Phase I trial compensation: How much do healthy volunteers actually earn from clinical trial enrollment?

"Death and Taxes": Why Financial Compensation for Research Participants is an Economic and Legal Risk

In the US, research payments are technically taxable income. This article argues that tax liability is a form of possible economic and legal risk of paid research participation. Findings are presented from empirical research on Phase I healthy volunteer trials. The article concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for the informed consent process, as well as for broader ethical issues in whether and how payments for research participation should be regulated.

Volunteering for Infection: Participant Perspectives on a Hepatitis C Virus Controlled Human Infection Model

Ethical human subjects research requires participants to be treated safely and respectfully, yet much bioethical debate takes place without participants. We aim to address this gap in the context of controlled human infection model (CHIM) research. Based upon our own experience as study participants, and bolstered by a survey of 117 potential hepatitis C virus CHIM participants, we present ideas to inform efficient, ethical, and scientifically useful study design. We advocate for full protocol transparency, higher compensation, commitment to the rapid dissemination of study results, and proactive efforts to detail risk-minimization efforts as early as possible in the recruitment process, among other measures. We encourage researchers to proactively partner with volunteer advocacy organizations that promote collective representation of volunteers to maximize their agency, and guard against ethical issues arising from healthy human subjects research.

Telemedicine in Care of Sarcoma Patients beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges and Opportunities

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a challenging environment for sarcoma patients. Most oncology societies published guidelines or recommendations prioritizing sarcoma patients and established telehealth as an efficient method of approaching them. The aim of this review is the assessment of current evidence regarding the utilization of telemedicine in diagnosis, treatment modalities, telerehabilitation and satisfaction among sarcoma patients and healthcare providers (HP).

METHODS

This systematic review was carried out using the databases PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

RESULTS

The application of telemedicine to the management of sarcoma has yielded improved clinical and psychological outcomes. Specifically, significant progress has been demonstrated in the areas of tele-oncology and telerehabilitation during the last decade, and the COVID-19 outbreak has accelerated this transition toward them. Telehealth has been proven efficient in a wide spectrum of applications from consultations on physical therapy and psychological support to virtual care symptom management. Both HP and patients reported satisfaction with telehealth services at levels comparable to in-person visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth has already unveiled many opportunities in tailoring individualized care, and its role in the management of sarcoma patients has been established in the post-COVID-19 era, as well.

Demographic diversity of US-based participants in GSK-sponsored interventional clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Demographic diversity among clinical trials is required for representing the real-world populations intended for treatment and disease prevention. Moreover, genetic and environmental differences between ethnic and racial groups necessitate appropriately powered trials for relevant subgroups. We investigate the racial and ethnic demographic diversity of US-based participants in GSK-sponsored interventional trials. We also assess the evaluation of demographic diversity against US Census and epidemiologic data.

METHODS

GSK-sponsored interventional phase I-IV clinical trials conducted from 2002 to 2019 across three areas were analyzed: pharmaceutical (includes therapeutic medicines except for vaccines and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)), vaccine (includes prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines), and ViiV (includes HIV therapies). A total of 1005 global trials encompassing 460,707 global participants were identified, of which 495 had US-based sites with a total of 108,261 (23.5% of global) US participants (pharmaceutical, n = 357 trials; vaccine, n = 45 trials; and ViiV, n = 93 trials). We evaluated how GSK US-based trial recruitment compares with US Census (in line with previously published studies from other groups) and with epidemiologic data.

RESULTS

GSK participant data for race and ethnicity combined across areas were generally similar to US Census levels (e.g. GSK versus census: White, 76.5% versus 76.3%; Black or African American, 15.1% versus 13.4%; Asian, 1.8% versus 5.9%; Hispanic or Latino, 14.0% versus 18.5%; Non-Hispanic White, 63.5% versus 60.1%). However, this was not the case for the individual pharmaceutical, vaccine, and ViiV data sets; least represented groups were Asian individuals for pharmaceutical and ViiV trials and American Indian or Alaskan Native individuals for vaccine trials (6.2%, 11.8%, and 11.1% of trials met/exceeded census level representation, respectively). The percentage of trials reaching/exceeding census levels also varied per trial phase for race and ethnicity. Furthermore, disparities in the percentage of trials reaching/exceeding census levels versus epidemiology-based prevalence levels have revealed opportunities to improve industry success metrics; in HIV trials, the proportion of Black or African American individuals (35.1%) exceeded census (13.4%) but not epidemiologic levels (55.3%).

CONCLUSION

Further work is required to achieve demographic diversity across clinical trials. We conclude that US Census data are an inappropriate universal benchmark. A shift to epidemiology benchmarking will enable the consideration of global participants into US analyses for highly intrinsic (i.e. influenced by ancestry) diseases and more firm requirements for US-based participants into US analyses for extrinsic (i.e. influenced by location or culture) diseases. Benchmarking in line with epidemiologic data will allow us to set better trial enrollment goals, with the aim of conducting more demographically balanced, diverse, and representative clinical trials and enabling a better understanding of drug safety and efficacy per demographic group.

