Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Clinical Research in China, But Were Afraid to Ask

After scandals involving tainted toothpaste, poisonous pet food, adulterated milk, contaminated heparin, and counterfeit medicines, and a thriving trade in organs, one shudders to imagine how well human subjects are protected in drug studies performed in China. Apart from an occasional report in the medical literature, there is little easily accessible information about Chinese human protections: the regulations and laws, compliance and enforcement, and professional standards. This information would be interesting in its own right; however, it is all the more essential given trends towards trans-national trials.

A recent report issued the Medical Research Council (UK) provides some indication of China's system of human protections, and how researchers in countries like UK might proceed when locating trials in China. The executive summary finds that Chinese regulations substantially parallel those of the International Committee on Harmonization (ICH). Informed consent and independent ethics review is required for any study. However, the UK and China "differ greatly in their approaches to enforcing guidelines for the conduct of research at the national level. In China, although there is some scrutiny of clinical trials, there is comparatively little inspection or review of compliance." Other intriguing mentions are concerns about undue inducement in China: "the high costs of healthcare and medicines, and the dependence on local providers means that particular attention [for UK researchers pursuing studies in China] must be given to potential inducements to participate in research. Collaboration with China may offer attractive opportunities for large-scale recruitment, but potential UK collaborators must be alert to the risk that unethical inducements may be offered to potential participants. ... given the high cost of accessing health care in China, a ‘free health check’ may be a relatively greater inducement than it would be deemed to be in the UK."

A perusal of the Chinese regulations- at least the ones provided in this report- indicate the following:

• China places heavy emphasis on procedure (e.g. IRB review) and informed consent, rather than substance (e.g. prohibitions on certain practices; definitions of minimal risk; categories of patients)

• China seems to take a very permissive stand (like ICH) on the use of placebos. Indeed, there is no mention of studies involving placebo.

• There is no mention of justice considerations- for example, post-trial access or responsiveness.

(photo credit: 2 dogs, 07/03/25 12:32:09 Shanghai, 2007)

Help Wanted, Part 2

So, what are some of the intriguing ethical questions of Kolata's August 2d article? Here is one: when researchers conduct studies and ethics committees review protocols, resource allocation is an important consideration. If, as Kolata alleges, mediocre trials siphon eligible patients away from good trials, then there is a case to be made that IRBs and investigators need to ponder carefully the effects proposed trials will have on other studies- even when proposed trials have a favorable direct benefit-risk balance for volunteers who enter them.

Second, if resource allocation is a key consideration in realms where patients are scarce, investigators (and IRBs) need reliable criteria for assessing the broader social value of study protocols. They further need some way of being able to compare one protocol against a body of others that are either underway or in the pipeline. The current system provides no straightforward way of doing this.

Third, if 50% of trials fail to recruit sufficient numbers to produce meaningful results, investigators, IRBs, DSMBs, and granting agencies are doing a lousy job ensuring high ethical standards in human research. It is well established that, for any study to redeem the burdens that volunteers endure on enrollment, it must produce valuable findings. It is disturbing, to say the least, that many volunteers enter studies that go nowhere, and that investigators, IRBs, and funding agencies are not realistically projecting recruitment.

Last, Kolata suggests that many cancer trials are merely aimed at "polishing a doctor's résumé." It would make a useful contribution to the field of cancer research- and bioethics- to measure the frequency of this practice. Meantime, this inability of IRBs to detect this kind of conduct, and stop it in its tracks, signals an important deficiency in human protections. Which leads me to my next post... (photo credit: ziggy fresh 2006)

Help Wanted- For the War on Cancer

Earlier this week (Aug 2), Gina Kolata of the NYTimes ran a fascinating story about challenges recruiting patients to cancer clinical trials. The story contains interesting facts, credible claims, analysis, and unfortunately, some misleading conjectures. The problem of patient recruitment also invites some hard headed ethical analysis.

First the facts. According to the article, one in five National Cancer Institute-funded trials fails to enroll a single subject; half fail to recruit enough to produce meaningful results. Now some credible claims: many trials are "aimed at polishing a doctor's résumé, and produce meaningless results; many oncologists avoid cancer studies because they can be a money loser, and many patients shy away from trial participation- particularly when their cancer is less advanced and they can obtain treatment outside of trials.

