Financial Remuneration of Clinical Study Investigators

In November 2009, the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy, in its White Paper, Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight, explored payments to investigators — and other potential motivators — to conduct research.  A study in this month’s IRB: Ethics & Human Research explores the impact payments may have on researchers to conduct and complete studies.  In Motivated by Money? The Impact of Financial Incentive for the Research Team on Study Recruitment, Sharon Unger and her colleagues examine the effect financial remuneration has on researchers in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Taking advantage of a “fortuitous set of circumstances” in which two separate clinical trials with nearly identical inclusion criteria were conducted simultaneously in an NICU in Canada, the authors looked at two issues: 1) whether financial remuneration impacted the rate at which the research team approached parents about research participation, and 2) whether financial remuneration impacted the rate at which parents provided consent to participate.

In the first study (Study A), a placebo-controlled trial involving a medication that was the standard of care for treatment of newborns nearing extubation to prevent apnea of prematurity, members of the research team were financially compensated for their time if they were successful in obtaining parental consent (parents were unaware of this arrangement).  In the second study (Study B), which involved two different forms of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, there was no financial compensation of the research team.  Both studies had the same recruiting team.  Study A was federally funded, multicentered and high-profile, while Study B was a single-center, unfunded trial.

The payments in Study A were per capita, which, while creating a direct incentive to recruit individual enrollees, is usually not problematic as long as the payment is not excessive.  The Center recommends “that the benchmark for compensation for physician services for research should be comparable payment for time and services for treatment. This will compensate physicians fairly for their time and services, and will assure that there are no hidden bonuses or incentives for physicians to recruit patients into research or to refer them to research rather than treatment.”  As noted in the study, finder’s fees are increasingly considered “ethically problematic;” the Center recommends a wholesale bar on finder’s fees because they can create conflicts of interest that can incentivize investigators to recruit and retain individuals who do not meet the study’s inclusion and exclusion criteria.

As the authors noted, and as acknowledged in the Center’s White Paper, potential enrollees are increasingly vulnerable as increasing numbers of individuals seek to participate in research either as a primary means of access to treatment or as a form of income.  The results of this study indicate a much higher likelihood of approach when there was a prospect of financial remuneration.  These results are concerning, and were anticipated by the Center’s White Paper, which noted the potential for poor compliance with inclusion and exclusion criteria and pressure to enter or remain in a clinical trial.

However, surprisingly, the authors found that, despite the much higher likelihood of approach for Study A than Study B, parents were much more likely to actually agree to enroll their newborn in Study B — for which there was no financial remuneration of the research team.  The authors explored various explanations for this result, including that the research team was overly cautious about giving the appearance that their approach for consent was motivated by financial compensation, or that parents chose to withhold consent  due to the research team’s  increased pressure.

The authors do acknowledge other potential factors — beyond financial remuneration –  that could have affected the study’s results.  For example, parents’ hesitancy to enroll their newborn in a placebo-controlled drug trial could explain the discrepancy between enrollment in the studies.  Likewise, the authors consider that parents may not have been able to differentiate between the two modes of support being investigated in Study B.  In addition, the recruiting team, when presented with the results of the study, did not recall feeling influenced by the financial arrangement of Study A, but did “recall being highly motivated to ensure the success of Study A as it was part of a high-profile, multicentered trial.”

The authors concluded by noting concerns that “there may be a point at which the amount of the financial remuneration or the manner in which it is assigned could negatively impact the ethical conduct of the researcher,” but cautions that these concerns should be balanced with the value of conducting research in patients’ best interests.  This balancing act is considerably important.  As the Center notes,

Research is critical to the advancement of medical treatment and health. It must be structured to produce high quality data that facilitates the assessment of safety and efficacy in the population for whom the treatment will be used. The good of the enterprise requires that the clinical trial system sufficiently balance the costs and benefits to physicians and prospec­tive trial participants to ensure the continued sufficient supply of researchers and subjects. The system must also be imbued with actual and perceived integrity — so that it produces scientifi­cally reliable results, participants are safe, and people trust the system sufficiently to be willing to participate.

