'Someone should oversee it': patient perspectives on the ethical issues arising with the regulation of probiotics.

BACKGROUND: Although many probiotic products are currently available in yogurt or pill form in the United States (US), there is uncertainty surrounding the structure of regulation of these products. As more therapeutic probiotics are developed, changes to existing regulatory process in the United States may be required to meet the needs of patients and users in the population. OBJECTIVE: This study examined how patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) diseases view the regulation of probiotics. DESIGN: We conducted a multi-site qualitative study consisting of focus groups of patients with chronic gastrointestinal diseases at three tertiary hospitals: at [institutions removed for blinded review]. RESULTS: We conducted 22 focus groups with 136 patients with major gastrointestinal (GI) diseases between March and August 2009. Participants were not familiar with the existing regulation of probiotic products but wanted assurances of accurate labelling of strain as well as safety. Participants raised concerns that regulation of probiotics might be accompanied by greater costs, reduced access and increased involvement of pharmaceutical companies. Although participants voiced significant doubt of government regulators, they felt that products containing genetically modified probiotic strains should have oversight comparable to that of pharmaceutical drugs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: If GI patient perspectives are indicative of public perceptions of therapeutic probiotics in the United States, consumers may expect more rigorous regulation in the future while simultaneously wanting low costs, easy access and low involvement of pharmaceutical companies. Manufacturers, translational scientists, clinicians and regulators should be sensitive to consumer attitudes when designing, testing and regulating new therapeutic probiotics.

An analysis of online messages about probiotics.

Internet websites are a resource for patients seeking information about probiotics. We examined a sample of 71 websites presenting probiotic information. We found that descriptions of benefits far outnumbered descriptions of risks and commercial websites presented significantly fewer risks than noncommercial websites. The bias towards the presentation of therapeutic benefits in online content suggests that patients are likely interested in using probiotics and may have unrealistic expectations for therapeutic benefit. Gastroenterologists may find it useful to initiate conversations about probiotics within the context of a comprehensive health management plan and should seek to establish realistic therapeutic expectations with their patients.

How disease advocacy organizations participate in clinical research: a survey of genetic organizations.

PURPOSE: Disease advocacy organizations may assist in the conduct of research in a variety of ways. We sought to characterize how disease advocacy organizations participate in clinical research and perceive their contributions. METHODS: Postal and electronic surveys administered to leaders of disease advocacy organizations for genetic conditions identified through the Genetic Alliance's Disease InfoSearch. RESULTS: Of the 201 disease advocacy organizations approached, 124 (62%) responded. In the past 2 years, 91% of these organizations had assisted in participant recruitment, 75% collected data, 60% provided a researcher with financial support, and 56% assisted with study design. Forty-five percent of these organizations also supported a research registry or biobank. Few disease advocacy organization leaders (12%) reported regrets about research studies they had supported. Most (68%) felt their involvement in clinical research had increased the amount of research on their condition and that researchers should consult organizations like theirs in deciding how to recruit participants (58%) and in selecting research topics (56%). CONCLUSION: In addition to providing financial support, disease advocacy organizations participate directly in multiple aspects of research, ranging from study design and patient recruitment to data collection and analysis. Leaders of these organizations feel strongly that scientists and research sponsors should engage them as partners in the conduct of clinical research.