The article, however, is swathed in some misleading conjectures. The article makes the suggestion that problems with recruitment are "one reason" and "the biggest barrier" to major strides in the "war on cancer" (hence the recruitment poster in the graphic above). Hard to reconcile this with Kolata's contention elsewhere that many trials are useless. It's also hard to square the claim with Kolata's point, earlier in the article, that trials involving really promising drugs usually have no problems with recruitment. In one famous case, a Phase 1 trial testing endostatin at Harvard received 1000 inquires from patients for 3 slots in the trial (Pop quiz: see if you can guess which New York Times reporter wrote an article on endostatin that many commentators criticized for sensationalizing the drug's promise?). Third, with only about 1 in 20 cancer drug candidates making it from phase 1 tests to FDA approval, a reasonable question to ask is whether preclinical researchers are validating their drug candidates properly. And finally, the article makes no mention of the fact that many studies have exceedingly narrow eligibility criteria. Many patients may be solicited for trial participation- but only a fraction meet eligibility criteria.

Still, Kolata's article is enlightening and raises a number of intriguing questions that demand ethical analysis. I'll discuss some of these in my next posting (photo credits: Joan Thewlis, 1918 Recruitment Poster, 2009).

Orange Light on Generics

Last week, I blogged on the issue of generic biologics: should companies that make vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, cell therapies, etc. get 12 years of data exclusivity before competing companies begin offering generics? Or should they be held to the same standard as makers of drugs, who get five years of exclusivity?

Looks like the U.S. Senate is caving in to pressure from Pharma and the Biotech industry by opposing the Obama's "compromise" position: the Senate bill urges 12 years. But in today's New York Times, journalist Andrew Pollack suggests the exclusivity debate might not matter in the end: most biologics are protected by patents beyond 12 years after FDA approval. Meaning: short exclusivity periods advocated by various public interest groups would have no material impact on development of generic biologics, because generics would be prevented by patents. The article contains a graphic showing that patents on several leading biologics products extend well beyond 12 years.

So is this just a symbolic debate? I think not (disclaimer: I am not a health care economist!). Towards the end of the article, Pollack acknowledges that the exclusivity debate might matter where patents do not provide strong protection. That's a crucial issue for biologics. Intellectual property law around biologics is notoriously unstable and uncertain. And owing to their complex composition, generic manufacturers might plausibly argue that their products are biosimilar while not infringing patents. Advocates of the 12 year policy will argue that longer exclusivity is necessary to entice investors who might otherwise worry that lead products will not withstand patent challenges. Advocates of the shorter policy (like myself) will argue that we owe it to present day patients and their families to take that risk. (photo credit: sortofbreakit 2008).

Phased by Phase 0?

Today, Lancet ran an editorial asking whether Phase 0 trials will become a "platform for drug development." The editorial responds to the first published 'phase 0' study, this June, in Journal of Clinical Oncology (Kummar et al). These studies involve delivering very small quantities of a new drug to test its properties before giving biologically active levels to patients. They promise to improve the efficiency of drug development by screening drug candidates before they are tested in larger, riskier phase 1 trials.

The Lancet editorial notes the potential of phase 0 studies, but raises questions about their ethics: "no therapeutic benefit can be conferred by the small doses in a phase 0 study, and while taking part, patients are not allowed to enrol in a trial with therapeutic intent." As I have argued in Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, however, the former issue is a red herring: normal phase 1 trials routinely, and deliberately, deliver levels of drug that are too low to cause therapeutic response. Moveover, whether phase 1 trials in themselves have "therapeutic intent" is debatable.

