MM Treatments and Clinical Trials Archives

When it comes to treatment, Multiple Myeloma patients and their care partners have much to consider. There are often many options available, each with advantages and disadvantages. Some people may seek clinical trials, others may have few feasible options. Understanding treatment options, goals, and what to expect are vital to achieving the best possible outcome for you.

More resources for Multiple Myeloma Treatments and Clinical Trials from Patient Empowerment Network.

How to Make a Treatment Decision

Myeloma Patient Cafe®

Myeloma Patient Cafe® – How to Make a Treatment Decision from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Five myeloma patients from around the country sat down to discuss their disease and how to make the best treatment decision for them.

See More From the The Myeloma Patient Cafe®


Transcript:

Cindy:

Hello everyone and welcome to the Patient Empowerment Network’s Myeloma Patient Café. My name is Cindy Chmielewski, and I’ll be hosting the program today. I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma way back in 2008. The Myeloma Patient Café is an opportunity for myeloma patients to get together and discuss their disease and also to share tips and information about myeloma.

Today’s topic is going to be how to make a treatment decision. But before we get into that discussion, I think it’ll be nice if we all go around and take a few minutes to introduce ourselves. We could say our name, where we’re from, and just a short history of our treatment journey. I’ll go first.

As you know, my name is Cindy. And I’m from Lawrenceville, New Jersey, and I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma back in 2008. When I was diagnosed, my myeloma was really tricky to begin with. My induction therapy stopped working for me just after a few cycles, and a stem cell transplant failed to put my myeloma into remission. So, I was very, very scared back then, and I retired from teaching.

But fortunately, a combination therapy was able to put my myeloma in what’s called a very good partial remission. But it took almost three years to get that maximum response. And right now, I’m staying in that very good partial remission with maintenance therapy.

Mike:

I was diagnosed in 2013 after having MGUS in 2009 and smoldering myeloma in 2010. My initial treatment was part of a clinical trial, and I had Revlimid, Velcade, and dex for three cycles, then a stem cell transplant, and then two more cycles of RVD and then maintenance therapy on Revlimid until 2018. I was really fortunate. I went into stringent complete remission and MRD negative. But then in July 2018, I began to relapse. So, I’ve started another treatment with Elotuzumab, Revlimid, and dex, and that’s been working pretty well recently.

Cindy:

Good. Thanks for that introduction. And Alan, would you like to share a little bit about your story?

Alan:

Sure, I was diagnosed in 2016. I was very far along, and the myeloma was very advanced. And when I was first diagnosed, I was put in the hospital and nearly died in the hospital because of some pain meds they gave me. It just shut down my digestive system. But anyway, everything happened really fast because it was so advanced. I really didn’t have much time to make decisions. We found it because my L5 vertebra had collapsed. I found out I had fractures in every vertebra, clusters of fractures in my ribs, 147 lesions on my bones, and 60 percent of the cells in my marrow were cancerous.

Like I said, it was so advanced I really didn’t have much time to make plans, but I went through two rounds of VDT-PACE. I went to a myeloma clinic that specialized in multiple myeloma. I did two rounds of VDT-PACE, then tandem stem cell transplants, then 16 rounds of Darzalex or daratumumab. Then they told me I was in remission and then went on maintenance treatments. I did Ninlaro and dex and – oh, Revlimid. That’s what it was. I did that for about seven or eight months. And my blood counts were just staying so low that they finally took me off that. My white count would never get over about 1.5 to 2. So, then I went back on the Darzalex, and that’s what I’m on now. I’m in stringent remission.

Cindy:

Good to hear that. You had some journey there. And Connie, can you tell us a little about your story?

Connie:

I was diagnosed January 3rd of 2010 after I fractured my sternum in a race. A gal was pacing me, and I thought I had a sports injury and just had too much fun sprinting. But it took about nine months before they finally realized that I’d fractured my sternum that day, and then I got diagnosed with the multiple myeloma.

Cindy:

And Josine, how about you?

Josine:

Hi. I was diagnosed actually five years ago this past month, Columbus Day weekend 2014, with 32 compressed fractures in my spine and my ribs from – I thought it was from lifting a box of legal documents at work in Manhattan, but it wasn’t. It was the myeloma pushing out because I had – 95 percent of the plasma cells were cancerous. Fast forward three months later I had a stem cell transplant, never went into remission. I’m on a triplet now of Revlimid, Ninlaro, and dex, and it brought my M-spike down to 0.2, which when I started out, I was at 8.0. So, life is good.

Cindy:

So, now let’s talk about how we make treatment decisions. And Mike, I’m gonna go back to you. When you were in smoldering myeloma, you had that opportunity to either watch and wait or to go on a clinical trial. What made you decide clinical trial? What was part of that decision-making process?

Mike:

When I was in smoldering myeloma, I wasn’t really offered a clinical trial. It was when things switched from smoldering to active myeloma. And what made me decide to do the clinical trial is a couple of things. One, my background is that I am a scientist, an engineer. So, I’ve been interested in the science behind treating multiple myeloma and other cancers and wanting to do my little part to try to help advance the science through participating in a clinical trial. So, that was one factor.

The second factor is that I felt like I’d get really good treatment period, but I’d get the very best treatment if I was in a clinical trial. And it turns out that I was monitored much more frequently while I was in the clinical trial than I would’ve been otherwise. And that ended up over time giving me, I think, some peace of mind. So, I’m really glad that I did participate in the clinical trial.

Cindy:

Good. Anyone else participate in a clinical trial or had that option brought up to them? No?

Alan:

I did not.

Cindy:

No. Did your doctors ever ask if you were interested? Or was that never brought to your attention?

Alan:

It was never brought to my attention.

Cindy:

Josine, did the doctor ever ask you?

Josine:

No, no. I would definitely be up for it, but it never came up in conversation.

Cindy:

How about you Connie?

Connie:

My numbers are very, very gradually going up like myeloma likes to do. And so, we have – looking ahead to a relapse at some point, my specialist brought up clinical trials and that we could discuss them and look them over and decide at that point.

Cindy:

Good. And while I’m talking to you, I think I read in your biography that you chose not to go ahead and have a stem cell transplant. Is that correct?

Connie:

That’s correct.

Cindy:

And can you talk about – a little bit why – what went through your head to make that decision?

Connie:

I think at that particular time the result of quality of life or overall length of life were very similar in terms of whether you had a stem cell transplant or in my case with standard risk myeloma. And I might at that time could’ve – everything that we had talked about and looked at with the research – maybe buy six more months of overall life – of survival. And I have to admit I was a little bit skeptical about – I guess I’d say killing off your immune system and how that might come back or not come back. And with standard risk, I decided to go up to Mayo Clinic and have them collect my stem cells as an insurance policy of sorts and then see how my myeloma progressed.

Cindy:

And at that time, were you in a complete remission when you were making the choice of whether or not to have a stem cell transplant?

Connie:

No, I wasn’t. I know the standard of care, and that was explained to me – was to have a stem cell transplant. But when I looked at the numbers with my specialist and my local oncologist, Revlimid was seeing some very good results. So, it really looked very similar to me. I thought with a deeper response up front we might get an overall better response, but I decided to – at my age – just to see how it would progress.

Cindy:

And that’s why this is such a crazy disease because everyone has a different presentation and yeah. And, I think, Alan, you were a little bit different. You had double transplants? Was that tandem transplants?

Alan:

That’s correct, about 60 days apart.

Cindy:

Can you talk about how you decided and why you decided to have such an aggressive line of therapy?

Alan:

Well, I think part of it comes to my personality type. I’m a business owner, and I’ve been fairly successful in life by surrounding myself with people that know way more than I do and letting them do their jobs. As I said in the beginning, things happened so fast with us we didn’t have much time to make decisions. And we were sent to a myeloma center. They specialize in multiple myeloma, and I feel like it’s probably the best in the world. But, of course, I guess everybody feels that way about where they’re treated, but my doctor was one of the top people in the world that specialized in multiple myeloma. He’s a clinical research scientist. And he told me how bad it was, and he said we’ve gotta treat it aggressively. But if we do, we feel like we can get you in remission.

And, you know, I really – when I first met him, he introduced himself by his first name, and I liked him, and I trusted him. And I had done a little bit of research on him, and I had just decided to do what he said. And it really made it – in many ways, it was easier for me because my situation was so bad that – and I know there are people that have had way worse than I have. But it was urgent that we make decisions. I didn’t really have a lot of time to think about it. So, I just surrounded myself with really good people and did what they said.

Probably the only decision I’ve really had to make is between my first transplant and my second. And like I said, they were only about 60 days apart. I did really well recovering from my first transplant. They released me to go home 14 days after my transplant, which they said was fairly unusual. The day I got home, I got C. diff And I was brutally ill, and then I got the flu. And then I got C. diff, and then I got the flu again. So, basically out of a two-month break, I was sick for a month.

Cindy:

Oh my gosh.

Alan:

And when I went back, he told me – he said, “Look, I know you’ve had a hard time. So, we can go one of three ways. Your test results were very good, so we can either let you go home for a couple weeks to recover.” Of course, he knew I had to run a business too while I was going through all that. And he said, “Or, we can do a reduced dose of melphalan, or we can just give you the full dose.” And I’m an idiot, and I said just give me the full dose. So, that also says a lot about my personality card.

But anyway – so, I don’t have any regrets. It’s taken me a long time to get back on feet, but I live a pretty normal life. About four or five weeks after I got home from my second stem cell transplant, I made arrangements to continue a family tradition of going fishing with my dad and my sons in South Louisiana. And I looked like a ghost honestly, but I’ve forced myself to do a lot of things I didn’t feel like doing so that I could recover.

Cindy:

Josine, can you talk about your initial treatment and if you were part of that decision-making process?

Josine:

Sure.

Cindy:

I know that initial treatment shocks us, and many of us are really, really sick. So, we’re really not part of it, but talk a little bit about your experience.

Josine:

Yeah. I was totally out of it at that point when I was first diagnosed because I was on morphine for 10 days, and I lost 10 days of my life. So, I never had anyone say that I had this cancer or discuss any treatments me. So, I was at their mercy. They gave me bendamustine and CyBorD – no. Yeah, CyBorD and bendamustine in the hospital. And I had, like I said, no recollection of any of it at all. My husband was there to make all those decisions at that time.

Cindy:

So, now, unfortunately, we have myeloma. And myeloma is one of those diseases of relapse and remission right now, although I’m very hopeful that we’ll be curing some people very soon. No one’s saying that they have a cure for myeloma. So, there’s a possibility that we will relapse in the future. Hopefully, the really, really, really distant future, but there’s that possibility. So, when we’re thinking about treatments, what do you think are some of the things that you consider when making that treatment option?

Mike:

In my case, Cindy, last year – last July, my oncologist gave me eight different options. And we went through the list, the pros and cons of each of those eight options, and finally together decided on the Elotuzumab, Revlimid, and dex. And it was very important to me to sort of understand what his thinking was and why he liked this option versus that option and so forth. Part of it had to do with how effective we thought things would be given my myeloma and my history with myeloma. Part of it had to do with side effects that we wanted to avoid. I have peripheral neuropathy left over from Velcade. So, that sort of ruled out Velcade. But anyway, it’s great that we had so many different options to be able to choose from. I’m fortunate enough to be in that position now. And it made me feel good to be able to go through those options one by one with my myeloma specialist.

Cindy:

Some of the things you considered is what your specialist was thinking, why he picked a treatment; but you also considered some side effects from previous treatments when selecting your new treatment, which makes a lot of sense. If you already had neuropathy, trying a treatment that is known to cause neuropathy might not be the best choice.