How patients view probiotics: findings from a multicenter study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) have access to a growing number of probiotic products marketed to improve digestive health. It is unclear how patients make decisions about probiotics and what role they expect their gastroenterologists to play as they consider using probiotics. Understanding patients' knowledge, attitudes and expectations of probiotics may help gastroenterologists engage patients in collaborative discussions about probiotics. STUDY: Focus groups were conducted with patients with IBD and IBS at the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and Johns Hopkins University. Inductive analytic methods were used to identify common themes and draw interpretations from focus group narratives. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six patients participated in 22 focus groups between March and August 2009. Patients viewed probiotics as an appealing alternative to pharmaceutical drugs and understood probiotics as a more "natural," low-risk therapeutic option. Many patients were hesitant to use them without consulting their gastroenterologists. Patients would weigh the risks and benefits of probiotics, their disease severity and satisfaction with current treatments when considering probiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are interested in probiotics but have many unanswered questions about their use. Our findings suggest that patients with IBD and IBS will look to gastroenterologists and other clinicians as trustworthy advisors regarding the utility of probiotics as an alternative or supplement to pharmaceutical drugs. Gastroenterologists and other clinicians who care for patients with these diseases should be prepared to discuss the potential benefits and risks of probiotics and assist patients in making informed decisions about their use.

Helping patients make informed choices about probiotics: a need for research.

Applications of probiotics in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders are gaining acceptance among patients, despite evidence that probiotics can present substantial health risks, particularly for patients who are immunocompromised or seriously ill. Patients will likely formulate their attitudes and beliefs about probiotic therapies with reference to interpretive frameworks that compare probiotics with more familiar therapeutic modalities, including complementary and alternative medicines, pharmacological therapies, and gene-transfer technologies. Each of these frameworks highlights a different set of benefit-to-risk considerations regarding probiotic usage and reinforces extreme characterizations of both the therapeutic promise and peril of probiotics. Considerable effort may be required to help patients make informed choices about probiotic therapies.

Research ethics consultation: ethical and professional practice challenges and recommendations.

The complexity of biomedical research has increased considerably in the last decade, as has the pace of translational research. This complexity has generated a number of novel ethical issues for clinical investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), and other oversight committees. In response, many academic medical centers have created formal research ethics consultation (REC) services to help clinical investigators and IRBs navigate ethical issues in biomedical research. Key functions of a REC service include assisting with research design and implementation, providing a forum for deliberative exploration of ethical issues, and supplementing regulatory oversight. As increasing numbers of academic research institutions establish REC services, there is a pressing need for consensus about the primary aims and policies that should guide these activities. Establishing clear expectations about the aims and policies of REC services is important if REC programs are to achieve their full potential. Drawing on the experiences of a Clinical and Translational Science Award Research Ethics Consultation Working Group, this article describes three major ethical and professional practice challenges associated with the provision of REC: (1) managing multiple institutional roles and responsibilities, (2) managing sensitive information, and (3) communicating with consultation requestors about how these issues are managed. The paper also presents several practical strategies for addressing these challenges and enhancing the quality of REC services.

Ethical Discourse about the Modification of Food for Therapeutic Purposes: How Patients with Gastrointestinal Diseases View the Good, the Bad, and the Healthy.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have the potential to utilize genetic modification (GM) technologies to create a hybrid of "food" and "medicine" that may challenge traditional understandings of what is "natural". Moral and ethical concerns are likely to arise in any discussion of these therapeutic foods and will affect the integration of products into clinical care and daily life. This study examined how patients with chronic gastrointestinal (GI) diseases view probiotics as future bioengineered therapeutic foods. METHODS: A multi-site qualitative study consisting of focus groups with chronic GI diseases was conducted at Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and Johns Hopkins University RESULTS: We conducted twenty-two focus groups with 136 patients with major GI diseases between March and August 2009. GI patients associated the term "natural" with concepts of diminished risk and morally "good"; conversely, patients associated the term "unnatural" with things that are "risky," "foreign", and morally "bad". Readily available unmodified probiotics were more commonly described as "natural" while genetically modified probiotics were more commonly labeled as "unnatural" and "risky". However, patients acknowledged that not all natural products are safe, nor are unnatural products always harmful. CONCLUSIONS: If GI patient perspectives are indicative of public perceptions of therapeutic foods, our findings suggest that the potential benefits and risks of clinical and public health initiatives employing therapeutic foods will be understood in moralistic terms. Bioethicists and others should be sensitive to the implicit normative appeals that are often embedded in the language of what is "natural" and "unnatural".