliot&#8217;s research and commentary like that in the last post stand in stark contrast to the writings of Dr. Tom Insel at the NIMH who talks about streamlining the processes to ease the burden on the drug companies so as to deal with the perceived crises in new drug development. A moratorium might be a better choice than streamlining&#8230;<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the fall of 2010, I was on a vacation trip driving through New York State &#8211; an unexplored and previously unknown world for this southern boy who&#8217;d trained in New York City, but was unprepared for the beauty of the rest of the State. It was on that trip that I first read Carl [&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-17592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17592","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=17592"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17592\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41673,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17592\/revisions\/41673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}