Mike:

Exactly.

Cindy:

Yes. Anybody else – things that they considered in the past when making a treatment decision or think they would be considering in the future for future treatment decisions?

Alan:

I had to make the decision about going on maintenance. And I have a lot of friends with multiple myeloma, and some of them chose not to do maintenance. I guess, once again, it goes to my personality type. The first thing I asked my specialist was, “If you were me, what would you do?” Nobody knows better than he does. And why would you do that. And he told me, and then the other side of it is – going back to my personality, I’m more likely to do the most aggressive thing to go ahead and get it over with. And that’s kind of why I decided I should finish my maintenance. They originally scheduled three years of maintenance for me. And I should finish that in January or February of next year.

Cindy:

So, it was trusting your specialist but asking why he chose that treatment.

Alan:

That’s correct.

Cindy:

But your personality is – go for the gusto there.

Alan:

Yes. And the other side of it is that right now I’m an 18-year-old in the body of a 70-year-old. I’m actually 52, but I figure I can handle the more aggressive treatments right now than maybe I could 10 years from now. I’ve got kids. I’ve got a grandson. And I figure if it means me doing the most aggressive things so I can be with them longer, I don’t mind doing that.

Cindy:

And Connie, I think one of your considerations was quality of life. I heard you talk about quality of life when you made that decision about not having your stem cell transplant right up front, harvesting your cells, keeping them in the fridge just in case you need it. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

Connie:

Yeah. I looked at having the stem cells available, so I could have a stem cell transplant if I needed one. And I wanted to continue to compete with the race walking. So, that was a small part of it. Also, I with my oncologist – this last appointment he mentioned that if my numbers continue to just go very slowly up that maybe the next appointment that we would discuss some options. He did mention that he liked – maybe for my particular situation – adding daratumumab. And we would be looking probably at a two- or three-agent combination. I’m, unfortunately, not able to tolerate the dex. So, I’m not sure how important a factor that is for trying to enter a clinical trial. I’ve noticed most of them do use dex because of the synergy there. So, that’s a bit of a concern for me as well.

Cindy:

I know you are not on your induction therapy now. You had some treatment decisions to make. Can you talk a little bit about what you thought about when going through those?

Josine:

Oh, sure. When the famous 100-day visit to the hospital – after you have your stem cell transplant; my specialist asked me if I wanted to go on consolidation or right onto maintenance. And I guess I was kind of like Alan. I’m like – I wanna do this consolidation first because I wanna do as much as I can to get to where I have to be and then start the maintenance. The only thing is I was on Velcade for those eight weeks, and there was no change at all in any of my numbers. So, then I was on Rev only for a year and a half.

And after that, the light chains went up, and I had new lesions. And my specialist had suggested adding Ninlaro and dex. And I had known that – well, he had told me. I didn’t know it then – that Ninlaro and Velcade were in the same class. And I was questioning him. I said, “Why would I go on that if the Velcade did nothing for me. And he said, “Well, working as a triplet it’ll work better.” And it really did. So, I’m grateful for that, but I was very confused at the time.

Cindy:

You mentioned the words consolidation and maintenance. Can you explain what the difference between consolidation and maintenance therapy is?

Josine:

Sure, consolidation is something that you do right before a maintenance program. It’s just eight weeks. They’re gonna try something to bring the numbers down even lower because, obviously, the stem cell transplant wasn’t as magical as they thought it would be for me at that time. So, I opted to do that just to give it a little boost to see if something else would work. And then the maintenance – I know Alan said he’ll be on it for three years. I think I’m gonna be on it indefinitely. I didn’t get an end date on mine.

Cindy:

And usually consolidation is more of a full dose of whatever treatment that you’re choosing to use as consolidation, whereas maintenance is usually a reduced dose or a reduced scheduling.

Mike:

One thing my myeloma specialist has said to me recently is that the line between consolidation and maintenance is kind of blurring now, and more patients are on sort of maybe in between consolidation and maintenance where you’re on treatment with more than one agent for an extended period of time. He’s told me I’m gonna be on something forever and ever for the rest of my life. So, it’s sort of hard to say whether it’s consolidation or whether it’s maintenance. It all just sort of blurs at this point.

Cindy:

Yeah, it’s hard to make that distinction. When does the consolidation end and the maintenance begin? At what dose level?

Alan:

That also shows how different we all are, and I’m in some different Facebook groups and support groups and things. And I see people asking what are the – how does the treatment progress, and what are the side effects of this drug and that drug. But we’re all different. And that’s the thing that is so important, even though there are some general guidelines – even in our treatments. I was classified as low risk. They got me into remission pretty quickly. So, things could change; but as of right now, there isn’t an end date to my maintenance treatments. I know people that didn’t do any maintenance. And then I also know people that probably won’t ever stop. And we were all treated at the same place.

Cindy:

It is very different from person to person, from treatment to treatment and even within yourself. Sometimes, you respond very quickly to one treatment and very slowly to another. So, that’s one of the benefits of being seen by a myeloma specialist, someone who only treats myeloma. Is everyone here being seen by a myeloma specialist?

Mike:

Yes.

Alan:

Yes.

Cindy:

Actually, I see two myeloma specialists – one and one for a second opinion, but I really do get my treatment locally. So, I’m very fortunate that all three of my doctors communicate with each other and work well with each other. So, let’s think about – if we had to make a treatment decision in the future and you were given two options, what kind of information would you like to know about each of those options before you make that decision?

I knew early on – one of the considerations I thought of after my stem cell transplant didn’t work was, I was still working at the time, and I was a teacher. And being a teacher, it was hard to take off from school to go to an infusion center to get my treatment. Or if I had to go several times a week, that just was not something possible. And I was trying to continue to teach.

So, one of things that I was considering back then was how the treatment was given. And one of the treatments that I chose was an oral treatment because that allowed me to continue to be employed. Eventually, I did retire. And that wasn’t as much of a concern, but back then, when I was still working and knew that it would be a conflict, that was something that came into my decision-making process. Anybody else?

Alan:

I would have to say for me the side effects probably would be the least important. I think I can probably endure a lot at this point in my life if it’s just temporary. I do have three businesses, and that would come into play as far as how treatments would go. My primary business as a financial advisor – I can pretty much do that from anywhere. In fact, even when I was going through my stem cell transplants, I always had my laptop with me. But since then, in the last year or year and a half or so, I’ve started two more businesses, and that would definitely come into play.

Cindy:

Does that – you were saying –

Alan:

And the other thing is I’d wanna know what the track record is, you know? Do we have a long-term track record?

Cindy:

So, you’re saying side effects for you would be least. But track record – are you talking more about the efficacy of the drug, how well it works compared to other drugs? What do you mean by track record?

Alan:

I would wanna know – I would be more willing to trust something that had a long-term track record of success than something new that we really just don’t know that much about. And that conversation actually came up with my doctor because there are a lot of new drugs out on the market right now. And he did tell me. He said, “Some of myeloma specialists are kind of getting away from the older drugs that we know work and going to these newer drugs.” He said, “I like to combine the two.” And that’s basically what he did. For my consolidation round, instead of doing a lower-dosed VDT-PACE of Velcade, dex, and thalidomide like they had historically done – for my consolidation round, they put me on the daratumumab. And I did 16 weeks of that, one treatment a week for eight weeks and every other week for eight weeks, and then I went on my maintenance.

Cindy:

Any other things that you would wanna consider or information you would want to know about a treatment before you make that decision?

Mike:

I think we’re getting close to the point where it’s gonna be important to understand a lot about the molecular basis of your particular form of multiple myeloma in order to be able to personalize the treatment. So, what particular mutations are driving your or my myeloma at this particular point? Because we know that changes over time, and what drugs are most effective against those mutations? I don’t know if we’re exactly at this point yet, but I think we’re getting close to that. So, when I relapse again, that’s something that I’m gonna be talking with my doctor about – exactly what mutations have I got and what are the best drugs against those mutations?

Alan:

I do agree with that, and I know the Myeloma Institute where I was treated they do genetic studies on every patient. I’m sure they do that in other facilities also. And I definitely agree that that’s where they’re trying to go. And hopefully, they’ll be there soon.

Cindy:

Finding a treatment that’s aimed at one of the mutations you have – the goal of precision medicine. That’s pretty exciting. Any other things that you might want to consider? How do find out about new treatments? There’s so many new treatments first that are FDA-approved and available. But there are also a lot of treatments and clinical trials. I know when I was newly diagnosed, I had no idea what was available to treat multiple myeloma. I didn’t even know if I had a choice of treatments. I just blindly followed my doctor’s orders. My doctor told me what he thought was best, and I said yes.

But now I know there are so many treatments. How do you find out information about them so that you can have that engaged discussion with your doctor?

Josine:

Selinexor – the newest one that was approved – one of the gentlemen in our support group has been on it for eight months on a trial. So, we watched him go from literally look like he’s dying to dancing the jig. It’s awesome. So, knowing people who are on that particular drug or whatever and then inquiring about it because I know Krissy is starting with that as well. That’s how we learn. And we just learn everything from the IMF. I learn on online and from our support group. Deena is an amazing support group leader.

Cindy:

Great. So, you learn information through your in-person support group –

Josine:

Yes.

Cindy:

– and through talking to someone else who’s been on that treatment. Other ways we could gather information about treatment options? Alan, do they talk about treatment options in some of your online support groups?

Alan:

They do. I see a lot of information about that. I’m an administrator on a Facebook group for a particular drug. So, I see a lot of people making comments about different treatment options that they’re doing and their success.

I probably don’t put as much research into this as a lot of people do. I’ve battled the fight of not becoming my disease is what I call it. You can’t overwhelm yourself with information. I’m a big picture guy anyway. I’m not an engineer type-like. My wife is. Her dad was a retired engineer. So, she wants all the little details. I just want the big picture. When I go in, they do my test. I just wanna know good or bad. That’s all I wanna know. I would have to say that talking to people that have the disease and their experiences probably has a bigger impact on me than anything. Because I believe that sometimes studies can be skewed, and I like personal knowledge.

Cindy:

Anybody else? Anyone actually go to the studies and read the studies or abstracts of the studies or ask their doctors about studies?

Mike:

I do.

Cindy:

I thought you would sneak up. You’re in my support group. I know you talk about those studies, so do I. Go ahead. Talk a little bit more Mike.

Mike:

I am the detail guy on that. So, I do read the studies. I’m on the institutional review board for the cancer center that I’m treated at. So, I get to see some of the trials even before they start. I’m fascinated by the disease and the science. If I take off my patient hat and put on my scientist hat, multiple myeloma is a really, really interesting disease. It’s a complex disease. It’s a complicated disease. And there’s a lot that we can learn about cancer in general by using multiple myeloma as a model cancer.

So, it’s fascinating to me to talk with my doctor about the research; and fortunately, he puts up with my dumb questions for the most part. So, to me, I just enjoy kind of understanding as much as I can about it. It gives me a sense of power. And maybe that’s an illusion, but it still helps. The more that I know, the more comfortable I feel about things. So, I do a lot of reading about it and keeping up with webcasts and so forth that are put on various foundations. And there are lots and lots of opportunities to learn. There’s a lot more to learn than I have time for, but it’s an interesting disease.

Alan:

Mike, you and I are exact opposites, and we’d make a great team. You know that, right?

Cindy:

Right.

Mike:

Yeah, even though we’re wearing similar shirts.

