Therapeutic misconception correlates with willingness to participate in clinical drug trials among patients with epilepsy; need for better counseling

Trial Participation in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Barriers and Facilitators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Clinical trials in neurodegenerative diseases often encounter selective enrollment and under-representation of certain patient populations. This delays drug development and substantially limits the generalizability of clinical trial results. To inform recruitment and retention strategies, and to better understand the generalizability of clinical trial populations, we investigated which factors drive participation.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature systematically to identify barriers to and facilitators of trial participation in 4 major neurodegenerative disease areas: Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Huntington disease. Inclusion criteria included original research articles published in a peer-reviewed journal and evaluating barriers to and/or facilitators of participation in a clinical trial with a drug therapy (either symptomatic or disease-modifying). The Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies was used to assess and ensure the quality of the studies. Qualitative thematic analyses were employed to identify key enablers of trial participation. Subsequently, we pooled quantitative data of each enabler using meta-analytical models.

RESULTS

Overall, we identified 36 studies, enrolling a cumulative sample size of 5,269 patients, caregivers, and health care professionals. In total, the thematic analysis resulted in 31 unique enablers of trial participation; the key factors were patient-related (own health benefit and altruism), study-related (treatment and study burden), and health care professional-related (information availability and patient-physician relationship). When meta-analyzed across studies, responders reported that the reason to participate was mainly driven by (1) the relationship with clinical staff (70% of the respondents; 95% CI 53%-83%), (2) the availability of study information (67%, 95% CI 38%-87%), and (3) the use or absence of a placebo or sham-control arm (53% 95% CI 32%-72%). There was, however, significant heterogeneity between studies (all p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

We have provided a comprehensive list of reasons why patients participate in clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases. These results may help to increase participation rates, better inform patients, and facilitate patient-centric approaches, thereby potentially reducing selection mechanisms and improving generalizability of trial results.

Positive Attitudes and Therapeutic Misconception Around Hypothetical Clinical Trial Participation in the Huntington's Disease Community

Background:

New therapies that could modify the disease course of Huntington’s disease (HD) are entering clinical trials. However, conceptions about clinical research from the HD community are unknown. This knowledge could help inform patient-clinician discussions surrounding clinical trial participation.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to assess clinical trial attitudes and understanding in the HD community.

Methods:

We developed a survey incorporating two measures of trial understanding and attitudes and the impact of therapeutic route of administration on hypothetical trial participation. The survey was distributed via emails, flyers, and social media through HD-related organizations.

Results:

There were 73 responses. Individuals self-reported as clinically diagnosed with HD, gene positive but asymptomatic, or primary caregivers. Respondents viewed clinical trials positively and generally viewed trials as safe. Individuals with prior HD-related research experience were less likely to have negative expectations about trials than those without research experience (p = 0.002), and women had higher information needs than men (p = 0.001). Individuals with HD were more likely than the other groups to experience therapeutic misconception (p = 0.002). All respondents were able to appraise risks and benefits of research but exhibited optimism about trial outcomes. Willingness to participate was highest when the route of administration was minimally invasive.

Conclusions:

While the HD community views clinical trials positively, patients with HD are at high risk for therapeutic misconception and all groups are optimistic about trial outcomes. Limitations of this study include a small sample that may be inclined to view research positively given past trial participation and interest in participating in HD surveys. However, the findings from this study can be used to strengthen informed consent during HD clinical trial recruitment.

Who is willing to participate in research? A screening model for an anxiety and depression trial in the epilepsy clinic

OBJECTIVE

Anxiety and depression in epilepsy are prevalent, associated with poor outcomes, underrecognized, undertreated, and thus a key area of need for treatment research. The objective of this study was to assess factors associated with research participation among epilepsy clinic patients who screened positive for anxiety or depression. This was accomplished by characterizing clinical and psychiatric factors among patients seen in an epilepsy clinic and evaluating which factors were associated with consent for potential research participation, via a combined clinical and research screening model.

