Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy Submits Comments on Conflicts of Interest in Research to the National Institutes of Health

On August 19, 2010, on behalf of Seton Hall Law’s Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy, Seton Hall Law Professors Kathleen Boozang and Carl Coleman, along with Research Fellow Kate Greenwood, submitted comments on the National Institutes of Health’s proposed revisions to its regulations governing conflicts of interest in federally-funded research.  While the Center’s November 2009 White Paper Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight endorsed limits on conflicts of interest beyond those that the NIH has proposed, the revised regulations are a step in the right direction and in its comments the Center commends the NIH for its decisive action on this issue.


Briefly, the Center:

• Supports the NIH’s proposal that that researchers disclose to their institutions any significant financial interest that “reasonably appears to be related to the Investigator’s institutional responsibilities,” with “institutional responsibilities” defined to include “activities such as research, research consultation, teaching, professional practice, institutional committee memberships, and service on panels such as Institutional Review Boards or Data and Safety Monitoring Boards.” This comports with the Center’s recommendation in the White Paper that investigators not be charged with determining for themselves whether one or more of their financial interests could be affected by a specific research project.

• Supports the NIH’s decision to significantly lower the monetary threshold at which a researcher’s financial interest becomes “significant” to $5,000, but argues that a lower threshold would be better. Collection of data about all of a researcher’s relationships with industry, even those that fall below the proposed $5,000 threshold, would facilitate better conflict of interest assessment and management and make possible research into the effects of conflicts on research integrity and human subject welfare.

• Supports the NIH’s decision not to exclude income from non-profit entities for lectures and similar engagements from the definition of significant financial interest and its conclusion that any equity interest in a non-publicly traded entity is significant, as are any and all intellectual property rights, but encourages the agency to revisit its decision to shield from disclosure (1) equity interests held by investigators in commercial or for-profit institutions and (2) royalties and other remuneration other than salary paid to an investigator by an institution that appoints or employs him or her.

• Notes that the draft revised regulations do not address the White Paper’s criticisms that the conflict of interest regulations place no “substantive limits on the kinds of conflicts that may exist” and fail to put forth “a required minimum response for conflicts that pose the greatest risks to participants and the integrity of the research” and encourages the NIH to consider again the benefits of setting forth required minimum responses to those conflicts that are the most problematic.

• Supports the NIH’s decision to require that grantees provide “sufficient information to enable the [agency] to understand the nature and extent of the financial conflict, and to assess the appropriateness of the Institution’s management plan.”

• Supports the requirement in the draft revised regulations that any significant financial interest that (1) is still held by a principal investigator or senior/key person, (2) is related to PHS-funded research, and (3) is a financial conflict of interest must be disclosed to the public via the world wide web.

• Supports the draft revised regulations’ requirement that investigators complete training on “the Institution’s policy on financial conflicts of interest, the Investigator’s responsibilities regarding disclosure of significant financial interests, and of these regulations” before the commencement of research and then at least once every two years. As recommended in the Center’s White Paper, it would be beneficial for the training to include as well a discussion of the nature of conflicts of interest and their potential for harm.

• Recommends that the agency adopt its own suggestion that institutions be required to “maintain up-to-date, written, enforced policies” on institutional conflicts of interest, as they are for investigator conflicts, and that these policies be made publicly available via the world wide web. The nudge this requirement would provide is necessary because institutions have been slow to develop and adopt policies on institutional conflicts.

• Recommends that the section of the regulations devoted to remedies be revised to include a non-exclusive list of potential enforcement actions such as temporary withholding of cash payments pending correction of the deficiency, suspension or termination of the contract or grant in whole or in part, monetary assessments and penalties, and suspension or debarment from eligibility for future contracts or grants.

The Center’s comments in their entirety are available here.

Seton Hall Law School’s Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy. The Center is a think tank that fosters dialogue, scholarship, and policy solutions to critical issues in health and pharmaceutical law. As part of its mission, it convenes policymakers, consumer advocates, the medical profession, industry, and government in the search for concrete solutions to the ethical, legal, and social questions presented in the health and pharmaceutical arenas. The Center also runs a compliance training program covering the state and federal laws governing the development and marketing of drugs and medical devices.