Cindy:

I’m glad we have such a varied panel today. It’s good having many different perspectives. Any other ways we educate ourselves about treatment options that are coming up?

Alan:

I wanna add also that I try to participate in events like this. I do quite a bit of public speaking. I’ve been asked to be a PACE ambassador for one of the pharmaceutical companies. So, I travel around, and I get multiple myeloma specialists all over the country. So, I’ve learned a lot through those conversations. And I think it’s important for us to do things like this to give back. We all know how scary it is when we’re first diagnosed. And if we can do something like this or help somebody that’s newly diagnosed, I mean we’ve done a great thing.

Cindy:

Right. I agree with you 100 percent. Being a retired teacher, it’s in me to help educate others because I really truly believe that knowledge is power. And there has to be just a variety of ways, whether it’s through teleconferences or online support groups or in-person support groups or mentoring, there’s just so many ways that you give back and help someone.

Alan:

To me, the first of the unknown is worse than the actual treatments.

Cindy:

Exactly. And being able to talk to someone who’s been in your shoes is the absolute best.

Alan:

Do you mind if I share something with you real quick?

Cindy:

Go ahead.

Alan:

I mentioned that I went fishing four or five weeks after my second stem cell transplant. While I was there, I got a phone call from one of my clients, and one of her good friends had just been diagnosed with multiple myeloma. And he was gonna be treated where I was. And I was able to – she wanted me to talk to him. So, I called him. I shared my story. I told him how bad I was. And he said, “Well, I’m nothing like that. They caught mine early.” But I said, “Well, you understand my situation was serious.” I said, “I’d like to tell you where I am now. He said, “Okay.” I said I’m in South Louisiana fishing with my dad and my sons.” And he said, “You’re kidding!” I said, “No, I caught a 30-pound fish last night. I’ll send you a picture in a minute.” And just to hear the change in his voice, the tone of his voice, to give him that encouragement that everything was gonna be okay –

Cindy:

Right.

Alan:

– was an amazing feeling. About a year and a half later, I was fishing again in South Louisiana. And I only go a few times a year at most. And I got a phone call, similar situation – a single dad with a 13-year-old daughter. And I got to share my story with them. I got her – I got them on speakerphone so they could both hear me. My daughter was 14 when I was diagnosed. I will never forget that – being able to talk to them and encourage them because we all know how important your attitude plays a part in our recovery.

Cindy:

Exactly. Thank you so much for sharing that very personal story. And I’m sure we all have a similar story of a way that we spoke to someone and probably made a difference at that point in their journey. So, we’re coming to the end of our program. What are some things that you know now that you wished you’d knew then about making treatment decisions? Anything that you know now that you wished you knew in the past?

Connie:

I think one of the things I’ve learned is not to self-diagnose. I think when – it took nine months to get my myeloma diagnosis. I had broken a rib previously. And so, after that race, I thought I had just broken another rib. And it got better and went away. And a couple of months later when I turned over in bed, it felt like a knife going through me and took my breath away. And then another two months went by. I thought – well, I just re-broke it. Another two months went by and same thing, turned on my side in bed at night, and it went another knife through me.

So, I just even competed in some other races that summer. And I didn’t quite feel like I could go as fast as I wanted to or I might really do some serious damage. And that’s when I knew I needed to see a doctor. And I did, and I got bronchitis. And they first treated me and checked out everything for heart and didn’t find anything. And then, when I got the bronchitis, I went back to the doctor. And that’s when they decided to send me to a specialist, and he just touched my sternum and realized it was deformed and said he didn’t even wanna touch it until he got some images. And that’s when he – after the images that he got, he referred me to the West Michigan Cancer Center for further diagnosis.

Cindy:

Josine, any final words of wisdom?

Josine:

Well, like Connie was saying about self-diagnosis. I thought I hurt my back at work. If I had only heard the words multiple myeloma in life growing up, which I never heard of it until diagnosis, I think it would’ve been less painful a journey to say the least. Well, you know, it’s all part of everybody’s journey. And we’re here today, and every day’s a gift.

Alan:

As far as things I wish I would’ve known; I wish I would’ve known how hard the battle would be after the major treatments. It took me a long time to bounce back. My immune system just wasn’t very good. I kept pushing myself probably harder than I should have, but it goes back to the same thing – is do things that you don’t feel like doing. Push yourself to do the things – there are days when I don’t feel like getting up out of bed, even today. For the last week and a half, I’ve been fighting a cold. I actually – Thursday before last, me and my oldest son took our four-wheel drives to an off-road event and camped out for the weekend. Of course, I got sick the day we got there. But we had a great time and made some great memories, and the price was well worth it.

And that’s kind of the attitude that I have. I know that there’s a price to be paid at times for the things that I do, but every day is just a blessing. Every day is an opportunity to have a positive impact on somebody else’s life, and every day is a day to make memories with my family and my friends and the people I love. And put your focus there.

Cindy:

Wonderful words.

Alan:

The way that I put it in my talks is – we will find in life whatever we look for. If we look for reasons to be sad and upset and depressed, we will find those. If we look for reasons to smile and be happy, we will find those also.

Cindy:

That’s true. Very good. I could listen to your words of advice all day long, but we don’t have all day. So, how about Mike. Do you have any final words of wisdom? Advice?

Mike:

I guess the thing that comes to my mind that I know now that I didn’t know at the beginning – there’s so much. I didn’t know anything. But I realize now that I’m not alone. I felt very alone at first, but I’m not alone, and I’m not alone in lots of different senses. One sense is that there are other patients and other folks who are going through multiple myeloma just like I am. And so, a forum like this is really important to be participating in. I believe participating in in-person support groups is important, online support groups.

So, just realizing that you’re not alone is a key thing. And another way that I’m not alone is I have a wonderful team of doctors and nurses and healthcare professionals working to make me as well as I can be. And then I also am very blessed to have great friends and family. So, just knowing that I’m not alone is a key, key thing.

Cindy:

I like that. I’m not alone. Very good. Well, we’ve come to the end of our time. I think we learned a lot of great information between each other, and I’m hoping that it’s gonna be very beneficial to the myeloma community. So, to our audience, thank you for joining us for this Patient Empowerment Network programming, Myeloma Patient Café. I am

Cindy Chmielewski. And remember that this fifth -grade teacher says, “Knowledge is power and is your best medicine of all.” Thank you very much for joining us.


Please remember the opinions expressed on Patient Empowerment Network (PEN) are not necessarily the views of our sponsors, contributors, partners or PEN. Our discussions are not a substitute for seeking medical advice or care from your own doctor. That’s how you’ll get care that’s most appropriate for you.

Maintenance Therapy and Continuous Therapy in Myeloma: What’s the Difference?

Maintenance Therapy and Continuous Therapy in Myeloma: What’s the Difference? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Nurse Practitioner, Beth Faiman from the Cleveland Clinic, explains in maintenance therapy versus continuous therapy in multiple myeloma, which can sometimes be confusing.

Beth Faiman is a nurse practitioner in the department of hematologic oncology at Cleveland Clinic. More about this expert here.

See More From The Pro-Active Myeloma Patient Toolkit

Related Resources

What Does Remission Mean in Myeloma?

Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: What’s the Difference?

Find Your Voice Myeloma Resource Guide

Transcript:

Beth Faiman:

I’d like to define the difference between maintenance therapy and continuous therapy. When patients have a stem cell transplant, they have a pre-therapy, the transplant consolidation is the second step, and then they have a maintenance to maintain that remission. For some people that don’t have a transplant, you can just stay on continuous doses of a therapy that’s very well tolerated. So, maintenance and continuous can sometimes be confused, but it’s — maintenance is lesser doses of something that got you into remission and continuous is just kind of staying on that same dose of tolerated medication.

How Side Effects Can Be Managed in Myeloma

How Side Effects Can Be Managed in Myeloma from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Beth Faiman, a nurse practitioner specializing in multiple myeloma, discusses side effects in myeloma and shares what can be done to prevent or reduce these issues in patients.

Beth Faiman is a nurse practitioner in the department of hematologic oncology at Cleveland Clinic. More about this expert here.

See More From The Pro-Active Myeloma Patient Toolkit

Related Resources

Office Visit Planner – Myeloma

Discussing Treatment with Your Doctor: Key Questions to Ask

Diagnosed with Myeloma? An Advocate’s Key Advice

Transcript:

Beth Faiman:

In multiple myeloma, there are numerous side effects, but the most common side effects of treatment are oftentimes the lowering of blood count. So, for example, depending on which type of therapy you’re on, maybe it’s lenalidomide or carfilzomib or some others, you can get some lowering of blood count.

So, those blood counts need to be regularly monitored. Another side effect might be peripheral neuropathy. Now, that’s more common in drugs such as bortezomib or thalidomide.

And so, it’s important to look for that symptom and report if you have any numbness or tingling in your fingers or feet, or dizziness, or anything odd to your healthcare team. Because by adjusting the medication doses, then those patients can actually stay in treatment longer with better control.

Other things with the monoclonal antibodies, some of the newer drugs that are currently available will produce an increased chance of infusion reactions. Now, that’s only at the very beginning of the infusion. So, once patients have received that therapy,  they can feel comfortable to keep taking that with lesser chance of side effects.

And then, finally, many drugs with myeloma have an increased risk of blood clots. So, patients should stay active, keep well-hydrated, and know that they’re at an increased risk. Most providers will recommend a baby aspirin for all patients taking these drugs like lenalidomide, thalidomide, pomalidomide, and carfilzomib. And that’ll lessen their chance of blood clots.

The last thing I’d like to add in is an increased risk of infections. Myeloma is a cancer of the bone marrow plasma cells that are responsible to protect you from getting sick, and unfortunately, they don’t work. Many therapies will further weaken the immune system. So, getting a seasonal influenza vaccine, a pneumonia vaccine every five years, and making sure they take shingles prevention is a very effective way of keeping yourself healthy.

Key Considerations When Choosing Myeloma Treatment: What’s Available?

 

Key Considerations When Choosing Myeloma Treatment: What’s Available? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Beth Faiman, a nurse practitioner specializing in multiple myeloma at the Cleveland Clinic, shares tips for making treatment decisions and discusses the evolution of myeloma therapy in recent years. Need help speaking up? Download the Office Visit Planner and bring it to your next appointment here.

Beth Faiman is a nurse practitioner in the department of hematologic oncology at Cleveland Clinic. More about this expert here.

See More From The Pro-Active Myeloma Patient Toolkit

Subscribe to stay up-to-date in the latest information in Multiple Myeloma treatment

* indicates required





Related Resources

    

The Benefits of Seeking a Second Opinion in Myeloma

Find Your Voice Myeloma Resource Guide

Overwhelmed By a Myeloma Diagnosis? The Key Steps to Take

Transcript:

Beth Faiman:

There are so many treatment options, and that’s one of the reasons why it’s so important for patients to at least seek an opinion once or twice with a myeloma specialist because treatment changes so rapidly. We have over 20 medications that are approved for the management of myeloma and so the patients need to figure out what’s important for them.

Oftentimes you think, father knows best or doctor knows best. And I hear from time to time that you’re the doctor, you should know what is best for me. But I say, “I understand what might be the best treatment for you in terms of response rate, but we have to balance quality and quantity of life. What are the things that you’re willing and your family’s willing to accept for treatment?”

Do you want to undergo a stem cell transplant which maybe takes you out of commission for a couple of months? Or take an oral therapy every day or an IV therapy intermittently? So, there are oftentimes more than one decision, and this is what we like to practice at my institution. It’s called shared decision making where you have a partnership between the patient and their caregiver, and the healthcare team and we work together to mutually decide what’s best for that patient.

