Oncology Rounds
description
Transcript of Oncology Rounds
Oncology Rounds
Protecting Patients or Stifling Research? The Swing of the Research Pendulum
October 2011
Jack Holland MD FRCP FRCP(C)
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
2
Protecting the patient
Stifling Research
The Research Ethics Pendulum
Themes to be explored over the next 45 minutes or so….
• Advancement in science is a good thing…. ▫ for the man in the street▫ for our institutions▫ for business▫ for Ontario, for all of Canada
• Losing the ethical compass may be deadly!• The Research Ethics Board can be your ally• The Research Ethics Board can be a royal pain
in the ass!• Working together - for the man in the street,
the institution, for business, for Ontario, for Canada
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
3
The Impact of ResearchAAHRPP, Fall 2005
• 83% of adults believe it is either “essential” or “very important” that prescription drugs and new treatments be tested in humans
• Each year, several million Americans participate in clinical trials
• Currently, there are more than 41,000 active industry-and government-sponsored clinical trials
PARTICIPATION IN ETHICALLY SOUND RESEARCH IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC
Oct 2011
4
J Holland OCREB
……. and in 2011, it’s getting more and more exciting• Targeted drug therapy
▫Sloane Kettering is testing 40 mutations in 7 genes in all patients with lung or colon cancer
▫Inhibition of mutated, activated BRAF in metastatic melanoma
• Pharmacogenomics and drug/patient specificity
• “Point of Care Testing”▫“SPARTAN” – in 45 minutes - 25 genes
regulating CYP2C19, influencing projected response to clopidogrel
• High Impact Clinical Trials Program at OICR▫Translational research; team building
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
5
….. and it’s getting more and more complex
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
6
The Complexity of Modern Genetics
Oct 2011
7
J Holland OCREB
Oct 2011
8
J Holland OCREB
The research maze………
Oct 2011
9
J Holland OCREB
Clinical Research: Process, Policy, Procedures
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
STUDY MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT DISSEMINATIONAPPROVALSSCIENCE
CLINICAL RESEARCHIntegrated
Research Services
VP research
Clinical DepartmentResearch Directors
Peer ScientificReviews
Grants
Contracts
Division / DeptClinical ServicesClinical Program
HEALTH CANADA( &/or FDA )
RESEARCHETHICS BOARD
PatientsPatient Care policySafe Location
Education
Study Audit& Monitoring
Clinical ResearchSite (Nursing, Beds, Exercise Lab)
Staff Education
Template SOPs
Study Budgets
Data Management & Biostatistics
Health Care Team:- Clinical Practice- Rounds
Research SubjectsPatients:- Individual Results- Summary Results
Colleagues:- Conferences- Peer review journals
Public:- Advocacy Groups- Granting Agencies- Media
Medical AdvisoryCommittee
ClinicalDepartments
Study Design (Sponsor; PI)
RESEARCHETHICS BOARD
RESEARCHETHICS BOARD
Oct 2011
10
J Holland OCREB
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
11
…and it’s getting worse, capturing the attention of our provincial governments across the country
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
12
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
13
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
14
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
15
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
16
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
17
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
18
NCIC CTG Data: Average Time (Days) for First Centre Activation 1995-2009
Oct 2011
19
J Holland OCREB
Ontario Data: Proportion New Treatment Cases Enrolled on Clinical Trials
% N
ew
Can
cer
Tre
atm
en
t C
ases
En
rolled
on
Tri
als
8.9% 11.2% 11.9% 12.4% 9.0% 8.5%
OICR Infrastructure Funding
Oct 2011
20
J Holland OCREB
Ontario Data: Actual Number of Patients Enrolled on Trials 2004-2009
Oct 2011
21
J Holland OCREB
Annual Average # of ‘Activated’ CDN Centres per Trial
Oct 2011
22
J Holland OCREB
Summary Trial Activation Trends•In Institutions, increasing times to trial
activation and first patient enrolled (data not shown)
•Up to 50% of all centres opening a trial never enrol a patient (NCIC CTG data)
Oct 2011
23
J Holland OCREB
Ontario’s Clinical Trials Enterprise• April 30, 2010 - Ontario Government
▫ $161 million Life Sciences Commercialization Strategy. ▫ provides $17 million for three clinical trials related initiatives,
including
“A New province-wide coordinating infrastructure to streamline administrative processes and ethics reviews across multiple clinical trial sites in order to increase the speed of patient recruitment.”