METHODS

In a pragmatic trial of anxiety and depression treatment in epilepsy, individuals with a positive screen for anxiety and/or depression at a routine epilepsy clinic visit were invited to opt-in (via brief electronic consent) to further eligibility assessment for a randomized treatment study. Information on psychiatric symptoms and treatment characteristics were collected for dual clinical care and research screening purposes. Cross-sectional association of demographic, clinical, and psychiatric factors with opting-in to research was analyzed by multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among N = 199 unique adults with a first positive screen for anxiety and/or depression among 786 total screening events, 154 (77.4%) opted-in to further potential research assessment. Higher depression scores and current treatment with an antidepressant were independently associated with opting-in to research (depression odds ratio (OR) = 1.13 per 1-point increase in Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory-Epilepsy (NDDI-E) score, p = 0.028, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.26; antidepressant OR = 2.37, p = 0.041, CI: 1.04-5.41). Nearly half of the 199 individuals (43.7%) with anxiety and/or depression symptoms were already being treated with an antidepressant, and 46.7% were receiving neither antidepressant therapy nor mental health specialty care. One-quarter (24.1%) reported a past psychiatric hospitalization, yet only half of these individuals were receiving mental health specialty care.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our results demonstrate a high willingness to participate in research using a brief electronic consent approach at a routine clinic visit. Adults with persistent anxiety or depression symptoms despite antidepressant therapy and those with higher depression scores were more willing to consider a randomized treatment study. This has implications for future study design, as individuals already on treatment or those with more severe symptoms are often excluded from traditional research designs. We also found a high burden of psychiatric disease and high prevalence of persistent symptoms despite ongoing antidepressant treatment.

Comparable indicators of therapeutic misconception between epilepsy or Parkinson's disease patients between those with clinical trial experience and trial non-participants

PURPOSE

Study design, personal persuasions, and experiences can influence willingness to participate in clinical trials (CTs). A study assessed differences between Parkinson's disease (PD) or epilepsy patients having participated in CTs and non-participants in knowledge of and attitudes toward CTs. Also considered were factors in willingness to take part and how CT participants experienced the informed consent process.

METHOD

Random samples of members of Finland's PD (n = 2000) and epilepsy (n = 1875) patient organisations were posted a questionnaire on their views about CTs. Of the 1050 questionnaires returned, 845 met inclusion criteria. In total, 126 had participated in CTs.

RESULTS

While over 90% of respondents knew that participation is always voluntary, CT participants were more often aware that one can withdraw (p<0.001). In both groups, most did not recognise the possibility of randomisation, and 57% in both CT participants and non-participants indicated that CTs are aimed primarily at seeking the best medication for the participant. Nevertheless, 83% of CT participants indicated ability to understand the information provided.

CONCLUSIONS

While most in our study agreed that patients should be asked to participate in CTs, only 15% of subjects had done so. The discrepancy between willingness to participate and recruitment figures could be minimised by improving knowledge of CTs and communication between patients and researchers. Additionally, the groups displayed comparable false CT-related assumptions, raising questions about whether these subjects fully understood the clinical research's ultimate goal and CT participants had given true informed consent. These issues have practical and ethics implications for clinical investigators.

Rethinking vulnerable groups in clinical research

Vulnerable groups are often excluded from clinical research on the basis of scientific, ethical and practical reasons. Although intended to protect vulnerable people and maintain study integrity, exclusion of vulnerable groups from research through use of standard exclusion criteria may not always be necessary and may result in findings that are not generalisable. Achieving a balance between the competing needs to protect vulnerable people and to make progress in our understanding of disorders and their management through research requires a reconsideration of exclusion criteria and consent processes to ensure vulnerable people are appropriately represented in clinical research. Reasons for development of broad exclusion criteria include both concrete barriers and intangible discouraging factors. This paper examines this situation and its consequences, perceived and real barriers to inclusion of vulnerable people in research, and suggests methods for overcoming these barriers and applying thoughtful exclusion criteria.

Clinical features of Parkinson's disease patients are associated with therapeutic misconception and willingness to participate in clinical trials

Background

Clinical trials (CTs) are the “gold standard” to ensure the development of new effective treatments in medicine. A study was conducted to assess knowledge of, and attitudes toward, clinical trials among patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD), along with factors that motivate them to participate.

Methods

A 50-item questionnaire on the views of patients with PD about CTs was developed. It included statements that the respondents assessed on a Likert scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The questionnaire was mailed to a random sample (n = 2000) of members of the patient organization the Finnish Parkinson Association. In all, 708 response forms were returned, of which 681 were accepted after exclusion (a 34% response rate).

Results

In general, attitudes of patients with PD toward CTs were positive. Older subjects and patients with lower education levels had inadequate knowledge of general issues related to CTs. Older age, low level of education, and lower number of PD medications were significant predictors for failure to understand the nature and purpose of clinical research. Additionally, significant positive correlation was found between education level and willingness to participate in CTs.

Conclusions

Patients with PD have important gaps in their knowledge of methodological issues associated with CTs. The oldest subjects and those with a low level of education have the greatest information needs. Investigators should pay more attention to ensuring the comprehensibility of the information provided to potential CT participants.

Informed consent and clinical trials: where is the placebo effect?

Lack of knowledge about placebos affects participants’ understanding of trials and breaches the ethical obligations of researchers, argue C R Blease, F L Bishop, and T J Kaptchuk