So, sometimes just really trying to get that cure or eliminate the myeloma cell clone as best as possible might not be the right answer now, especially if you’re a single mom or a single dad or caring for a loved one. But maybe that might be a future goal. So, having that conversation is so important. And patients should feel empowered to be able to have that conversation with their healthcare team because if they don’t, then maybe they need to see a different doctor or specialist so they can feel comfortable with them.

I am so excited about all the new classes of drugs that are so — that are currently available. When I started managing myeloma in 1994 or 1995 there was only stem cell transplant and maybe melphalan or Cytoxan, and those drugs were not very effective in controlling the disease. I’m now able to mix and match treatments and give patients different opportunities to meet these milestones. You know, patients were so worried about not being here in two or three years, and now it’s 20 years later. So, forming those relationships and keeping them living healthy longer is so important.

We now have drugs available that can have the possibility of achieving what’s called minimal residual disease or MRD, where we’re eliminating in the bone marrow, the myeloma clone

That was unheard of five years ago even. So now we have the BiTE therapies and CAR T-Cell therapies, and some of the newer drug classes that will hopefully have a functional cure.

People ask me what a cure in myeloma is, and hopefully, we’ll have a real cure. But, living out your normal life span compared to people that don’t have myeloma, and really enjoying life as you do it. So, I always tell patients don’t forget about health maintenance and checking cholesterols, looking for secondary cancers, keep a primary care provider on hand because as a team, we can all work together, to have you live your best life as possible.

Evolving Approaches to Myeloma Treatment: Staying Up-to-Date

 

Evolving Approaches to Myeloma Treatment: How to Stay Up-to-Date from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Multiple myeloma research is fast-moving and showing promise. Dr. Peter Forsberg, a myeloma specialist, provides an overview of the changing treatment landscape and shares resources for keeping up with the latest news. Need help speaking up? Download the Office Visit Planner and bring it to your next appointment here.

Dr. Peter Forsberg is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and is a specialist in multiple myeloma. More about Dr. Forsberg here.

See More From The Pro-Active Myeloma Patient Toolkit

Related Resources

  

Find Your Voice Myeloma
Resource Guide

Staying Abreast of the Latest News in Myeloma: Tips from an Advocate

What is Personalized Medicine?

Transcript:

Dr. Peter Forsberg:

I think research in multiple myeloma remains a really active area. It’s been a major evolution over the past 20 years. Myeloma’s been one of the real success stories of modern oncology in terms of how much research has translated into improved options for patients.

But, many new things continue to evolve. It can be challenging to feel like you’re abreast of what’s going on. I think there are great resources for patients. Organizations like the International Myeloma Foundation, the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, or Leukemia and Lymphoma Society are good places for patients to start.

I also think that social media can be useful although those types of things can be a bit of a double-edged sword. I certainly find lots of things out via Twitter, and I think there’s a pretty active myeloma community in some of those areas, but you have to be a little bit careful about where you point your attention when you’re interacting with the internet. I think there can be lots of places where you might get less up to date or less thorough information and that can sometimes be concerning or challenging for patients So, I do think it is great that we have tools, but it is important to be thoughtful about how you approach them and trying to find good, reliable resources in that regard.

 I think there’s a lot of really exciting things on the horizon. That’s gonna include using tools that we have in better ways. I think we’re gonna be expanding our approaches to how we treat newly diagnosed patients. It looks like we’ll be starting to use four-drug regimens in patients with newly-diagnosed myeloma in the near future, hopefully with ever-improving results. We’re gonna be more cutting edge in terms of how we test and measure disease, using things like minimal-residual disease testing in different and expanded ways.

And then there’s a number of immunotherapeutic treatments especially that are looking very promising in relapsed myeloma.

That includes CAR T-Cell therapies, bispecific monoclonal antibodies, and antibody drug conjugates, all of them look like really promising approaches and really new things that hopefully in the not-distant future are gonna expand our toolbox for how we’re able to help maintain and improve life for patients with multiple myeloma.

New Developments in Myeloma Therapy

This podcast was originally published by The Cancer Cast with Weill Cornell here.

 

 

Adriana Rossi, MD – Speaker Bio

Know What Your Doctors Know: Multiple Myeloma

This video was originally published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network on April 15, 2019, here.

Experts discussed updates in the treatment of multiple myeloma during live webinars hosted by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) on April 15 and 16, 2019.

Get The Best Myeloma Care NOW: A Physician’s View

Get The Best Myeloma Care NOW: A Physician’s View from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Advocating for yourself is critical when diagnosed with multiple myeloma. Dr. Peter Forsberg details the value of collaborating with your healthcare team on treatment decisions.

Dr. Peter Forsberg is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and is a specialist in multiple myeloma. More about Dr. Forsberg here.

See More From The Pro-Active Myeloma Patient Toolkit

Related Resources

Overwhelmed By a Myeloma Diagnosis? The Key Steps to Take

Should You Consider a Second Opinion? Advice from a Myeloma Advocate 

Find Your Voice Myeloma Resource Guide

Transcript:

Patient education and self-advocacy I think are critical in multiple myeloma. Myeloma is a complicated disease. Getting your head around it can be challenging. Beyond that we have more and more treatments. Treatments are fairly complex. Our goals can be pretty different patient to patient. So really, patient education can be a key to understanding that and removing layers of complexity from something that can be a little challenging to get into.

I think self-advocacy is also really important in that, sometimes you can feel swept up into a wave of what the next treatments are gonna be, what the next steps are. So, making sure you’re taking time to voice your opinions or concerns for yourself, to make sure that you’re not leaving stones unturned in terms of what your best options are, what the best next steps are, what treatments or testing might be available.

I think myeloma, maybe more so than even some other diseases because it’s such a unique type of cancer, one where patients are often dealing with it for many years… Making sure that there’s a good level of education that evolves over time can help make sure that the patients get the best out of their treatments; to make sure that they’re able to have the most fulfilling experience dealing with their cancer and with their cancer team, and making sure that they’re advocating to get all options available to them in the mix potentially.

I think patients are often very thoughtful about knowing that providers are busy and that clinic can be kind of fast-paced, but I want to make sure that they know that the last thing that they’re ever doing is bothering me or other members of my team when they ask questions. I think one of the keys to making sure that everybody is comfortable with the steps we’re taking with their myeloma is to recognize that it’s a team. And the patients and myself and other members of my team, you know I think that the goal is for all of us to be on the same page and to understand what we’re working towards.

So, I think that my philosophy about how best to take care of patients tis to try to make it as collaborative as possible. To make sure people understand what we’re doing and why. And to be all on the same page I think you have to feel comfortable to take a moment to say, “Why are we doing this?” or to voice concerns about what’s going on or what the next steps might be.

Is It Difficult to Participate in a Clinical Trial?

Clinical Trial Mythbusters

Clinical Trial Mythbusters: Is It Difficult to Participate in a Clinical Trial? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Downloadable Program Guide

Three experts discuss the clinical trial process and the difficulty in participating in a trial. Our expert panel includes:

  • Ken Getz, MBA – Founder and Board Chair, CISCRP
  • Andy Lee – Senior Vice President and Head, Global Clinical Trial Operations, Merck
  • T.J. Sharpe – Melanoma Survivor and Patient Advocate

Transcript:

Andrew Schorr:

And greetings from Southern California. I’m Andrew Schorr from Patient Power. And welcome to this Patient Empowerment Network program, another in our series of Clinical Trials MythBusters. Our goal, of course, is to help you get the treatment for you or a loved one that you need and deserve. I want to thank the financial supporters for this program to the Patient Empowerment Network; AbbVie, Inc., Celgene Corporation. Daiichi Sankyo and Novartis for their support. They have no editorial control and we’re going to have a very freewheeling discussion today. And really what it’s about is how can a clinical trial be made easier for you to participate? Are there barriers? We’ve talked about it in previous programs. But specifically, what are the companies—the pharmaceutical industry mostly, who sponsor trials all around the world, what are they doing to make trial participation easier? For you to know about trials. For the people at your clinic to know about it and what to say and how to administer it. For you to have documents that are understandable for you and your family to know whether you want to participate. To keep you informed. And also related to the requirements of trials. How can they be relaxed a little so that there may be a trial that would benefit you, that you and your doctor agree on, and the requirements of it allow you to be in the trial. Okay, and the logistics of it are not so tough either. All right, I’ve been in two clinical trials, and I believe I’m alive today because of that. So, I’m very grateful. We have some wonderful panelists with us over the next hour. Now as you have questions, send them to questions@patientpower.info. And some of you have. So, you’ll be able to interact with us as we go along. First, I want to go to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and T.J Sharpe. And T.J. has been on programs with me over the years. Stage four melanoma patient having been in trials. And T. J., you would agree, you’re alive today because you were in trials, right?

T.J. Sharpe:

Absolutely, Andrew. I think both of us are very fortunate that we found a trial that was the right treatment for us and gave us the ability to combat our disease in areas may not have been available to us if we just waited for standard of care therapies.

Andrew Schorr:

Right. And here you are—we should say that you were diagnosed a number of years ago with melanoma, went through trials. And now you’ve had two years without treatment, right?

T.J. Sharpe:

Yes. It’s been five years of treatment followed by now two good years of a clean bill of health.

Andrew Schorr:

Well, great. And I should mention for our audience, many people are familiar with T.J. T.J. goes around the country, gives speeches. He’s been at many events, consults with industry that are developing trials to try to bring the patient perspective forward. So, T.J., thank you for all you do. We really appreciate it.

T.J. Sharpe:

You’re welcome. It’s my honor to be able to represent all these patients.

Andrew Schorr:
Well, most every family—certainly most have been touched by cancer. But our other guests are not cancer patients but are in national leadership programs. And so, let’s go up to Medford, Massachusetts at Tufts University outside Boston, Ken Getz. Ken, welcome to the program. Ken, ladies and gentlemen, is a true national leader when it comes to clinical trials and really helping us move forward with better processes, better understanding. Ken, tell us a little bit about your organization there, CISCRP. What does that stand for?

Ken Getz:

Thank you. And I have to say your pronunciation was nearly perfect. It’s hard to pronounce it. It’s an acronym and it stands for The Center for Information and Study on Clinical Research Participation. It’s a non-profit organization. It was founded 18 years ago. And it’s really there to help patients and their families navigate the whole clinical research progress which for many is completely unfamiliar terrain until they’ve been diagnosed with an illness or when they have exhausted all other treatment options. So, CISCRP really helps people become more educated and informed so that they can really think of the clinical research process with more confidence. And they can navigate this unknown terrain.

Andrew Schorr:

All right. I’m going to come back to you in a minute because you have such an overview, and you’re also an Associate Professor at Tufts. And so, you study all this, and you’ve written books. But I want to introduce the third guest. And that is a leader from the pharmaceutical industry and one of our most respected and venerable companies in the field, and this is Merck. So, joining us in a senior vice president of clinical operations there around the world. And that’s Andy Lee. Andy, welcome. Thank you so much for being with us.

Andy Lee:

Andrew, thank you. And pleasure to be with some prestigious panelists, both of whom I know. And I’ve met you over the last two weeks. And thank you to T.J. and yourself who have been trial participants and who are representing that part of the organization.

