Therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer trials.

Many subjects in early phase clinical trials expect to benefit in some way from the research intervention. It is understandable that people hope for improvement in their condition, no matter what the evidence. Yet unreasonable expectation of medical benefit may reflect problems with informed consent: Investigators may not disclose clearly that direct medical benefit from an early phase experimental intervention is unlikely or impossible, or subjects may not appreciate the differences between treatment and research. This paper presents findings from recent interviews with researchers and subjects and analysis of consent forms in early phase gene transfer research, a cutting-edge technology often called 'gene therapy'. We use three variables to construct a composite measure of therapeutic misconception TM, tapping misconceptions about the purposes of early phase research and the potential for direct medical benefit in these trials. Our multivariate model demonstrates the importance of both subject- and study-level factors as predictors of this TM index: education, disease type, and communication by study personnel about the likelihood of benefit. We hope that this work will deepen the discussion of how to define and measure TM, and refine the specification of factors that are related to subjects' TM.

Uncertain benefit: investigators' views and communications in early phase gene transfer trials.

We report on a study of potential sources of therapeutic misconception in early phase gene transfer research, examining how investigators and their consent forms represent the prospect for direct benefit. Our analysis demonstrates that even though half of PIs said they expected direct medical benefit for their subjects, they did not necessarily convey this to their subjects. What they reported telling subjects resembled what was written in their consent form, which suggests that, far from being irrelevant, the consent form is an influential component of the consent process. We also demonstrate that the language used to describe direct benefit in consent forms and PIs' discussions was mostly vague, ambiguous, and indeterminate about benefit, rather than clearly negative. This was especially true for cancer and vascular disease trials. Our respondents found the problem of balancing hopes and expectations, for themselves and for their subjects, extraordinarily challenging. In the current era, investigators face such challenges without consistent normative guidance or agreed-upon standards for how to talk about scientific promise and uncertainty in early phase trials. This dilemma cannot be effectively addressed by individual investigators alone, but must be acknowledged and openly discussed by the scientific community at large.