• November 2010 - key stakeholders group established by the Ministry of Research and Innovation (MRI)
▫ BIOTECanada (National Biotechnology Industry Group)▫ CAHO (Council of Ontario Academic Hospitals of Ontario)▫ COFM (Council of Ontario Faculties of Medicine)▫ MEDEC (Canada’s Medical Technology Companies)▫ OCUR (Ontario Council on University Research)▫ Rx&D (Canada’s Research-based Pharmaceutical Companies)
Oct 2011
24
J Holland OCREB
Clinical Trials and the Economy• In 2008, global clinical trials market, estimated at
$50 billion; estimated to grow by 10% per year• Canada’s market share 4.1% ($2.05 billion)
▫ But, 12% drop in the average annual growth rate of clinical trials activity in Canada between 2002 and 2007 (Clinicaltrials.gov)
▫ transfer of clinical trial work to low-cost economies ▫ decreasing competitiveness in Canada compared to the U.S. and
Western Europe.
• Provincial and federal governments are looking closely at ways of providing industry with a streamlined approach to ethics review and contracting for multi-centred clinical trials
Oct 2011
25
J Holland OCREB
Ontario’s Clinical Trials Enterprise• Phase 1: Proof of Concept
▫designate REB “nodes” to undertake province-wide ethics review
▫establish a set standards acceptable across all sites
• Phase 2: Development of an online application and data management system
• Phase 3: Establishment of a centralized office (“Clinical Trials Ontario”) for linkage and coordination
Oct 2011
26
J Holland OCREB
Phase 1: Project Management • Creation of a Project Management Office (PMO)
▫ to support planning and implementation▫ to liaise with project sponsors in alignment with local,
provincial and national initiatives ▫ to hold the funding for the entire project▫ to provide project updates to stakeholders and project sponsors,
including detailed costing at the end of each phase of the project
• Creation of an Oversight Committee
▫ to provide day to day direction/governance to the PMO; engage the broader Stakeholder Committee for input on substantive decisions required in Phase 1
two research hospital representatives from the Stakeholder Committee
two university representatives from the Stakeholder Committee two industry representatives chosen by Rx&D.
Oct 2011
27
J Holland OCREB
Phase 1: Selection of Phase I Nodes
Region Site
Hamilton Hamilton Health Sciences Centre
Kingston Queen’s University
London University of Western Ontario
Northern Ontario Thunder bay Regional health Sciences Centre
Ottawa Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
Toronto St Michael’s HospitalSunnybrook Health Sciences CentreUniversity Health Network
Following a number of defined primary and secondary criteria the following sites/nodes were identified:
Oct 2011
28
J Holland OCREB
Alberta• Research Ethics Reciprocity Agreement signed
February 2011
• 6 REBs which are legislated under the Health Information Act
• Agreement applies only to multi-jurisdictional research, does not obviate the need for local ethics review
• Still need to implement and develop common SOPs, applications, guidelines and an IT infrastructure to support
• Of the 3000 active studies in the University of Alberta REB database what % are multi-jurisdictional?
Oct 2011
29
J Holland OCREB
Saskatchewan
• 5 REBs with ministerial approval, 4 have agreed to share in the harmonization process
• Bottom up approach with limited reciprocity
• Applications and Consent forms have been harmonized
• 6 REBs which are legislated under the Health Information Act
• Trust-building exercise
Oct 2011
30
J Holland OCREB
The clinical contractEthical review
Villains?
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
31
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
32
Brains Buildings
Buck$ More Buck$
Brilliance
REB
Success Factors in the Research Enterprise
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
33
Why is REB approval a big deal?
Are REBs doing a good job?
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
34
Two questions for you to consider
It’s all about developing a culture of ethical integrity
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
35
“You do as you’re told, we pay you as we please. You work like a slave, we punish you at random.