Andrew Schorr:

Okay, and we should mention that both T.J. and Andy are working on a couple of levels. And Ken sounds off on this too. There is a group called TransCelerate where pharmaceutical industry is working together on some of the issues they face in having the proliferation of trials. More trials sites, more accessibility, procedures for that. And then, of course, Andy has helped lead that effort at Merck related to breakthrough therapies that they have been trying to develop there in supporting patients who might be in Merck trials. So, we are going to come back to that. But I want to go to you for a second, Ken. Ken, how low is the participation among adults in clinical trials, at least in the U.S. Now, I’ve heard really low percentages. Where are we now with that?

Ken Getz:

Right, it’s a great myth for us to start with, this notion that only three to five percent of patients—eligible patients, participate in clinical research. That’s actually a statistic that was published by the National Cancer Institute in the early 1990’s. The latest research really shows that it varies widely. For example, when we look at pediatric cancers, the participation rates are extremely high, 80 to 90 percent in same cases—pediatric leukemia. In part because those communities have very engaged healthcare providers, very engaged families that really share their information. It’s just an enabled community where all of the stakeholders support participation. And then there are other areas of course. Some cancers where we do see relatively low participation rates. But I want to point out that low participation is driven by so many factors, Andy, including the strict eligibility criteria. And the demanding protocol designs which are a real burden for some people, and they choose not to participate. As well as low awareness, very low accessibility to trials among minorities and underserved communities. So, there are many factors that contribute to this variation in the participation rates.

Andrew Schorr:

Yeah, you’ve ticked off some now. T.J., in your own experience, one of the breakthrough trials you were in you had to go from Ft. Lauderdale in South Florida and move your whole family to Tampa in central Florida, right. I mean that was a big deal.

T.J. Sharpe:

Absolutely. When you have a young family and a stage four cancer diagnosis, relocating simply across the state during the holidays especially, is no big deal. We were fortunate because we had the means to be able to move there with work situation, with family. But too many people can barely go across the county, much less the state or the country to find a trial that might be the best match for them.

Andrew Schorr:

Andy, so we’ve ticked off some of the obstacles, and Ken touched on some about even the proliferation of trials. Is that a lot of what you do is how can we have trials be more accessible, be more widely distributed to a clinic near you?

Andy Lee:

Yes, let me just explain. When we look at a new cancer therapy, we look at the various cancers that may be affected. And what we do is we go for high probabilities of success. And the challenge is if you bring a new cancer agent. You normally start off in very advanced disease. So, patients would have failed multiple lines of therapy, and often it is a last gasp. And you have to show some sort of clinical efficacy. And then you move sort of backwards in the disease, and you go from sort of third-plus line, second line and first line.

And then you may work downwards into earlier stages of the disease into an adjuvant setting and maybe a neoadjuvant setting. So, as we sit down and design a trial, what we need to look at is what is the population that is most likely to show any benefit at all. And quite often when you are developing a new therapy, it’s difficult to show benefit because many of the patients are very ill. So, what we have to do is optimize the opportunity for success of a compound by going to the right target patients.

And quite often as we have learned a lot more about cancer, this does not mean we test a product broadly in anyone with cancer. We typically try and find a profile of a patient that is likely to respond. And many patients now will realize their predictor biomarkers or prognostic biomarkers. So, for example, with immunotherapies, those that work through the PD1 mechanism would probably want to have a PD1 ligand receptor positive patient who is likely to bind to the drug.

And that gives a higher probability of success. So, it sounds counterintuitive that while we want to develop therapies for all cancer patients, when we start clinical trial development, we have to show efficacy in a population that will benefit. And that’s normally predefined and makes the inclusion criteria fairly strict. As we show efficacy and as we can move into broader populations, it makes it a lot easier for us to design more liberal clinical trials. And then we can actually spread those in the geographic domains.

I could talk more about geographic allocation, but let’s hold that for the time being, and let’s see if there’s time later on.

Ken Getz:

Can I just add to what Andy said because I think it’s really important for your viewers to understand just how active drug development activity is today. We’re looking at over 4,000 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, some of them very, very small. But in total, we’re looking at nearly 6,000 drugs that are in active clinical trials. And to Andy’s point, many are really targeting a patient with a very specific genetic profile or a specific biomarker. But it should give anyone who believes that a clinical trial may be an important care option for them, they should recognize that there may be many, many trials out there.

In total we estimate as many as 80,000 clinical trials, nearly 50 just conducted in the U.S. alone—50,000. So, it’s just important that we keep all this activity in perspective.

Andrew Schorr:
Right. So, T.J., that’s why all of us as patients need to ask about them, right? Go to different resources, whether it’s an advocacy group that you ultimately spoke with other patients, and obviously quizzing the doctors we go to. Is there something that may line up with my situation, right T.J.?

T.J. Sharpe:

Absolutely. There is a both top down and bottom up approach here that patients as they become educated—and every patient should be the owner of their healthcare as they become educated. Hopefully they are coming across advocacy organizations, other informed patients, patient support groups—all of which will help inform them different options for disease treatment, including hopefully as Ken mentioned, clinical research as a care option. At the same time, there is certainly very much an opportunity from the top down from the sponsors who develop the trials and from the sites that execute them to educate patients as they come in.

Not just at their own site, but at any site, at any medical facility. That if you have a diagnosis and you are looking into your care options, that you should be asking the question. And we should be giving you more information on the possibility of clinical trials and where you may find clinical trials that are appropriate for you.

Andrew Schorr:

Right, the whole enchilada, if you will, of all your options. Andy, so you mentioned about trial requirements. So, first of all, what efforts either at Merck or are you aware in the industry are being made to really talk to patients early on as you are designing trials? Whether it’s the requirements—how many CT scans you’re going to have. How often you are going to have to go to the main trial site. All the different things that sometimes get in the way.

Andy Lee:

Well, firstly we start with design. And we believe in exquisite trial design, quality by design as well. So, what we want is to run the experiment once and not have a sloppy trial design. We want to make it really robust in terms of scientific integrity and operational execution. So, we have a lot of internal design committees and what we do is we co-op with many groups external to our company. So, we speak to people who run clinical trials at cancer institutes.

We speak to the doctors who manage this. We speak to the trial coordinators. We speak to people involved with the transporting and shipping of medicine how they would do that. And then we of course speak to people in the ecosystem. We quite often speak to investigational review boards before we start trials. We talk to them about our design and what would be best to protect the rights and well-being of patients. And then, of course, the patient-centric approach says that we need patient insights.

And I’ve chosen my words very carefully because the insights are really important. Not all patients—and I’m very respectful that some patients are very intelligent and actually may be involved in this. Some patients can contribute to design, not all can. And so, what we do is we take the insights and we impute those. We often have focus groups. We talk about this disease. We talk about the burden of the disease. And then we talk about how that disease is managed in an ecosystem. And quite often in different countries it’s managed differently.

And so, we have to appreciate the global clinical trials have to navigate a path that may not be a linear path as we’d see it at an exquisite elite cancer center in the United States. It’s community-based, it’s all the rest. So, we take that input, and what we try to do is unburden the trial for the patient. We say, “How can we design a trial that requires the least visits to the clinic—the hospital, the least burden for them. And how can we take some of that burden from the clinic and actually transfer that into an easier environment.

So, document reading and review. Perhaps filling in questionnaires about quality of life. These are things that don’t have to be done in the clinic itself. And then often when we work with clinics, we work with them to help them understand how we as sponsors can make their life easier. And some of those things might be simplifying the informed consent. But I want to stress just one point here is that we can do whatever we like in the design at a company.

One of the things is, the patients are not sponsor patients. Okay, we sponsor clinical trials. The patients are managed by a doctor and a professional. And underneath that principal investigator is a whole oncology team. And it involves radiology. It involves pharmacists. It revolves around a 360 multidisciplinary team. They’re exquisite. They help manage the patient, not the sponsor. We provide the enabling functions for them. And then also that the oversight of the patient’s right, safety and wellbeing is the responsibility of an institutional review board.

And while we may provide templates and simplify templates in text and language, we rely heavily on the institutional review boards to help us with things that may make things easier, such as reimbursement for parking, transport, all of these things. And by and large, the institutional review boards are very supportive of these things. But they are very difficult to quantify in exact terms because of different geographic regions and different norms in different places. So, we rely heavily on exquisitely well-trained 360 team who manages oncology patients with a great PI. They manage patients.

And we work collaboratively with the sites who work with patients on our behalf. So, I just wanted to say the myth is that sponsors interactive with patients. That’s a myth. And the truth is that we engage with clinical sites, and we try and make our design and all the elements—the enabling elements, simpler for the trial sites in order to manage the patients in a simpler way.

Andrew Schorr:

Okay. Thank you for that. So, Ken, I want your comment on that. Because okay, we are downstream patients. We have a doctor, healthcare team. And we know somewhere in the background there’s a sponsor that tried to enable good things to happen to get reliable data and hopefully a cure for us. So, how do we—what’s happening? Are we improving things there in that interaction between clinic and patient?

Ken Getz:

Yes, we absolutely are. And I’ll start by just echoing and acknowledging that Andy has really laid out just an incredible amount of input that goes into the design of a protocol. And that’s really for a really large company. We see many, many examples now of patient advocacy groups or smaller companies turning to a variety of approaches to solicit input from patients and healthcare providers. Some virtual approaches through a social media or digital community. So, there’s lots of ways that feedback is being channeled.

And that’s really important. The flip side, to really answer your question, is that our protocol designs are becoming more and more complex, more and more demanding. A much larger proportion of drugs are now targeting rare diseases that have been stricter inclusion and exclusion criteria. And the designs of the studies—the number of procedures and the number of visits. The number of investigators that are involved, all of that has also continued to grow. And as a result, we do see that our trials are taking longer.

We have yet to see a year when we actually witnessed a reduction in the cycle time to conduct a clinical trial. And we just have to figure out new ways of making the participation process less burdensome and more efficient.

Andrew Schorr:

Oh, my. So, T.J., you had been living with stage four melanoma, a life-threatening condition. We have people even on our team who are living with stage four disease. So, when Ken talks about things slowing, that’s not what we want to hear. We want to hear two things. One is, we can accelerate a development of new medicine. And ideally—because this is an issue certainly in the U.S., but I think worldwide, that by speeding the process, cutting through red tape, improving procedures and us participating, the cost can be less as well.

And when we talk about cancer, the costs are going through the roof as you know for people living with chronic cancer. And you know so well, Andy, people who are on some of the medicines that you’ve come out with at Merck. Where people used to die unfortunately in short order, are living a much longer life thanks to new medicines. We want it to happen faster and be financially achievable. Andy, any comment about the pace of science?

Andy Lee:

Yeah, I would like to make a couple of comments about that. We often hear the sort of story that 80 percent of clinical trials don’t recruit on time, et cetera. We do immense feasibility. Once we have designed a protocol, we send it out to all of the countries that could potentially work with us. We have staff in 47 countries. And they look at two areas of interest. One is the medical durability, is the comparator the one we use in our country. Is the protocol designed the way we practice clinical medicine, not clinical research medicine?

And will that enable us to recruit the patients? That’s the first level. The second level we look at is to ask the question, is this operationally feasible? Can we source the comparator? Do the clinical sites have the equipment? How would we have to ship the biological samples around the world? And based on medical durability and the operational durability, we do a site selection. And we run the indicators through a Monte Carlo simulation. And we simulate this trial. What if we took three countries out? What if we added this more sites? What if we changed this inclusion?