There are, of course, many ethical concerns surrounding phase 0 studies. Chief among them is whether patients understand their nontherapeutic nature, and whether results are publicly reported (I predict that if phase 0 methods are taken up by the private sector, many results will languish in filing cabinets). But effective engagement with ethical issues in phase 0 cancer studies requires, in my view, that we take a more careful look at whether "therapeutic intent" is really the litmus that determines whether a study pursued in patients is ethical. (photo credit: w i n t e r t w i n e d 2009)

Generic Biologics

Gene transfer, cell transplantation, monoclonal antibodies, enzyme replacements, tissue engineering all have great potential to improve health care. But will we be able to afford them? Various economists have shown that a large proportion of health care cost inflation is attributable to new technology, and the significant costs of development and production for drugs involving genes, cells, and large proteins- what regulators call "biologics"- provide grounds for concern that new biotech products will break the bank.

Questions about the affordability of biotech drugs are heating up in DC as Congress takes a look at generic biologics. Under current policy, there are no regulatory pathways for approving generic versions of biologics. This effectively means that companies that develop biologic drugs have a monopoly on them long after patents expire. Representative Henry Waxman, who previously sponsored legislation creating a pathway for generic drugs, is presently spearheading efforts to establish a way of reviewing and approving generic biologics as well.

The policy and economic issues here are profoundly complex, and much of the debate about legislation revolves around the issue of "data exclusivity." Briefly, this refers to the period after drug approval during which generic competitors are barred from using data from the innovator's clinical trials to apply for generic approval. In the U.S., for example, generic drug companies cannot file applications with FDA until five years after the new drug is approved by FDA. The aim of exclusivity is to reduce the economic impact of free rider generic companies that depend on trial data collected by the innovator.

The biotech industry, and many economists, argue that much longer periods of data exclusivity are required for biologics. They argue that without longer exclusivity periods (like 12 to 14 years), companies will have insufficient incentive to develop new biologics. Consumer advocates often argue otherwise, citing the mouth dropping costs associated with using many new biologics.

It remains to be seen who will prevail in this debate, but Waxman and the Obama administration appear inclined toward the consumer advocates, with the former urging a 5 year period, and the latter endorsing a "compromise" of 7 year exclusivity.

At stake is not simply question of markets and economics, but also one of ethics. Namely, should how should health care economies balance the need of current patients (who can ill afford expensive biologics) against those of future patients (who might benefit from greater innovation should exclusivity periods be extended)?

Sound ethical analysis must discount benefits accruing to future patients and consider the justice implications of excluding current patients from otherwise available treatment so that others in the future might benefit from new drugs. If implemented, the Obama administration's plan for generic biologics promises to reduce an important hurdle in ensuring an equitable future for cutting edge therapies. (photo credit: shazam791, a true generic brand, 2008)

Safe Harbor? Leukemia, Gene Transfer, and Lentiviral Vectors

A few further observations from the American Society of Gene Therapy Meeting...

A recurrent theme in this blog is the frequency with which novel research fields encounter safety problems that confound laboratory predictions. One presentation at the 2009 ASGT meeting brought this point home.

Recall my entry on May 12 discussing various refinements to retroviral gene transfer that are aimed at reducing risk of malignancy. Researchers have postulated that HIV-derived lentiviral vectors might not cause the same leukemia-inducing mutations as retroviruses, and RAC recently passed a favorable judgment on a lentiviral vector gene transfer protocol for X-SCID.

How confident can we be that lentiviruses will not trigger leukemias? Some indication is provided in a May 2009 review by John Rossi in Molecular Therapy. It concluded "overall, the results of these [safety] analyses [of lentiviral vectors] are highly encouraging..." but "clearly, more careful analyses... are warranted in appropriate animal models."

At ASGT, researchers from France reported preliminary results from a phase 1 trial testing lentiviral vectors in patients with beta-thalassemia. The study involved two patients. Though no malignancies have been detected, tests in one patient showed signs that some cells were repopulating the patients blood much faster than others (what researchers call "clonal dominance"). This is a worrisome signal, as it might indicate a premalignant state.

The lessons here are not that lentiviral vectors are unsafe (we don't know whether this will lead to a malignancy), or that such vectors shouldn't be used in human beings (we can't say anything yet about the risk-benefit balance). Instead, I think the lesson is: in novel research areas, be very wary of anyone who makes emphatic claims that their system provides safe harbor. Expect the unexpected. (photo credit: dark matter, 2005)