That, in a nutshell, is our corporate culture”
Developing a Culture of Personal Ethical Integrity
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
36
Mandate of the REB
To protect the rights, safety and well-being of any patient or healthy volunteer who participates in research at…….
Oct 2011
37
J Holland OCREB
Foundations of Research Ethics Historical precedent Recent disasters - screw ups!! The importance of maintaining “trust”
with the public It’s just the right thing to do
You should agree The institution should agree
Oct 2011
38
J Holland OCREB
Joseph Mengele & The Eva Kor Story
• Eva Kor, living testament to the absolute requirement for informed consent of subjects in medical experimentation
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
39
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
40
More Recent Disasters
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
41
Hospital for Sick Children 2007
CLINICAL TRIALS GONE WRONG – THE TEGENERO STORY AND CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS
February 2007
• Only six years after being spun out of the University of Würzburg, TeGenero AG had a US$19 million war chest thanks to venture capitalists and a promising new drug about to enter human trials - AG TGN1412
• Less than five months after the catastrophic failure of its trial, the company was bankrupt.
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
42
WHAT HAPPENED?
• In the early hours of the morning of March 15th
six men were rushed to a London hospital after being dosed with the experimental drug – TGN 1412.
• During the course of the first day, shortly after the dosing was complete, a trial participant complained of a headache, fever and pain. He took his shirt off, saying he felt like he was burning.
• His fellow trial participants followed suit shortly thereafter. All the test subjects who got the real drug (two got a placebo) ended up in an intensive care unit.
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
43
“The death of 18-year-old Jesse Gelsinger in a gene-transfer trial led to the discovery by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of many hundreds of unreported adverse events among volunteers enrolled in gene-transfer
experiments”
Contd. Sept 14th 2000Oct 2011
44
J Holland OCREB
Background*
• 18 year old volunteer (for corrective gene study) • Jesse Gelsinger died during study
• The complaint alleged that:
▫ The University was to receive ownership stake in the sponsor company
▫ The University and various physicians associated with research had substantial financial and equity interests with respect to research products
• The extent of financial interests were not disclosed to Gelsinger in the informed consent process
• Case settled for an undisclosed amount
* Gelsinger v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania- http://www.skrplaw.com/links/healthcare2.html
Oct 2011
45
J Holland OCREB
“To put it simply, if we cannot guarantee sound research in general — and patients' safety in particular —
public support for gene therapy and other potentially lifesaving treatments will evaporate. Volunteers will not show up, and the generous stream of Government research dollars……..may shrink. So clinical researchers and the institutions that support them must, without exception, maintain the public's confidence in our work, our competence, and most important, our ethics”.
Donna Shalala
US Deptof Health
and Human Services
Sept 14th 2000
(on the death of 18 yr old
Jesse Gelsinger)
Oct 2011
46
J Holland OCREB
Suspensions of Federally Supported Research
Date Institution
March ‘99 Veterans’ Affairs Los Angeles
May ‘99 Duke University
August ‘99 University of Illinois Chicago
Jan 2000 Virginia Commonwealth University
June 2001 University of Oklahoma
July 2002 John Hopkins Medical Institutions
Oct 2011
47J Holland OCREB
What if, 2011 UHN??; Ottawa Hosp Res Institute???
National Post
February 2004
Oct 2011
48
J Holland OCREB
National Post
February 2004
Oct 2011
49
J Holland OCREB
Death of Ryan Lucio
Children’s HospitalOf Eastern Ontario
September 2003
Oct 2011
50
J Holland OCREB
Brains Buildings
Buck$ More Buck$
Brilliance
REB
Success Factors in the Research Enterprise
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
51
Brains Buildings
Buck$ More Buck$
Brilliance
REB
Vulnerability of the Research Enterprise
Oct 2011
52
J Holland OCREB
So, are we doing a good job?
Oct 2011
53
J Holland OCREB
Research Ethics Boards
‘A sad indictment of the whole system of review is the adversarial relationship that now seems to exist between frustrated, overburdened researchers and frustrated, overburdened research ethics
committees’
Lancet Oncology May 2004
Oct 2011
54
J Holland OCREB
Do IRBs Protect Human Research Participants?