Further Calls for Increased Oversight on Medical Research & Physician Conflitcs of Interest

The Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy has continued to focus on the implications of research funding in patients’ decisions to participate in clinical research, as well as the effects such funding can have on researcher behavior and research results.  In January 2009, the Center recommended that all financial relationships between industry and physicians be publicly disclosed by industry.  And just this month, the Center released its most recent White Paper, “Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight.”

Similarly, in a November 17 letter to Francis Collins, 100 researchers, academics, and public policy analysts asked the NIH to “fund studies on medical ethics, conflicts of interest in medicine and research, and prescribing behavior” in order to determine the effects of industry-academic relationships on human health.  The letter implores the director of NIH to focus on “the research gap on the effect of conflicts of interest and commercial influence on medical decisionmaking” and to establish a mechanism for funding relevant research.

One of the primary concerns in the researchers’ letter is an issue also identified in a November OIG report, “How Grantees Manage Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research Funded by the National Institutes of Health,” which found that a majority of academic researchers’ conflicts of interest are unreported.   The report flags the potential for extensive conflicts between faculty members and their government-financed research.  In response, the US Senate Finance Committee recently sent letters to several universities requesting such information.  Just yesterday, Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, reacting to national concern about physicians’ and researchers’ financial conflicts of interest, began posting external professional and industry relationships for approximately 2000 faculty members — including service on boards of directors, consulting and related activities, ownership or investment interests, royalties and inventor shares, and additional activities such as lectures and participation in scientific advisory boards and professional societies.

Further research is obviously necessary to determine how financial relationships influence — as the authors of the letter to NIH call it — “the beliefs and behaviors of researchers and clinicians, and the effects of industry-academic relationships on the generation and dissemination of medical knowledge.”  In the meantime, increased oversight of physician-industry relationships by the federal government to evaluate and oversee investigator or institutional conflicts of interest, both for research within and without academic medical centers, is necessary.

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

Dr. Kuklo and the Larger Lesson: Transparency in Medical Research

[Ed. note: We are very pleased to welcome Valerie Gutmann, J.D. to the blog today. Valerie joined Seton Hall Law School in 2009 as a Faculty Researcher in the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy. She came to Seton Hall from Kirkland & Ellis LLP after having graduated from Harvard Law School, where she served as an author and Editor-in-Chief of the Recent Developments Section of the Journal on Law, Medicine, and Ethics. Prior to law school, Valerie worked at the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the ABA Coordinating Group on Bioethics & the Law. In 2001 she graduated from the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and Public Policy at Princeton University, magna cum laude, where she was co-president of the Princeton Bioethics Forum.]

In a glaring example of the consequences of less-than full disclosure in research and publication, recent reports have shed light on Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo’s study of Infuse.  Dr. Kuklo’s article on the bone-growth protein manufactured by Medtronic Inc. was published by the British Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in August 2008, and was retracted in March 2009, after an army investigation found that Dr. Kuklo’s study had misleadingly promoted Infuse as “strikingly” better and more efficacious than conventional bone grafts in repairing severely shattered shin bones of Americans injured in Iraq.  Kuklo has been accused of using “falsified information” that did not match with patient records and forging signatures of four doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who he falsely claimed to be co-authors.  Dr. Kuklo also neglected to disclose his relationship with the company.

Dr. Kuklo, a former army surgeon at Walter Reed, is currently on leave from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, where he was associate professor of orthopaedic surgery, specializing in cervical spine, spinal deformity, spinal tumors, and spine trauma.  From August 2006 through May 2009, Dr. Kuklo was a consultant to Medtronic, who recently announced that Dr. Kuklo’s consultancy contract was being suspended (some accounts controvert the alleged timeline, and Medtronic claims that it had no involvement in the study and did not depend on the study for government regulatory approval). While working for the army, Dr. Kuklo was also paid by Medtronic to speak on the company’s behalf at meetings and to train other doctors, and was a recipient of thousands of dollars worth of trips.  Military officials have stated that there are no records that Dr. Kuklo had sought or received permission to accept money to consult for medical product companies.

