Summary
A patient-centered paradigm for clinical research and medical care is presented as a solution to the problem of declining innovation and increasing costs and development time in the pipeline for new therapies. Fundamental differences in values and motivations among scientists, clinicians, industry sponsor, and patients in neurotherapeutics provide a framework for analysis of ethical conflicts and the loss of public confidence in medical research. Parkinson advocates’ views on clinical trial participation, perceived risks and benefits, placebo controls, and sham surgery are presented. These views reflect the sense of urgency and the unique perspective that comes from living with this progressive, debilitating condition full time. A patient-centered paradigm that includes authentic voices of patients as collaborators at every stage of development will help to resolve conflicts, build trust, recruit trial participants, and accelerate new therapies. Key elements are adaptive clinical trial methods and the development of information technology for the assessment of outcomes and surveillance of safety over the life cycle of a medical product. Supported by the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation, the Parkinson Pipeline Project is a grassroots group of Parkinson’s patients whose goal is to represent an authentic voice for patients in the treatment development process. This group promotes education and communication between members of the Parkinson’s community and active stakeholders in medical research, industry, and regulatory agencies. Its members are an example of a new breed of knowledgeable consumers, armed with first-hand access to research findings and reinforced by on-line connections to like-minded peers throughout the world.
Key Words: Parkinson’s disease, sham surgery, placebo, ethics, conflict of interest, patient voice, patient-centered care
References
- 1.United States Government Accounting Office. New drug development: science, business, regulatory and intellectual property issues cited as hampering drug development efforts. GAO-07-49, a report to congressional requesters. November 2006. Available at: http:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d0749.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2007.
- 2.Glass KC, Waring D. The physician/investigator’s obligation to patients participating in research: the case of placebo controlled trials. J Law Med Ethics. 2005;33:575–585. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2005.tb00520.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Getz, KA. Forgotten voices in the transparency debate: online trial registries alone will not succeed at rebuilding public confidence. Appl Clin Trials 2006 April. Available at: http://www. actmagazine.com/appliedclinicaltrials/article/articleDetail.jsp?id= 316473. Accessed May 22, 2007.
- 4.Gullo K. New survey shows public perception of opportunity to participate in clinical trials has decreased slightly from last year. Harris Interactive Healthcare News. 2005;5(6):1–14. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Fox, M. Michael’s mission [Dateline Interview with Katie Couric]. April 16, 2006. Available at: http://www.michaeljfox. org/newsEvents_michaelInTheNews_article.cfm?ID = 28. Accessed January 20, 2007.
- 6.National Consumers League. Survey: Public believes decisions concerning treatment should rest with patients and physicians. NCL News: Releases & Advisories. March 6, 2006. Available at: http://www.nclnet.org/news/2006/chronic_disease_survey_03062006. htm. Accessed January 20, 2007.
- 7.Workshop proceedings—Inviting public participation in clinical research: building trust through partnerships. October 26–27, 2004. A workshop sponsored by the National Institutes of Health Director’s Council of Public Representatives (COPR); coordinated in partnership with the NIH Public Trust Initiative. Available at: http://copr.nih.gov/reports/October_2004_COPR_WORKSHOP_ Proceedings.pdf. Accessed January 20, 2007.
- 8.Freed CR, Greene P, Breeze R, Tsai WY, DuMouchel W, Kao R, et al. Transplantation of embryonic dopamine neurons for severe Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:710–719. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200103083441002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.McRae C, Cherin E, Yamazaki TG, et al. Effects of perceived treatment on quality of life and medical outcomes in a double-blind placebo surgery trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2004;61:412–420. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.61.4.412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kim SY, Frank S, Holloway R, Zimmerman C, Wilson R, Kieburtz K. Science and ethics of sham surgery: a survey of Parkinson disease clinical researchers. Arch Neurol. 2005;62:1357–1360. doi: 10.1001/archneur.62.9.1357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. FDA approves implanted brain stimulator to control tremors. Released August 4, 1997. p97-24. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00580.html.
- 12.Polgar S, Ng J. Ethics, methodology, and the use of placebo controls in surgical trials. Brain Res Bull. 2005;67:290–297. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2005.06.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Havemann J. The best medicine may be hope. The Hamilton [Ontario] Spectator; November 29, 2006; A.7. Available at: http:// www.grassrootsconnection.com/HaveHope.htm.
- 14.Frank S, Kieburtz K, Holloway R, Kim SYH. Author reply [to W Landau comment on: What is the risk of sham surgery in Parkinson disease clinical trials? A review of published reports. Neurology. 2005;65:1101–1103. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000171957.90640.b5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Berry D. A guide to drug discovery: Bayesian clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5:27–36. doi: 10.1038/nrd1927. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Chebrolu H, Slevin JT, Gash DA, et al. MRI volumetric and intensity analysis of the cerebellum in Parkinson’s disease patients infused with glial-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) Exp Neurol. 2006;198:450–456. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2005.12.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hutchinson M, Gumey S, Newson R. GDNF in Parkinson disease: an object lesson in the tyranny of type II. J Neurosci Methods 2006(Jul 27) [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 18.Lang AE, Gill S, Patel NK, et al. Randomized controlled trial of intraputamenal glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor infusion in Parkinson disease. Ann Neurol. 2006;59:459–466. doi: 10.1002/ana.20737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Love S, Plaha P, Patel NK, Hotton G, Brooks DJ, Gill SS. Glial cell line—derived neurotrophic factor induces neuronal sprouting in human brain. Nat Med. 2005;11:703–704. doi: 10.1038/nm0705-703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Patel NK, Bunnage M, Plaha P, Svendsen CN, Heywood P, Gill SS. Intraputamenal infusion of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in PD: a two-year outcome study. Ann Neurol. 2005;57:298–302. doi: 10.1002/ana.20374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Penn RD, Dalvi A, Slevin J, et al. GDNF in treatment of Parkinson’s disease: response to editorial. Lancet Neurol. 2006;5:202–203. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70360-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Salvatore M, Ai Y, Fischer B, et al. Point source concentration of GDNF may explain failure of phase II clinical trial. Exp Neurol. 2006;202:497–505. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2006.07.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Slevin JT, Gash DM, Smith CD, et al. Unilateral intraputamenal glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in patients with Parkinson disease: response to 1 year of treatment and 1 year of withdrawal. J Neurosurg. 2007;106:614–620. doi: 10.3171/jns.2007.106.4.614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Fahn S, Elliott RA. PDF statement on Amgen’s decision to block reinstatement of experimental Parkinson’s treatment for trial participants. Released February 11, 2005. Available at http://www.pdf.org/ Publications/Amgens_Denial_Access.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2007.
- 25.Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. Parkinson’s Disease Foundation expresses concern at statement on Kentucky court decision supporting Amgen’s denial of patient access to GDNF. Released July 12, 2005. Available at http://www.pdf.org/Publications/Amgens_ Denial_Access.pdf. Accessed March 27, 2007.
- 26.Dresser R. Patient advocates in research: new possibilities, new problems. Wash Univ J Law Policy. 2003;11:237–248. [Google Scholar]
- 27.The hard way to a Bill of Rights [Editorial] Lancet Neurol. 2005;4:787. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70228-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Gliklich R. Postapproval needs reassessed: real-world data demands place Phase IV studies in spotlight. Appl Clin Trials 2007 March. Available at http://www.actmagazine.com/ appliedclinicaltrials/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=410610. Accessed March 27, 2007.