And we come up with a model of what the recruitment would look like. And recruit about 80 percent of our trials according to our model. So, about 80 percent of our trials recruit on our model time. And then if we look at the typical time for drug development, it has been from eight to 10 years for many years in the industry. And when we look at some of the development timelines now—the cycle times. Pembrolizumab (Keytruda), for example, from first study until first approval, was 60 percent reduction in time.

We were looking in the four-year time period. And we are looking at five or six years for many indications. And so, we’ve halved that cycle time for some of the newer oncology products. And there are a number of reasons we’ve done that. One is we have found operational efficiencies. Two is the trial design has enabled us to interim analysis with independent data monitoring committees to assist with that. I’d also like to put in a positive plug for the regulators.

I do believe—and I’ll talk specifically about the FDA, because they are the agency for the United States. They have revolutionized the way they approach the designs and the way they review the data. And they have breakthrough designation status they’ll give to compounds that are really looking like they have strong efficacy. And so, the approval process through the agency has improved remarkably. And they’re open to adaptive designs. And they are open to interim analysis. And they are open to all sorts of things.

So, I really wanted to give credit to our agency who has said, “Where there’s a need for breakthrough medications, we’ll try to find the path.” And so, I do believe there’s a real positive side to this. The challenge is the market is saturated. We have now more than 25 PD1s in development. And to put the 25th one in there, they are so far behind in development. I wonder what that does. It clogs up the system. So, when you look at how can we influence sites, at the top sites we only get one or two patients.

And we compete with 50, 60, 70, 80 other sponsors. And so, it becomes so saturated that, that site has to learn to do systems and process with 70 companies. And what they are doing is almost hedging. They are not focusing on certain things. So, in those cancer centers, they offer treatment for all lines of therapy and all types of cancer, the specialized and nonspecialized. And we are moving out of that sort of geography and moving it community-based oncology practices where it’s less saturated, and we can actually have more traction there and be able to engage more with the clinical trial enterprise for the good of the patients.

Andrew Schorr:

Ken, you write books about all kinds of issues around this. So, if we are getting—particularly in oncology to have trials offered at the community practice where those doctors work night and day—the nurses. They are really stretched. More and more cancers, genomic subtypes, most sophisticated testing. How—what would you say the patient can do. T.J. talked about it a little bit. What would you recommend to patients so that at that community oncology practice the patient and the family can kind of discover what may be available for them as Merck and other companies try to get these trials distributed?

Ken Getz:
Right, well you—talk about the whole enchilada, Andrew. You’re really touching on it. It’s also very exciting times for patients, not just cancer patients, but patients that are dealing with any chronic and severe illness today. And it’s really all about more of a partnership with the clinical care environment and clinical research. And of course, at the heart of it is the patients and their family being as informed as possible, sharing their electronic health and medical information so that they can be connected to trials that might be appropriate for them.

But it’s moving—as Andy said, away from the classic places where trials used to be conducted. And in many cases, they were at these dedicated centers that only conducted clinical trials. It’s a very competitive environment now for patients. So, many sponsor companies like Merck and others are looking at clinical care settings and moving into communities or, in some cases, large health systems where you can have clinical research professionals who will supplement and provide support to the healthcare providers, so they’re not stretched too thin.

But so that they have the clinical research capability onsite at the point of care. For patients it’s a great opportunity because now they have the opportunity to get their own healthcare or treating physician and treating nurse involved in a clinical trial as part of their overall care. And we expect to see more of that over time. We expect to see other virtual trials or opportunities for patients to participate in the comfort of their own home tied in with their clinical care setting.

And all of this is relatively new to the whole world of clinical trials and the investigation of experimental medications.

Andrew Schorr:

You touched on something I just want to follow up on. I’ve heard of this term site-less trials where you said you participate in your home. So, T.J. had to go from Ft. Lauderdale to Tampa. I had to go from Seattle to Houston. There are not—this is a big deal, especially if you have little kids as I did, he has. So—and away from work and whatever your situation is. So, is technology going to come in play so Andy can get the data he needs for the FDA, but that we can have technology help accrue that data in a more efficient way.

Ken Getz:

And I’ll say absolutely. And my colleagues here today I’m sure can comment on this as well. But absolutely. We are seeing wearable technologies and mobile applications that now have the ability measure vital signs and other important baseline information in a validated manner. There are ways that you can access a specific facility for a highly specialized test, specialized imaging for example where the technician can evaluate it remotely. Blood can be drawn at remote locations as well.

So, there are lots of places where we have sort of this more flexible environment that can cater more to the patients and less about a specific physical facility where you have to go to participate in a trial.

Andrew Schorr:
T.J., I want to talk to you about diversity. So, you and I are kind of middle-class white guys. But we want to know how new medicines work for a variety of populations, ethnically, economic groups, et cetera. And Andy needs that data. And he goes to the FDA, and the FDA says, “Well, do you have Hispanic people? Do you have Asian people? Do you have African American people?” or whatever the country is because he works globally. And they say, “We want to understand are there differences?”

How are we doing with that. How can we make a difference there so that we really know what medicines make a difference for broader and also distinct populations?

T.J. Sharpe:
I’m sure Ken can back up some of these things with more hard data than I can. I know that different populations have different levels of trust with the medical system. One thing that you and I both experienced was a lack of options—a lack of good options. And when you get into dire straits, you tend to be a little more trustful of anything that comes along. But we have serious or chronic conditions that have proven treatments that might not be the most effective for certain populations.

And we’re not able to broad the scope to these minority populations or populations that don’t have access to NCI designated cancer centers or top-notch medical facilities. They are not able to get either in a trial that is looking for a drug that would help them or even get access to medicines that have been recently approved simply because their healthcare situation doesn’t allow it. Whether that’s a lack of insurance, a lack of healthcare literacy or simply a mistrust of—there’s a lot of generational mistrust I think in some communities of the clinical trial system.

So, as an advocate, I certainly push caretakers especially—and children caregivers for older populations who are maybe first or second-generation Americans to help facilitate a conversation between the medical professional who’s trusted and a patient that might not be able to get or rely on the information they’re given. Because it really will speak to populations that don’t get the opportunities that you and I have gotten simply because they are either not aware, or there is a barrier there to get to that medical professional.

Ken Getz:

I appreciate, T.J., you mentioned CISCRP. That’s one of the things that we’ve focused on for 18 years is bringing clinical research education into major metropolitan areas around the U.S. and parts of northern and western Europe where we plan for several months, and then we put on what we call an Aware for All events. And we really work very hard to encourage participation by—or from patients based within minority or underserved communities.

And I’m happy to say that we’ve had a lot of success with that. These are really difficult communities to reach through a lot of the traditional approaches. We have to rely on community centers and clergy and other approaches to really help these communities, for a lot of the reasons T.J. mentioned, trust the educational information, and come out to learn more. And I’m happy to say we’re seeing more and more people of diverse backgrounds that are curious and interested in learning more about clinical research, especially knowing that representative populations provide more information that can inform treatment for different types of patient sub-populations.

Andrew Schorr:
I want to go to Andy in a second. Andy, just one second. I wanted to mention and call out—and Andy’s company has been a leader in this. He was talking about PD1 and all of that. But drugs that have been breakthrough in immunotherapy for people like T.J. where—and it’s being explored in broader cancers where otherwise life was going to be short. And how to activate the immune system and really fight the cancer in people living long term. So, the people in those trials—and certainly there were people in the melanoma trials like yourself T.J.

Lung cancer trials and increasingly now others who did get tomorrow’s medicine today. Andy talked about accelerated approval which is great. So, that’s the impetus for the patient and the family. Is there the chance to get tomorrow’s medicine today? Now the obstacles may be distrust. You talked about that, Ken. And also, is maybe accessibility. Is it as a clinic near you? And Andy you talked about pushing that out. And then sometimes it’s related to cost.

Now is there anything that sponsors can do, Andy, related to the costs that people may have in being in certain trials? Where do we stand with that?

Andy Lee:

Yeah, so I’ll just touch on the distribution first and then get into the costs because they are linked. When we prosecute global trials—we’ve had a very U.S.-centric discussion so far. But cancers present differently in different geographic regions of the world. And so, when we want speed out of our trials. You want me to shorten that timeline and get drugs to market quickly. I do it internationally and in some cancers like esophageal cancer or some of the gastrointestinal cancers, Asia has a much higher prevalence of these cancers.

And we do a greater proportion of work there. We always include multi-country studies. And U.S. may have a greater proportion in other areas. So, we balance that out to optimize speed. Of course, with clinical trials the cost structure around the globe is very different. But let’s talk about U.S. We have spoken about a saturated core of clinical trial sites that we all go to. And I speak generally now for all sponsors. And we are all looking to optimize and get great efficiency.

At the same time, we realize we have many underrepresented geographies and ethnic groups—and not just ethnic groups, but under resourced populations. And so, what we’ve been thinking about is how can we support people, and support people at all levels. And so, we start off with thinking about the cost structure, and we obviously pay clinical sites for what they do. But we will support all sorts of things. We’ve been negotiating with Uber and Lyft, so we can build that into automated transport for patients.

Again, the IRB has to approve that. We are looking at ways to augment that they are not out-of-pocket for things. And we’ve been talking a lot with a group called Lazarex Foundation who has really expanded into under resourced communities and found ways to ensure that they have daycare and different access for those patients. We have worked extensively now to look at outreach programs into communities that typically wouldn’t be in trials. We are focusing in two areas right now as we speak.

One is next generation of HIV medicines, and the other one is in prostate cancer. And we’ve got a large program rolling out in prostate cancer. So, what we are doing is going into sites and we have put together training videos and training materials. And we are looking at cultural competency. So, it starts at the site. Are they culturally competent to engage a different community? And we’ve spoken about working with the community churches, community education systems.

And so that starts with cultural competency. I have a woman, Madelyn Goday, who works on this day and night in my organization. And she’s very strong at this. It’s early days, but if we can show that it works in one or two therapeutic areas and cancer types, we’d expand it further and further. But we can’t just have a shotgun approach and just go and do 100 sites and hope it works. Hope isn’t a good strategy. We are working systematically to engage different people. And as appropriate and approved by ethics committees, we will support all of these communities and help build infrastructure and capacity.

Those are important things for us. But as I said, where appropriate and where it’s sustainable. We can’t just throw money at something in the hopes something sticks. We have to have something sustainable and it goes to what Ken says, and that’s education and providing resources and materials. And we’ve used quite a lot of Ken’s materials in multiple clinical trials. Thank you for that, Ken. It’s been really helpful for us.

Andrew Schorr:

Great. I wanted to note for your audience. If you have a question, send it to questions@patientpower.info. We have expert panelists here. And this is really—we are all in this together. I think you hear the dedication from Andy at Merck and T.J. as a patient advocate and Ken as a professor and founder of organizations devoted to this. We want obviously accelerate medicines, but have the accurate data of how it affects different people, who is it right for so that the regulators—and thank you for what you said about the FDA here in the U.S., has the information to make a decision on should this medicine be available for people with that diagnosis.

Okay, so what about staying in the trial. So, T.J., how long—let’s take with the Keytruda trial or one of them. How long were you in to for?

T.J. Sharpe:

Nearly four years. Three-and-a-half years.

Andrew Schorr:

Were there ever times when you said, “I’m done. I want to bail out.” You know.

T.J. Sharpe:

I’ll be very careful how I answer this question for Andy’s sake.

Andy Lee:

It’s okay, T.J., we’re friends.