Last year, Senator Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) called for an investigation into Dr. Kuklo’s study.  Senator Grassley requested information from Walter Reed, Washington University, Medtronic, and two medical journals.  He has also publically released a list provided by Medtronic of consultants for the Infuse product, on which Dr. Kuklo had suspiciously not been included.  Spokespeople for Medtronic noted that Dr. Kuklo was not on the list because he was a general consultant to the company, rather than specific to Infuse, although he has spoken on behalf of Infuse in the past.

The Kuklo case is further evidence of the implications of incomplete disclosure, which may lead physicians to make medical decisions without all the information that should be available to them.  As we have noted in the past, the Center for Health and Pharmaceutical Law & Policy has vigorously called for such reform in its 2009 whitepaper:

All those engaged in medical research and publication, including medical professionals and institutions, medical journals, and industry, should undertake reforms to ensure the integrity of the medical literature.  Transparency in the relationship of industry and physicians would be a critical tool in this effort.

Clinical Research: When the Compensation Begs the Answer

The New York Times reports that New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram announced a settlement agreement with medical device maker, Synthes, for failing to disclose the financial conflicts of interest of doctors researching its products. Synthes is the maker of the ProDisc, an artificial spinal disk.

The settlement agreement with Synthes was described in the AG’s press release, which quoted Ms. Milgram, as “the first of its kind because of its disclosure provisions, as well as its ban on compensating clinical researchers with company stock. She said the latter provision runs counter to widespread industry practice — a practice she called unacceptable.” Notably, the state pursued the case as a matter of consumer fraud. The premise being that the failure to fully disclose such conflicts constituted such for both human trial subjects and the purchasing public.

In a letter to the FDA, critical of the FDA and cc’d to key members of Congress, Ms. Milgram described the results of the AG’s investigation into the business and research practices of Synthes. The letter states:

The investigation revealed that a majority of the physicians who participated in these clinical trials had significant investments in the products -investments that would have been worthless had the product failed to obtain regulatory approval from the FDA. And, the investigation revealed that Synthes, which acquired ProDisc while the clinical trials were underway, failed to disclose these financial conflicts of interest to the FDA.

Yet, despite the fact that Synthes’ failure to adequately disclose these interests should have been obvious from even a cursory review of its FDA submissions, the FDA did nothing to regulate these conflicts. A number of the disclosure forms were signed and dated, but were otherwise left blank. Others indicated that the clinical investigator had a significant equity interest in the product, but did not attach the requisite details. But the FDA approved Synthes’ applications for premarket approval without any delay or further inquiry into this issue.

Leaving aside for the moment the criticism of the FDA (the State of New Jersey joins a long list of increasingly vocal complainants, including the Program on Government Oversight (citing “dramatically reduced inspections of ‘good laboratory practices’ at facilities that do the earliest testing of medical devices. Such inspections declined from 33 in 2005, to seven in 2007, to just one last year”),  and FDA scientists from the Center for Devices and  Radiological Health, who have openly proclaimed that the FDA “is fundamentally broken.”), it’s worth a moment to consider that Synthes has agreed to “stop paying doctors who are conducting clinical trials of its products with stock or stock options,” and that AG Milgram described the compensation of research doctors with stock as being “apparently common” and a “widespread industry practice.”

Compensating a  doctor with stock or stock options financially tied to the results of his research may well be the antithesis of an impetus for objective clinical research.

