'Becoming-with' a repeat healthy volunteer: Managing and negotiating trust among repeat healthy volunteers in commercial clinical drug trials

[Healthy volunteers' protection around the world]

Healthy volunteers participating in biomedical research benefit from varying levels of protection in different parts of the world since they are too rarely identified as a specific subset of study participants with specific vulnerabilities and risks. These differences in protection can lead to unfair and ethically unacceptable situations. Healthy volunteers are subject to a number of risks, not only regarding the respect of their rights and of their health but they are also at risk of being exploited because of their financial situation, educational level and motivations. In the end, the scientific validity of the studies may also be called into question. Through its work, the VolREthics (Volunteers in Research and Ethics) initiative, set up by the Inserm ethics committee, outlines the ethical issues raised by the involvement of healthy volunteers in biomedical research, and highlights the need to improve their protection worldwide. Healthy volunteers are essential to scientific progress and society, and their potential vulnerabilities must be recognized and taken into account.

Genetic testing and family entanglements

The development of the 'new genetics' in the early 1990's opened up a new space which required some patients and families to understand and navigate genetic testing. The social science literature that has grown alongside the 'new genetics', now spanning more than thirty years, has continued to explore and question assumptions about attitudes and responses towards genetic technologies. In this article we highlight how individual experience of genetic disease and personal responses towards genetic technologies can only be understood by considering their context. We focus on the rich literature on family within sociology, science and technology studies, anthropology, and family studies, to explore the myriad ways in which family is implicated in the patient experience of genetic testing. We explore these connections by drawing on a set of interviews held with individuals who have undergone a predictive test for a genetic condition, including Huntington's Disease and breast cancer. Five themes were developed: family disclosure, family gatekeeping, going for testing, individual and collective communication practices, and receiving a negative test result. To conclude, we highlight how these connections might be considered through the lens of entanglement, explaining the complex mechanisms through which family and genetics are intimately entwined.

Lived time and the affordances of clinical research participation

In this article, we address the problem of participation and the dominant focus on motivations in clinical research. We explore participation as a relational mode of 'being in time' in Alzheimer's dementia prevention-a field profoundly shaped by changing bodies through time, as well as promissory trends towards future-oriented preventative medicine. Analysis of interviews with older adults in a clinical trial platform demonstrates that what research 'does' or might (not) 'do' for participants emerges as temporalities of participants' everyday lives become entangled with the possibilities, constraints and demands of biomedical 'research time'. As well as consistent desires to help (future) others, we identify incidental possibilities for care that emerged from continued research participation. We argue that longitudinal research participation can productively be understood as a set of evolving affordances: whereby differing limits and possibilities for care and agency emerge in a world where dementia cannot be cured. Future trial participation is considered in terms of 'therapeutic affordances', which are likely to fluctuate as certain lived or imagined futures unfold. As such, we open up a conceptual space to think about why, how, and critically, when participation happens, as it emerges in relation to lived times of ageing and everyday life.

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

Background/aims

Financial compensation for research participation is a major focus of ethical concern regarding human subject recruitment. Phase I trials are sometimes considered to be a lucrative source of income for healthy volunteers, encouraging some people to become “professional guinea pigs.” Yet, little is known about how much these clinical trials actually pay and how much healthy volunteers earn from them.

Methods

As part of a mixed-methods, longitudinal study of healthy volunteers, we required participants to complete clinical trial diaries, or surveys that captured detailed information about screening and enrollment in Phase I trials. Over a 3-year period, participants provided information online or via telephone about each clinical trial for which they screened (e.g. the clinic name, the study’s therapeutic area, the length of the trial, the number of nights spent in the clinic, and the study compensation), and whether they qualified for trial inclusion. Clinical trial diaries generated data about whether participants continued to screen for and enroll in clinical trials and how much money they earned from their participation.

Results

131 participants routinely completed clinical trial diaries or confirmed that they had not screened for any new clinical trials. Together, these participants screened for 1001 clinical trials at 73 research facilities during a 3-year period. Overall, the median clinical trial compensation was US$3070 (range = US$150–US$13,000). Participants seeking new healthy volunteer trials tended to screen for three studies per year, participate in one or two studies, and earn roughly US$4000 annually. Participants who were unemployed earned the most income from clinical trials compared to those with full-time or part-time jobs, and those individuals whom we label “occupational” participants because of their persistent pursuit of clinical trials earned more than people who screened occasionally. Notably, the median annual trial compensation was well below US$10,000 for all employment groups, and most occupational healthy volunteers also earned less than US$10,000 each year. The 10% of participants who earned the most had a median annual income of US$18,885 from clinical trials, and there was significant volatility in these individuals’ earnings from year to year.

Conclusion

Despite the perception that Phase I enrollment can generate significant earnings, it was exceedingly rare for anyone in this study to make more than US$20,000 in a single year, and unusual to earn even between US$10,000 and US$20,000. From an ethics perspective, individual trials might appear to unduly induce enrollment by offering significant sums of money, but given our findings, the larger problem for low-income participants may be the unrealistic perception that clinical trials alone could be a way of earning a living.

Under consent: participation of people with HIV in an Ebola vaccine trial in Canada

BACKGROUND

Little is known about volunteers from Northern research settings who participate in vaccine trials of highly infectious diseases with no approved treatments. This article explores the motivations of HIV immunocompromised study participants in Canada who volunteered in a Phase II clinical trial that evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of an Ebola vaccine candidate.

METHODS

Observation at the clinical study site and semi-structured interviews employing situational and discursive analysis were conducted with clinical trial participants and staff over one year. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using critical qualitative interpretivist thematic analytical techniques. Patterns were identified, clustered and sorted to generate distinct and comprehensive themes. We then reassembled events and contexts from the study participants' stories to develop two ideal portraits based on "composite characters" based on study participants features. These provide ethnographically rich details of participants' meaningful social worlds while protecting individual identities.

RESULTS

Ten of the 14 clinical trial participants, and 3 study staff were interviewed. Participant demographics and socio-economic profiles expressed limited contextual diversity. Half were men who have sex with men, half were former injection drug users experiencing homelessness, one was female, none were racialized minorities and there were no people from HIV endemic countries. Fully 90% had previous involvement in other clinical studies. Their stories point to particular socio-economic situations that motivated their participation as clinical labor through trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support Fisher's argument of "structural coercion" in clinical trial recruitment of vulnerable individuals experiencing precarious living conditions. Clinical trials should provide more detail of the structural socio-economic conditions and healthcare needs which lie "under consent" of study participants. Going well beyond an overly convenient narrative of altruism, ethical deliberation frameworks need to sufficiently address the structural conditions of clinical trials. We offer concrete possibilities for this and acknowledge that further research and clinical data should be made available underlying study participant contexts with regards to recruitment and participation in resource poor settings, in both the South and the North.