T.J. Sharpe:

No, probably the biggest crossroads I ever came to was when one of my tumors started growing about a year into it. And we weren’t sure if the medicine stopped working or not. We didn’t know what to do. And as it turned out, it was still working. And I think was just one spot that wasn’t responding. But everything else had responded great. However, at the point, as a patient, you’re thinking about yourself first and your family first and the trial second. It’s easy to stay compliant on a trial when things are going well.

But when you’re ahead of the medicine in some ways, and I think patients with chronic illnesses or in some cases rare diseases, are almost more knowledgeable than some of their doctors or the trial protocols about when they’re stopping. They don’t have the luxury of finishing out a protocol and seeing where their disease journey takes them. And the best example I can give of this is a very passionate advocate by the name of Jack Wheelen who we unfortunately lost a couple of years ago, but whose influence has kind of dominated the patient advocacy world for the last decade or so.

And Jack was able to monitor his health almost better than a doctor. And he knew when his trials weren’t working. When we get to that point in a clinical trial setting where we know the medicine is not being effective or where a patient would be better served to move on to another treatment. That’s when we are going to take the next step in clinical research, because now we’re aligning the trial design and the trial goals with a patient and a patient’s family’s treatment goals. And as those two points merge, that’s where clinical research becomes that much more effective as a care option.

Andrew Schorr:

That was well said. And I think with all those trials, you’re right, the team—that care team, what’s right for you at that time. Obviously to get the data, but also not at all costs. In other words, if the data is showing something is no longer effective for you, is there another treatment or a trial? I’ll just share my story for a second. So, I was in a phase two trial of combination therapies—which are increasingly common certainly in oncology. And after three months—halfway in the trial, my blood was kind of cleaned up.

And I had nausea and some other side effects. And I said to the trial coordinator, “You know, I think I’d like to stop.” And she said, “You know, our belief is that you still have microscopic illness in your bone marrow—in this case with the blood cancer, and the additional three months in this protocol will make a long-term difference for you. That’s what we believe.” They didn’t have the answer, but that’s what they believed. You know what? I stuck it out. She was right. I had 17-year remission.

If I’d stopped after three months, would I have? So, it’s a dialogue with the care team Andy, right? It’s this ongoing discussion not just entering the trial, but remaining in the trial, correct?

Andy Lee:

Yes. Absolutely. And I just wanted to impress a really important thing. People talk about people dropping out of trials. In cancer trials we see extremely low drop out. I mean these are potentially lifesaving medicines for all of the companies. But what we do want to make sure about is that when there is progression of disease, and it’s shown that the drug—whichever it is, the control arm or the active arm or the new agent, where there is progression of disease that they get the best available therapy.

And so that often contaminates trials because we have the crossover effect that now they are getting maybe the experimental agent in the standard of care type of thing. But most important thing for us is to track the survival of the patient, regardless of whether they go on another therapy. And we have put a tremendous amount of effort into looking at the informed consent and making sure we work with IRB to track patients long term survival.

Because as you’ve said, you may have a short-term issue that shows that the drug may not be working short term, but long term it may have prolonged and profound effects. Positive or negative, we don’t know that. And so, what we like to do is get long term survival. And we ask patients to consider when they sign the consent for whatever trial and whichever sponsor is sponsoring this, is to consider that knowing their status throughout their treatment—whether it’s on a sponsor’s drug or another sponsor’s drug or x therapy. It is really important — and I ask people to think about that.

Because that really helps us get as much data out of the individual treatment as possible. And that may prevent nonrequired trials in the future or it may say, “Wow, that really informed.” And we’d like to inform all cancer patients. If data we generate can inform other therapies, we certainly want to do that. We do not want to do wasteful clinical trials. So, tracking patients long term or patients—the message to patients is being cognizant of letting the sponsor—and the sponsor could be an institution. Letting them know your status is really important. All they want to know is are you dead or alive.

Andrew Schorr:

In the end, just one thing is, are we partners. In the end, our viewers here, are we your partner? And can we feel that not just for their doctor but you guys behind the scenes with the labs and everything, that in the end we are partners. And unless we see it that way, we won’t get anywhere.

Andy Lee:

Absolutely. I’m glad you used the term partners. Because when we’ve done a prep for this people have said, “Are they investors in the thing?” So, yes, patients invest their time and everything, but they are partners in research. They are contributing so much. They are contributing—they are going into the absolute unknown. And there is an immense trust level that is there. And we owe that back as research professionals is to treat people with respect, dignity and as partners, to make information available, to publish our data to get it out there as quickly as possible. And to make sure we get that back into the participant’s sort of hands.

Andrew Schorr:

So, Ken, how are we doing on that because you go back over the years and people say, “I don’t want to be in a trial because I’ll be a guinea pig,” and respect was not seen as part of it.

Ken Getz:
Well, that’s also a bit of a myth, right? You had a few that claimed that they felt the process made them feel like a guinea pig. The vast majority of people, over 90% of people who participate in a trial, would do it again. So, once they get past that unfamiliar area where they’ve perhaps only heard a few case examples or a few very vocal people who had bad experiences. Once they’ve done it themselves or they’ve been able to work with a group of advocates that really help them think about this process, and they become more educated, generally they’re very impressed with the level of professionalism, the compassion that exists at all levels.

I work with so many professionals—science professionals and pharmaceutical companies and at the research centers, and they all share that kind of commitment that Andy just mentioned. There’s a real desire to partner with the patient to really inform them. I would say one place where we need to see much, much more however is in the return of clinical trial results in a plain language to people who’ve been in trials. That’s a place where as an enterprise—government, research sponsors as well as industry have not really made this a standard practice at this point. And that’s one thing that we’re really working on actively.

Andrew Schorr:

Right. Great. So, T.J., you and I are investors—and Ken used that term and Andy used it, and I’ve always believed it. We are investors of our tissue, our body, our future to help other people and hopefully help ourselves. And certainly, for profit companies that may greatly benefit if they have a blockbuster therapy. But we need to be kept informed in the long term, right T.J.? We want to know what a difference our participation made.

T.J. Sharpe:

Certainly. And I think to echo what both Andy and Ken said is that patients do become partners. Patients who are involved in clinical research, a significant chunk become altruistically invested. I’ve heard more than once, “Even if this doesn’t help me, I’m glad I participated because it might help somebody else.” I know I’ve felt like that, and I’d venture that you’ve had some of that too, Andrew on your journey. So, it’s only—it’s at the very minimal fair, and it’s certainly very justified to expect as a co-participant in this.

And as kind of a co-creator of science with sites and sponsors that we understand what has come of our sacrifice and our time dedication to helping science out. We shouldn’t have to find it out through press releases from ASCO or hope that we hear about it on the nightly news. We deserve to hear what has happened. Not just because it can affect us as people and as patients, but that we put a lot into this too. And then we did our part to further medical research and we want to be part of the—whatever the end of the trial ends up being. We want to be aware of that. Not just for personal knowledge, but to know that it’s going to help this many other people.

Andrew Schorr:

Right, to be honored. So, Andy, at Merck you’ve established some internet platforms in particular related to keeping people informed, right?

Andy Lee:

Well, we’ve got an internet platform that people can log onto. I’m happy to share that with you; in which they can get access to a list of our trials. So, I didn’t prepare this but especially, but I did make a handmade note. And if anyone wants, it’s a very simple log on. Andrew Schorr:
You’re a great artist.

Andy Lee:

And it’s a simple one. What that will get you access to is two main important things. One is it gives access to information about clinical trials. We have a tab on there that tells everyone about the phases of clinical trials and what to expect in a trial. So, it’s an educational part. Then we have a lot of information about the Keytruda clinical trials were, are running, and they’re called keynote trials. And there you can look at the different indications. And you can look up and it has a telephone number you can call.

Now I must stress is that we run over 1,000 clinical trials in oncology. But many of them are not sponsored by us, they are investigator sponsored trials. So, you can go to clinics, and they run their own clinical trials that are not sponsor-related. And the NCI runs their clinical trials. So, there are a lot of different sources. And many companies will have clinical trials. We also have the website clinicaltrials.gov. I’ve had to use that in the last two days for a colleague.

And you can navigate that and look for different types of trials. And you can look at different products and everything. It’s not perfect. But at least it’s a place to go to. And I don’t want to sound as if I’m one sponsor centric. Many other companies have access to websites, and they really want to try and enhance and direct people to the clinical trials sites at which they are working.

Andrew Schorr:

Right, absolutely. And then you were working at the industry level with a group called TransCelerate, and I know T.J. is involved too, to try and establish common procedures as you establish trial sites, as you have communication, as you have training, right? So, that hopefully all boats will rise, right?

Andy Lee:

That’s correct. TransCelerate is a group that formed about eight or nine years ago. There were 10 initial member companies. I was a founder member of that. And we got together to say, “We have to improve operational efficiency.” So, we do not collaborate on molecular structures and those types—that’s competitive. We collaborate on what we call precompetitive, procompetitive aspects which says, “If we all work together to improve something, we’ll all get the benefit of this.” And we share it publicly.

There’s a website, you can look at it. But we’ve looked at standardizing protocols. We have a common protocol template. We’ve adopted that at our companies, so have other sponsors. The protocol can be developed in a standardized way. We’ve looked at standardizing ways where we can improve monitoring. We’re looking now at ways that we can work with investigative sites through i-platforms, shared investigative platforms. So, a clinical trial site has to provide the information for us as a sponsor and use the exact same standardized questionnaire and information for any other sponsor through a standard portal.

So, we are trying to reduce the burden on clinical trial sites. And we’ve plugged away for many years, and we are seeing greater traction there. We are seeing more efficiency, more standardization. We are seeing greater quality, less rework. And so, while it’s hard to quantify this, what we believe is that the sites are freed up of some of the more burdensome things, and they can direct their attention towards patients, patient safety, and access to clinical trials. So, the work may not be directly related to access for a cancer patient into a cancer trial, but there’s a lot of tangential spin-off of making a site more efficient so they can put their resources and energy in the right place.

Andrew Schorr:

Well, thank you for that effort and your leadership. So, Ken, you’ve been around this a long time. And you’ve deal with all the companies and the government and the various agencies. And as you know, in some quarters there’s a distrust for pharma. We mentioned cancer that you get the price tag of a drug, and it’s very expensive. And some people are struggling to pay for it. And there’s just frustration about it. And often in the news media they are the bad guys who are called out for unethical procedure or something that went awry.

So, how are we doing there in overcoming that because we talk to Andy, he seems very ethical, dedicated guy representing a company that’s been around I think well over 100 years. So, how are we doing to move clinical trials on in this area when people aren’t sure what to make of pharma.

Ken Getz:

Yeah. It’s a huge issue, Andrew. And I think part of the challenge is that all it takes is one questionable behavior, and it makes it difficult for the reputation of the entire industry. Right now, we are dealing with major pharma companies that are actually being fined for having contributed—a judgement, having contributed to the opioid crisis. And when you start looking at some companies aggressive marketing tactics, right? It really sort of sheds a darker light on a lot of the great work that companies do.

What we look at, at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development at the School of Medicine. We look at the overall output, the level of innovation that’s coming from the industry today. And we look at the number of complaints that have been filed with the FDA and other regulatory agencies around the world. And what we see is tremendous growth in the innovation and the quality of the innovation—drugs like Keytruda and other cancer immunotherapies. What an exciting area.

We see that the vast majority of companies really support and live by highly ethical, highly professional, highly compassionate approaches because they all know that it takes just one questionable issue that can really tarnish the reputation of every company operating in the industry. So—again, Andy also mentioned just how regulated we are as an industry, the fact that we have ethical review committees and data safety monitoring boards and so many other external agencies that help to oversee the work that’s done here.