Solving the Mysteries of Pregnancy

Photo by Johann Nojhan Dreo via Flickr

In last week’s JAMA, the Pandemic H1N1 Influenza in Pregnancy Working Group reported that their analysis of nationwide data on 2009 influenza A (H1N1) in pregnant women revealed that “early antiviral treatment appeared to be associated with fewer admissions to an ICU and fewer deaths.”  Pregnant women who were not treated with antiviral medication until 3-4 days after they began experiencing flu symptoms were more likely to die than those who were treated within 2 days of symptom onset.  Women who were first treated with medication more than 4 days after symptom onset were 54 times more likely to die than those who were treated within 2 days.

The authors speculate that the “reasons for delayed treatment … could include reluctance of pregnant women or clinicians to use antiviral medication because of concern for risk to the fetus, despite available evidence suggesting that treatment benefit likely outweighs the potential risk.”  Given the shocking 54-fold increased risk of death associated with late initiation of antiviral medication, the authors’ use of the qualifiers “suggesting” and “likely” is noteworthy.  They are forced to hedge because, as a group of experts convened by the CDC acknowledged in late 2009, “[l]ittle is known about the effects of the four currently available influenza medications on the fetus.”

In my article The Mysteries of Pregnancy: The Role of Law in Solving the Problem of Unknown But Knowable Maternal-Fetal Medication Risk (forthcoming in the University of Cincinnati Law Review), I point out that this information gap is not unique to antivirals.  We lack data on the efficacy or safety or both of most drugs when used by pregnant women.  A frequent shorthand explanation for the dearth of information is that you cannot test drugs on pregnant women because of ethical concerns.  Without denying or dismissing the real moral conundrums that arise in maternal-fetal medicine, the information gap is deeper and wider than that.  As Ruth Faden puts it: “Everyone thinks, Oh, my God, research on pregnant women!  All kinds of ethical flags go up.  We don’t have to start with high drama.  [There's enough] low-hanging fruit that we could keep lots of medical researchers busy for a long time.”

Two FDA-led efforts promise to begin connecting the dots: the Medication Exposure in Pregnancy Risk Evaluation Program, which will conduct epidemiological research using data on approximately 1 million births gathered by the 11 participating research sites, and the Sentinel Initiative, which is creating a national electronic system with the goal of, among other things, allowing for prompt investigation of the safety of newly-approved drugs in pregnant women.  Other government agencies also have roles to play.  For example, the house committee report accompanying the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Fiscal 2010 Appropriations measure encouraged the NIH “to  expand research on pregnant women with the goals of better understanding the long-term health effects on women of disease states in pregnancy, the proper therapeutics for pharmacologic treatments for pregnant women who face illness, and the safety and efficacy of medications administered to pregnant women and fetuses.”   Finally, industry can and should do more.  Congress should empower FDA to require pharmaceutical companies to sponsor maternal-fetal medication research in appropriate cases, authority the agency already has in the pediatric arena.

Alternative Revenue Stream for Private Practice Physicians – Research Investigator

Clinical research is the only way [for a physician in the managed care era] to make a boat payment, quips David Stark, M.D.

With increasing frequency, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are turning to physicians in private practice, rather than academic medical centers, to serve as investigators overseeing the 60,000-odd clinical trials each year, between 80 and 90% of which are funded by industry as opposed to, say, NIH. Academic medical centers are losing the “business,” having fallen from 63% to 26% as the site for clinical research between 1994 and 2004. While it might be argued that trials in the private practice setting produce superior results because they occur under circumstances that more closely resemble how the drug or device will actually be used if approved by the FDA, there are significant risks attendant to this phenomenon that have received too little attention.

The ultimate question is whether physicians can compartmentalize the competing incentives that exist in advising patients about whether to pursue conventional therapy or participate in a clinical trial. This is especially true if the physician is being handsomely compensated for each patient she recruits into a trial, and is exacerbated when the physician also has other financial relationships with the trial sponsor (the drug or device company) for, say, speaking and consulting gigs. Clinical Research in the Private Office Setting — Ethical Issues The recruitment process for clinical trials is the longest and most costly part of the process - prospective participants have to undergo testing to see if they qualify for the study, and federal law requires that they receive significant amounts of information and have ample opportunity to have their questions answered pre-enrollment. A per capita payment contingent upon successful enrollment of the patient will tempt a physician to fudge on this process and enroll unqualified subjects. This not only may put them at risk because they are too sick, but also skew the research results because they’re not sick enough. Bonuses for meeting enrollment goals only make it worse.