Considerations for Embedding Inclusive Research Principles in the Design and Execution of Clinical Trials

There is a growing recognition that the clinical research enterprise has a diversity problem, given that many clinical trials recruit historically marginalized individuals or patients reflective of real-world data at a rate that is far below the incidence and prevalence of the disease for which the investigational therapy or device is targeting. This lack of diversity in clinical research participation can obscure the safety and efficacy of drug therapies and limits our collective ability to develop effective treatments for all patients, leading to even wider health disparities. This review article provides an in-depth analysis of the impact of this bias on public health, along with a description of some of the barriers that prevent historically marginalized populations from participating in clinical research. Some practical solutions that can be employed to increase diversity in clinical trial participation are also discussed, including the crucial role clinical trial sponsors, research organizations, patients, and caregivers need to play in supporting the industry to achieve this ambitious but necessary goal.

Diversity in Orthopaedic Surgery Medical Device Clinical Trials: An Analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act

INTRODUCTION

Demographic factors contribute markedly to orthopaedic surgery outcomes. However, women and minorities have been historically excluded from clinical trials. The United States passed the Safety and Innovation Act (Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act [FDA-SIA]) in 2012 to increase study diversity and mandate reporting of certain demographics. The purpose of this study was to investigate demographic reporting and analysis among high-risk orthopaedic medical device trials and evaluate the effectiveness of the FDA-SIA in increasing diversity of study enrollment.

METHODS

The premarket approval database was queried for all original submissions approved by the Orthopedic Advisory Committee from January 1, 2003, to July 1, 2022. Study demographics were recorded. Weighted means of race, ethnicity, and sex were compared before and after FDA-SIA implementation with the US population.

RESULTS

We identified 51 orthopaedic trials with unique study data. Most Food and Drug Administration device trials reported age (98.0%) and sex (96.1%), but only 49.0% and 37.3% reported race and ethnicity, respectively. Only 23 studies analyzed sex, six analyzed race, and two analyzed ethnicity. Compared with the US population, participants were overwhelmingly White (91.36% vs. 61.63%, P < 0.001) with a significant underrepresentation of Black (3.65% vs. 12.41%, P = 0.008), Asian (0.86% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.030), and Hispanic participants (3.02% vs. 18.73%, P < 0.001) before 2013. The FDA-SIA increased female patient enrollment (58.99% vs. 47.96%, P = 0.021) but did not increase the enrollment of racial or ethnic minorities.

CONCLUSION

Despite efforts to increase the generalizability of studies within the FDA-SIA, orthopaedic medical devices still fail to enroll diverse populations and provide demographic subgroup analysis. The study populations within these trials do not represent the populations for whom these devices will be indicated in the community. The federal government must play a stronger role in mandating study diversity, enforcing appropriate statistical analysis of the demographic subgroups, and executing measures to ensure compliance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Sociodemographic and psychological characteristics influencing patients' willingness to participate in clinical trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Clinical trials are fundamental for the development of new medicines and patient participation is based on free consent. Our study sought to identify psychological characteristics that may influence patient willingness to participate in a clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 100 participants were invited to participate with 80% positive response rate. The psychological characteristics of each patient were evaluated using the following validated psychometric scales: Self-Efficacy Scale, Curiosity, Exploration Inventory-Trait, Social Support Satisfaction, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Social Avoidance and Distress, and Fear of Negative Evaluation.

RESULTS

Patients who agreed to participate in the clinical trial were significantly younger than those who refused (p=0.028). There were no differences in sex, lifestyle, employment status, monthly income or education. After adjusting for age and sex, patients who agreed to participate scored significantly higher in the following: self-efficacy total score (p<0.001), effectiveness in adversity (p<0.001), social effectiveness (p<0.001) and initiation and persistence (p<0.001); social support total score (p<0.001), family satisfaction (p=0.015), friendship satisfaction (p<0.001), social activities satisfaction (p=0.002) and intimacy (p<0.001); total curiosity score (p<0.001), absorption (p<0.001) and exploration (p<0.001). Compared with patients who agreed to participate, those who refused scored significantly higher for both state (p<0.001) and trait anxiety (p<0.001), fear of negative evaluation (p<0.001) and social avoidance and distress (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who were willing to participate in clinical trials exhibited different psychological characteristics to patients who refused. Specifically, they were more curious and self-efficacious, less anxious and reported a higher level of social support than patients who declined to participate. Identifying characteristics that condition the individual's decision to participate in a clinical trial has important implications for the development of patient-focused communication strategies and improved recruitment approaches.