The basic proposition is this: you, doctor, are charged with investigating whether or not this medical device is safe and fit and shows efficacy for human use. For doing so, we will give you a portion of the company (stock or stock options) which owns the medical device. If the medical device is efficacious and fit for human use, the company will stand to profit. As a holder of stock and/or stock options in the company, you will be paid a portion of that profit and/or the value of your holdings in the company will increase correspondent to your determination of safety for human use and efficacy. If you determine that the device is not safe for human use and/or not efficacious, your holdings in the company will be worth much less, if not worthless. “Is the device safe for human use and efficacious?” Does an answer of “Yes” surprise anyone?

It is also not an answer to say that the doctors may have merely been compensated in cash and then later converted that cash into stock or stock options independently. My guess is that in constructing these compensation packages, as with most securities matters, timing and knowledge is important. That the stock or stock options must be issued or at least contracted for by the researcher simultaneous with the hiring so as to avoid SEC difficulty regarding the particulars of the researchers’ “inside” and “confidential” knowledge regarding the device and the research itself. Researchers who have purchased interested stock (or who have had stock purchased by others) before news of their research has been made public have often paid a price.

And obviously, once the doctor’s research has been made public, any positive results will have been already reflected in the market price of the stock, all but foreclosing the research doctor from reaping profits tied directly to his research determinations.

As part of A.G. Milgram’s “Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement (the Synthes case was handled by Deputy Attorney General Megan Lewis, Chief of the Division of Law’s Affirmative Litigation Section, and Deputy Attorney General Michelle T. Weiner) Synthes must disclose any future payments made by the company to physicians conducting clinical trials on its devices, as well as any investments held by such physicians in the devices they test. A $3 billion global company, Synthes has also agreed to stop paying clinical trial physicians with company stock or stock options.”

Attorney General Milgram said that “the Synthes agreement should serve as a template for the entire industry,” and in her letter to the FDA remarked that she was “hopeful the Synthes terms will become “best practices” for disclosure among medical device makers.”

In addition to signifying her hope, Ms. Milgram announced that her office issued subpoenas “to five major medical device manufacturing companies seeking information about their business practices.”

Biopharmaceutical Companies Continue to Advance and Invest In Rough Economic Times

A recent press release from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) reports that pharmaceutical and biotech companies continue to invest substantial amounts of money into research & development, despite the dismal current economic situation.  Research from PhRMA and Burrill & Company shows that “pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies invested a record $65.2 billion last year in the research and development of new life-changing medicines and vaccines — an increase of roughly $2 billion from 2007.”  There are almost 30,000 medicines in development in the country right now.

In a time when most other industries are struggling and the unemployment rate is the highest it has been in 25 years, it is encouraging to see that the biopharmaceutical industry, one whose existence and success directly impacts the health of our nation, is continuing to invest and advance.  For example, this week we saw Merck make a serious investment through its $41.1 billion merger with Schering-Plough.    In addition, as we posted in December, Merck announced its plan to enter the biosimilars market, which will cost an estimated $1.5 billion.

Biopharmaceutical companies are continuing to spend on R & D, and the great majority of their investments are within the US.  According to “The Biopharmaceutical Sector’s Impact on the U.S. Economy: Analysis at the National, State, and Local Levels”, a study out this month by Archstone Consulting and Dr. Lawton R. Burns, this industry creates millions of US jobs and contributed three times as much to the GDP than the average of other industries and sectors in 2006.

Besides the struggling economy, drug companies face other challenges.  As we recently reported, President Obama’s health reform plan may negatively impact pharmaceutical companies through an increased discount to Medicaid (from 15.1% to 22.1% of avg. manufacturer’s price).   Despite the economic crisis and health care reform changes, it is hopeful to hear the industry’s continued commitment to progress. Said PhRMA President and CEO, Billy Tauzin:

America’s pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies are not immune to the challenges presented by our current economic crisis.  However, the important work that we do every day in the battle with disease cannot stop. The U.S. is the world’s hotbed of medical innovation, and throughout the country, we remain committed today to finding tomorrow’s cures, despite the incredible challenges that are posed by the current economy.