Without impugning physician integrity, how realistic it is for physicians to serve in the dual capacity of treating physician and researcher? Studies have repeatedly confirmed “therapeutic misconception” whereby study participants believe, no matter how clearly told to the contrary, that they are “patients” receiving treatment, rather than “subjects” of research who may be receiving a placebo or an experimental drug. This phenomenon is certainly exacerbated when the patient’s treating physician is doubling as the investigator of the clinical trial. Most patients continue to believe that their own personal physician would be driven solely by their best interests. Ironically, some people have more faith in an experimental intervention when they learn that the investigator has a “piece of the action.”

Obviously, significant policy and legal questions arise from this practice, and a more holistic approach to the question of the best way to encourage clinical trials while safeguarding the interests of trial subjects is beyond what I can attempt here. But one possible approach could be drawn from informed consent law — whether statutory or common law, which should require physician disclosure of conflicts of interest to patients. Imagine the beginning of a conversation between doctor and patient/potential research subject:

Doctor: “Just so you know, if you agree to participate in this clinical trial, I get paid $1000 by the manufacturer of the product being tested, but if you don’t, and you just want regular treatment, I’ll only get paid $60 by your insurance company. But, in fairness, that’s because a clinical trial is a lot more work for me….”

But to be honest, I don’t really believe in this solution either. Most recipients of this information either don’t understand it, or have no idea what to do with it, or both. Some fear that too much confusing information might kill trials altogether, which would be a terrible outcome. And there are certainly reasons to fear that such trials are becoming harder to run, to the point where they’re not worth the money. Ultimately, I guess, I want to control how physicians get paid to serve as investigators — the Goldilocks Solution — not too much, and not too little. I want them to be paid just right, so that they are willing to conduct clinical trials, but aren’t tempted to act other than in the patient’s best interest. Of course, what is just right and how to enforce it poses its own problems.

Seton Hall Law School, the author’s employer, is the recipient of grants, donations and endowments from the pharmaceutical industry. No part of the author’s compensation is funded by these gifts.

x-posted at Concurring Opinions

Drug Study Fails to Mention Risk of Death to Test Subjects

Danse Macabre, XLVII, The Blind Man. Hans Holbein the Younger (1497 or 1498 to 1543)

[Ed. Note: Today's Post is by Maansi K. Raswant, a Seton Hall Law student pursuing the Health Law concentration. She is a research assistant to the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy and an intern at the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation.]

As reported recently in the Boston Globe, a federal probe found that heart attack survivors enrolled in a clinical trial conducted in over 120 sites nationally had not been adequately informed of the safety risks of the study, including the risk of death.

The process under study, chelation, involves “periodic infusions of a drug– in this case, disodium EDTA.” The infusions are being tested in conjunction with the ingestion of high doses of  vitamins and minerals. However, according to the federal probe, “in 2008 FDA removed disodium EDTA from the FDA’s approved list and withdrew of approval of new drug applications for disodium EDTA.” Test subjects were not informed that disdodium EDTA “is no longer FDA approved for any use and has been removed from the market because of safety concerns.”

Funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the study has over 1,500 subjects. Though researchers suspended enrollment last August due to the investigation, federal officials allowed the study to continue pending further findings of the probe, a decision that has been highly criticized.

In addition to the deficiencies regarding the  informed consent of study participants, the Boston Globe reported that the investigation found that several co-investigators involved in the study had been disciplined for “substandard practices” or had been involved in insurance fraud. Three were convicted felons. Federal officials explained that they found the substandard practices and convictions of the principal investigators “concerning” but not a reason to “automatically preclude an investigator from participating in research.”

The U.S. Office of Human Research Protections detailed the findings of the investigation and required corrective actions in a letter to the three medical institutions heading the study. In response to the investigation’s findings, the study modified the consent form to recognize death as a “rare complication of the EDTA [chelation] infusions.” The Office of Human Research Protections has also requested further modification of the form to disclose that disodium EDTA had been removed from the market.

Despite the change in consent form, questions remain about the acceptability of the risks posed by the study. As the Globe reports, critics of the study, including the head of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, Arthur Caplan, have charged that the risks posed by the study are unethical. The complaint against the study filed with the Office of Human Research Protections noted that since “the mid-1970’s court documents and newspapers have reported at least 30 deaths associated with intravenous EDTA.”

The probe is the lastest in a string of major investigations of clinical trials, including the continuing investigation into payments by device maker Medtronic to Dr. Timothy Kulko (who is accused of falsifying author names and  study results), and the Synthes indictment for allegations that its subsidiary, Norian, conspired to conduct unauthorized clinical trials that placed subjects at risk of death without properly informing them of the risks. In the Synthes/Norian matter, three patients are believed to have died as a result of the use of the companies’ bone cement products.