Ethical Criteria for Improved Human Subject Protections in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Trials

Phase I healthy volunteer trials test the safety and tolerability of investigational pharmaceuticals. In them, participants are exposed to study-drug risks without the possibility of direct medical benefit and typically must spend days or weeks in a residential research facility. Monetary payments are used to incentivize enrollment and compensate participants for their time. Together, these features of phase I healthy volunteer trials create a research context that differs markedly from most other clinical research, including by enrolling disproportionate numbers of economically disadvantaged people of color as participants. Due to these unique trial features and participation patterns, traditional biomedical research oversight offers inadequate ethical and policy guidance for phase I healthy volunteer research. This article details five ethical criteria crafted to be responsive to the particularities of this type of research: translational science value, fair opportunity and burden sharing, fair compensation for service, experiential welfare, and enhanced voice and recourse.

Payments for research participation: Don't tax the Guinea pig

Under current US statute, payments to research participants are taxable income. This means that even though institutional review boards and researchers agree to specific payment amounts to account for the burden of research, participants are paid less than anticipated, and participants' net payment will vary depending on their home state. Unlike other entities in the research enterprise, who receive incentivizing tax exemptions and credits, research participation is tax dis-incentivized. In addition, incentives and rewards for other socially valuable activities are not taxed. Given these differences and the restrictions on research payments, it is unfair to tax participants on their payments and the statue should be revised.

Attitudes Toward Payment for Research Participation: Results from a U.S. Survey of People Living with HIV

Little is known about how payment affects individuals' decisions to participate in HIV research. Using data from a U.S. survey of people living with HIV (N = 292), we examined potential research participants' attitudes toward payment, perceived study risk based on payment amount, and preferred payment forms, and how these factors vary by sociodemographic characteristics. Most respondents agreed people should be paid for HIV research participation (96%) and said payment would shape their research participation decisions (80%). Men, less formally educated individuals, and members of some minoritized racial-ethnic groups were less likely to be willing to participate in research without payment. Higher payment was associated with higher perceived study risks, while preferences for form of payment varied by age, gender, education, race-ethnicity, and census region of residence. Findings suggest payment may influence prospective research participants' risk-benefit calculus and participation, and that a one-size-fits-all approach to payment could differentially influence participation among distinct sociodemographic groups.

Healthy volunteers in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time

BACKGROUND

Increasing the diversity of research participants is an important focus of clinical trials. However, little is known regarding who enrolls as healthy volunteers in Phase I clinical trials, which test the safety and tolerability of investigational new drugs. Despite the risk, healthy volunteers can derive no medical benefit from their participation, and they are financially compensated for enrolling.

OBJECTIVE

This study's purpose is to describe sociodemographic characteristics and clinical trial participation histories of healthy people who enroll in US Phase I trials.

METHODS

The HealthyVOICES Project (HVP) is a longitudinal study of healthy individuals who have enrolled in Phase I trials. We describe self-reported sociodemographic information and Phase I trial history from HVP recruitment (May-December 2013) through the project's end three years later (December 2016). Trial experiences are presented as medians and quartiles.

RESULTS

The HVP included 178 participants. Nearly three-fourths of participants were male, and two-thirds were classified as racial and ethnic minorities. We found that some groups of participants were more likely to have completed a greater number of clinical trials over a longer timeframe than others. Those groups included participants who were male, Black, Hispanic, 30-39-years-old, unemployed, had received vocational training in a trade, or had annual household incomes of less than $25,000. Additionally, the greater the number of clinical trials participants had completed, the more likely they were to continue screening for new trials over the course of three years. Participants who pursued clinical trials as a full-time job participated in the greatest number of trials and were the most likely to continuing screening over time.

IMPLICATIONS

Participation as a healthy volunteer in US Phase I trials is driven by social inequalities. Disadvantaged groups tend to participate in a greater number of clinical trials and participate longer than more privileged groups.

Fair payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical research

Routine, nonmedical and ancillary medical costs associated with participation in clinical research create barriers to enrollment for economically disadvantaged individuals. To the extent that race, ethnicity, and gender are linked to SES, such barriers impact efforts to diversify clinical research enrollment. But payment policies and practices often reflect the longstanding and singular concern that payment to participants will bias decision-making and compromise informed consent. We argue that this concern must be viewed in a larger ethical context in which the untoward consequences for the individual participant and for the broader research enterprise are considerable when either inadequate or no payment is provided for expenses incurred ("reimbursement") and time committed ("compensation"). Fairness in payment and protection from undue influence of payment on the informed consent process are important but distinct ethical considerations. Fundamentally, approaches to payment that leave participants financially worse off as a consequence of taking part in research are inherently unjust as they have a differential impact on recruitment and retention based on socioeconomic status. Sponsors, funders, investigators, and IRBs must be cognizant of the impact of inadequate payment on clinical trial inclusion of historically understudied groups. We address practical and fair payment strategies to advance inclusion, the additional barrier of ancillary medical costs, and potential unintended consequences of payment.