Christine Grady, RN, PhD
JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122-1123.
Oct 2011
55
J Holland OCREB
Do IRBs Protect Human Research Participants?
Institutional review boards are described as dysfunctional, in crisis, and " . . . more concerned with protecting the institution than research participants.“
Researchers, institutions, and some IRB members complain about burden and "mission creep“ — the excessive paperwork, inflexible interpretation of regulatory requirements, attention to inconsequential details, and expanding obligations of IRBs that seem to have little to do with protection of research participants.
Oct 2011
56
J Holland OCREB
Grady, C. JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122-1123
Do IRBs Protect Human Research Participants?
Excessive or "hyper" regulation is seen as seriously affecting or stifling research productivity without adding meaningful protections for participants.
"IRBs have disrupted student careers, set back tenure clocks, and blunted the essence of many intellectual traditions. Facing demands that spiral to the level of sheer impracticality, faculty and students . . . face a stark choice: to conduct innovative research in their fields or to meet the requirements of their IRB."
Oct 2011
57
J Holland OCREB
The Paradoxical Problem with Multiple-IRB Review
• There is little evidence that having multiple IRBs review a single study has led to the ethical improvement of protocols of consent forms
• On the contrary this practice seems to pose a significant risk of diminishing the ethical integrity of the study
Oct 2011
58
J Holland OCREB
Menikoff, J Director, Office for Human Research Protection
NEJM Oct 2010Gasp……say it ain’t so!
And more……!
“It should be recognized that the problem with multiple- IRB review relates not merely to wasted time and effort but also to less-than-optimal protection of people who volunteer to participate in research
This recognition should add urgency to our efforts to solve this problem”.
Oct 2011
59
J Holland OCREB
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
60
Reforming the Regulations Governing Research with Human Subjects
Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., and Jerry Menikoff, M.D., J.D.
Sounding Board
N Eng J Med July 2011
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
61
Protecting the patient
Stifling Research
The Research Ethics Pendulum
Conclusions• There is a growing perception, nationally and
internationally, that the process of ethics review may be a major contributing factor to the documented reduction in the progress of clinical research, particularly research involving multicentre clinical trials.
• Canadian REBs could assume a leadership role in bringing about meaningful change to the process of ethics review; this would be beneficial to
▫ the health of the population at large▫ our institutions and the community they serve ▫ the Ontario and Canadian economy
• The search for opportunities for improvement in REB functioning should be a priority
Oct 2011
62
J Holland OCREB
Moving forward………
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
63
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
64
Balance: Getting it right!
The Solution
Do we need to re-think the functioningof the Research Ethics Board?
Oct 2011
65
J Holland OCREB
European Union
Restricts each participating country to a “single opinion” representing the ethics review for that country, “notwithstanding the number of Ethics Committees” involved
Oct 2011
66
J Holland OCREB
the UK experience
• In 2001, the UK government created the National Cancer
Research Network (NCRN):
▫ to support high quality cancer clinical studies within the National Health Service
▫ to improve the speed, quality, and integration of research leading
▫ to improve patient care.
• Clinical trial participation among cancer patients in the UK doubled since 2001, rising to 14%.
• National Clinical Research Co-ordinating Centre created to expand the work of NCRN to other disease states▫ initial Government investment of 14 million pounds▫ centralization of contracts▫ centralization of ethics review
• In 5 years, trial participation equivalent to that of the US NIH
Oct 2011
67
J Holland OCREB
Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP)
• to have sponsors require the use of a central IRB as a condition for participating in a study.▫ nothing in the existing U.S. regulations would prevent
them from doing so
• OHRP be given the authority to take action against IRBs — as distinct from the institutions conducting the research — for noncompliance with regulations
▫ with the intent of providing assurance to individual institutions that they would not be blamed if an outside IRB were responsible for violations.
Oct 2011
68
J Holland OCREB
Canada: Proposals for ChangeHébert and SaginurCMAJ March 2009
•Harmonization of institutional standards across the country▫common forms would reduce the bureaucratic
burden for multicentre trials. ▫institutions and ethics committees would
work together to review trials and share findings.
▫established benchmarks would ensure timeliness and quality of reviews
▫a national education program would support REB members and health researchers
Oct 2011
69
J Holland OCREB
Personal thoughts…….
• In Canada there is no system of accreditation to bring consistency to the process of research ethics review
• Movement towards centralized processes of ethics review is taking place, but slowly, and typically within provinces or within research-specific disciplines▫ Newfoundland and Quebec▫ OCREB▫ Common system of electronic data capture, ethics
review, processing and communication UBC; Alberta; OCREB
Oct 2011
70
J Holland OCREB
Meanwhile…………..
• For as long as the system of multi-REB review persists (the status quo for the most part)
▫ REBs should seriously re-examine their primary mission
▫ REBs should seriously re-evaluate how they function in establishing priorities in streamling work-flow processes in reducing redundancy in communicating - with each other and with the research
community in education
both internal (the REB membership and its staff) and external ( the greater research community and the public)
in bullding and sustaining a “culture of ethical integrity” for the institutions they serve
Oct 2011
71
J Holland OCREB
Conclusions: REBs should……..
• consider ways in which to enhance ethics review across multiple sites through collaboration and avoidance of duplication : locally, provincially, nationally▫ reciprocal agreements; Board of Record (BOR) agreements▫ common forms; accepted templates; common electronic
formats• provide value for research participants and for the
entire research enterprise• be valued and respected for the knowledge, judgment
and dedication represented by their members• include some of the institution’s best people in their
field• be viewed as an excellent educational resource for
aspiring researchers, learners
Oct 2011
72
J Holland OCREB
REBs should……..• constantly re-evaluate their processes in carrying out
their primary function of “protecting the rights, safety and well-being of any patient or healthy volunteer who participates in research conducted by a member of the staff of the institution”
• be receptive to constructive criticism and open to change
Oct 2011
73
J Holland OCREB
On a positive note……
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
74
Oct 2011
75
J Holland OCREB
Collaborative Initiatives: 1
•An common consent form for cancer trials, acceptable to:
▫Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board▫National Cancer Insitute of Canada
Clinical Trials Group (NCIC-CTG)▫BC Cancer Agency
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
76
Collaborative Initiatives: 2
•Potential for reciprocity agreements between ▫Ontario (Ontario Cancer Research Ethics
Board)▫Alberta▫British Columbia (BC Cancer Agency)
Facilitated by a common electronic submission/data entry/communication platform
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
77
Collaborative Initiatives: 3
•Potential Role of Sponsor in Initial Application
▫Initial provincial application from the SPONSOR
“upstream” provincial approval
relatively rapid approval for lead centre
approval of additional centers within 2 weeks or less.
Oct 2011
78
J Holland OCREB
Overall Conclusions• In Canada the appetite for streamlining the process of
research ethics review is strengthening, province by province
• The principal motivation appears to be largely economic▫ to enhance Canada’s competitivness in global clinical trials
• There is “buy-in” from Government, the major institutions, industry and from ethics boards
• Harmonization of ethics review thus far is best developed in cancer clinical trials
• The major barriers indentified thus far include:▫ Lack of a common platform of communication betweeen major
research centres within and between provinces▫ Lack of a national accreditation process for ethics boards to
facilitate the development of reciprocity agreements betweeen major research centres within and between provinces
▫ Lack of a unifying federal “agenda” regarding funding and infrastructure
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
79
Themes explored over the next 45 minutes or so….
• Advancement in science is a good thing…. ▫ for the man in the street▫ for our institutions▫ for business▫ for Ontario, for all of Canada
• Losing the ethical compass may be deadly!• The Research Ethics Board can be your ally• The Research Ethics Board can be a royal pain
in the ass!• Working together - for the man in the street,
the institution, for business, for Ontario, for Canada
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
80
Jack Holland MD FRCP FRCP(C)
Chair: Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board
Chair: Oncology Research Ethics Board,University Health Network, Toronto
[email protected]@uhnresearch.ca
Oct 2011J Holland OCREB
81