So, I would say for patients who are thinking about clinical trials, it’s good to know the history. It’s good to know what you need to do to protect yourself. But the vast majority find that the people they deal with are ethical, they are professional, they are compassionate. And, as I mentioned, over 90% of people who get involved in trials say that they would do it again.

Andrew Schorr:

Thank you. That was a wonderful response. Andy, you mentioned earlier about starting research with the sickest people basically, where there are no options. But one of the questions that came in is, “Are trials only for the sickest people or are there of all those trials you talked about opportunities for people who maybe are newly diagnosed or could be their fairly initial therapy?

Andy Lee:

Yeah, great question. And thank you to the person who asked that. And the answer is that we start in people—because we don’t know if our experimental agent will work. And everyone assumes that new medicines are all going to succeed. And we work in research and researcher because of that many things fail very early on. They fail in phase one before anyone hears of it. It’s normally a code number at that point. And we may just not make the drug soluble enough, or it may not be distributed enough.

So, we may have a thing that works in a test tube or a petri dish. But to get that into humans and make sure that it’s safe at the dosage we use often fails. We just don’t progress far enough. So, what we want to make sure of is that firstly the drugs are safe. And there’s a trade-off between safety and efficacy. We’re constantly trading off. And so, what we do is we look at that and say when someone has no option and we want to get an option going, that’s where we start.

We’ve actually moved down the disease scale, and we’ve come into adjuvant treatment or secondary prevention. And we’ve gone into newer adjuvant is when you have a small tumor is we pre-treat to manage that tumor before surgery is done. And post-surgery we hope that there’s limited treatment or no treatment. And we actually have removed the cancer, and there would be no evidence of disease. But. of course, using the word cured is something we try not to do, because we prefer to use no evidence of disease.

But absolutely. And the next strategy is prevention of cancer. Our company does a lot of vaccinations in women’s health. We have a product that protects against human papilloma virus which is a precursor for cervical cancer. So, people who are vaccinated with this particular product—and I’m deliberately not using brand names for obvious reasons. But when you vaccinate for HPV, you essentially are preventing the likelihood of a cervical cancer. And there are now prospects in many disease areas where either vaccination or early treatment gives you a tremendous positive prognosis of not getting the disease later on in life.

The answer to your question is yes, we are absolutely looking at ways to prevent getting to a very advanced stage which is very costly to manage and very emotional and stressful and difficult.

Andrew Schorr:

I want to thank you. I just want to get a final comment on what you would say to patients or family member. And I want to start with you, Ken. What do you want patients right now to know so that—what tips would you give them so that they’d consider being part of clinical research or stay in clinical research and the benefit it could be for them.

Ken Getz:

I will say really two things. The first is there’s just a tremendous amount of information out there, and we recommend education before participation. So, do your homework and engage family and friends and people you meet and trust to help you make the decision. And the second point comes off of that. And that is this is not a decision you make alone. Really bring in your treating physician, your nurse. Bring in your support network. And chances are you will learn a lot, and you might even find a trial that is right for you.

Andrew Schorr:

Right. And Andy, what about you? A final point—what would you say to a friend or family member or colleague related to considering trials today.

Andy Lee:

We get this question every single day. And we get it from patients in need. And my answer is we are all patients. We are all going to face this as professionals in our job or professionals outside. And so, I say community of practice. And disease hits all of levels of society in all education professions, et cetera. And so, my thing is to encourage people to do what Ken has said. Work as a team. Get multiple inputs.

And I am sponsor agnostic. Get the best therapy that is available. And that may be the best care option—as I said, the ecosystem in which you get the care is really important as well as the medicines that you get. So, have the discussion. Trust the medical professionals, they are very skilled out there. They are extremely well educated. And I just urge people, “Don’t think on two clicks on Google you are going to solve what your treatment option is.” Really discuss it with people because not all the options are public, and there is not enough information available about how to manage the whole disease through the entire enterprise. Trust the professionals.

Andrew Schorr:

Well said. And T.J., you and I are alive today because of trials. What do you want—what’s the thing you want to leave our viewers with?

T.J. Sharpe:

That they don’t have to be involved in clinical research. I think that’s an important distinction to make. And it’s going to pull together what Andy and Ken said that clinical research should not be considered a hail mary or last gasp option. If you are a patient—and we are all going to be patients as Andy mentioned. You want the best care for you. You want to be able to weigh all of your options. And if you are not considering clinical research, if you don’t know about it or aren’t able to get the information you need about it, then you are not going to be able to make the best healthcare decision long term for your health.

So, take that information that you can get. Find the trusted sources. Be able to reach out to advocates or colleagues or someone that you know that would have the disease or can connect you with good information. And be your own advocate—a little cliché, but really own that healthcare information. And once you are able to collect all of the different treatment options, then you consult with your professional medical team as to what the plan forward—the best plan forward for your individual situation would be.

Andrew Schorr:

Right. T.J., my friend, thank you. It’s a delight to see you again. Andy, with Merck, thank you so much for being with us and bringing your years of expertise. And, Ken, being at an independent non-profit center and also at Tufts University there, thank you for all the work you do. I want to thank the Patient Empowerment Network for pulling this all together. And the sponsors who supported us in this effort, AbbVie Inc., Celgene Corporation. Daiichi Sankyo and Novartis.

All these companies and I’m sure many more, working so that research can move forward. We can be true partners in it. And hopefully get tomorrow’s medicine today to make a difference for the community and live a long life, and hopefully a cure, right? I’m Andrew Schorr in California. Remember, knowledge can be the best medicine of all.


Please remember the opinions expressed on Patient Empowerment Network (PEN) are not necessarily the views of our sponsors, contributors, partners or PEN. Our discussions are not a substitute for seeking medical advice or care from your own doctor. That’s how you’ll get care that’s most appropriate for you.

Clinical Trial Toolkit

ASH 2018 – Latest News and Research in Multiple Myeloma

ASH 2018 – Latest News and Research in Multiple Myeloma from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Dr. Amrita Krishnan, Director of the Judy and Bernard Briskin Center for Multiple Myeloma Research, City of Hope, shares the latest news and research that was shared at the ASH 2018 conference in the field of Multiple Myeloma.


Transcript:

Esther Schorr:

Hello to everybody.  This is Esther Schorr with Patient Power, and I’m here today at the 2018 ASH conference, the American Society of Hematology.  And I’m surrounded by, oh, 20-, 25,000 amazing researchers and clinicians who are studying hematological malignancies.  And I have about me today Dr. Amrita Krishnan.  Is that correct?

Dr. Krishnan:
That’s correct.

Esther Schorr:
And she is the Director of the Multiple Myeloma Program at the City of Hope in Los Angeles.  Thank you for being here.  So what I wanted to talk to you about today is what’s going on for myeloma patients.  What are the headlines from ASH this year?

Dr. Krishnan:
Good morning, Esther.  Thank you for the opportunity to talk.  I don’t even know where to begin.  There’s—every myeloma session has been packed, standing room only, which tells you obviously, number one, the advances we’re making and the enthusiasm regarding them.

I’d say the three biggest news really is obviously CAR-T cells in relapsed disease, and we started out just hearing about one CAR-T construct, the BB121.  Now we obviously are hearing many other companies presenting their results and other CAR-T constructs, which I think is very good for us because we can understand better both the technology as well as side effects and efficacy and understanding among different T-cell constructs.

The other big thing, I would say, antibody drug conjugates by specific antibodies.  And then the last but not least let’s not forget in terms of stem cell transplantation there was a big session this morning looking at new drugs in the maintenance setting, so specifically oral proteasome inhibitors.

Esther Schorr:
Oh, boy.  Okay.  So now I’m going to drill down a little bit from a lay person’s standpoint about what you just said.

Dr. Krishnan:
Okay.

Esther Schorr:
It’s a lot of alphabet soup.  So I know that you’ve been doing some work with the drug daratumumab (Darzalex).  It’s a mouthful, and I know that that’s a monoclonal antibody.  And can you talk a little bit about what the relevance is about that?  Because I think our audience has probably heard of it but doesn’t know what’s happening in that area.

Dr. Krishnan:
Sure, happy to.  So daratumumab targets CD38, which is a protein on the myeloma cell.  So it’s very specific in terms of attacking the myeloma cell.  Now, that protein is expressed in other things like red blood cells, but really it’s very highly expressed on plasma cells, sort of the myeloma cell per se.  So daratumumab was already approved for relapsed myeloma, both multiply relapsed as well as patients who have a first relapse in myeloma in combination with some of the other drugs we think about such as bortezomib (Velcade) or lenalidomide (Revlimid).

This meeting this year, though, the big excitement is in regards to using daratumumab in newly diagnosed myeloma.  So we already know it’s a very effective drug in the relapsed setting.  We’re familiar with the toxicity profile, and overall it’s quite well tolerated, and so now the question becomes if it’s such a good drug should we move it earlier in the course of therapy to get the maximum benefit.

Esther Schorr:
So it could be a first-line therapy.

Dr. Krishnan:
Exactly.  So it’s already approved in the first-line setting in combination with Velcade, melphalan (Alkeran) and prednisone (Deltasone), so VMP, but that’s not a regimen we use in the United States.  So there’s going to be an abstract presented Tuesday, so I can’t even tell you yet because it’s a late breaker, but we only know a little hint of it which is using daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Decadron) in newly diagnosed patients.  It’s called the MAIA study, and that’s the one that we’re all waiting to hear to see is that going to establish a new standard of care in the newly diagnosed front-line setting.

Esther Schorr:
So that helps me to understand that, thank you.  So then are there other studies that you’re involved in that would be interesting for patients to know about?

Dr. Krishnan:
So there’s another study that actually was presented yesterday.  It’s called the GRIFFIN study.  That uses daratumumab in combination with sort of I would say a quote/unquote standard regimen in the United States, RVD or lenalidomide, Velcade and dexamethasone.  And what it asks again the same question.  If you add to our standard backbone another potent agent, does it even further improve the responses?  So what they presented on Saturday was very early data on 16 patients, so we need to wait more, but it just shows you the excitement around that.  And that data they presented really was around the safety and suggesting that it’s a well-tolerated combination with a very high response rate, 100 percent response rate.

Esther Schorr:
Well, that would be my question then just as a care partner myself is when you’re talking about doing those kinds of combinations of two, three, four drugs are you all looking at the combined toxicity of those things and the side effects?

Dr. Krishnan:
Oh, yes, absolutely.  So the MAIA study, for example, very specifically looked at the three drugs of daratumumab plus len-dex comparing it to the two drugs, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, so–and the same thing with the GRIFFIN study.  That also was randomized so half the people got daratumumab in combination, the other half just got the standard RVD.

And there was, to be fair, a lightly higher increase in side effects when you added the daratumumab, a bit more infections and a bit more blood toxicity, so lower white counts.  So it is something to sort of, you know, take as a note of caution too, when you add more drugs that you do certainly expect that you are going to get more toxicity.  And obviously it becomes does the benefit outweigh the potential risk.

Esther Schorr:
As usual.  So I guess the other question I have is where does stem cell transplantation fit in all of this, or does it?

Dr. Krishnan:
So obviously I have a somewhat biased opinion.  I come from City of Hope, which is the largest transplant center in California, and two things I could say in terms of myeloma.  So we do over 8,000 transplants a year in the United States for myeloma, so it suggests that it’s a standards of care backbone of therapy.

As a transplanter I would say transplant still has the longest track record in terms of remission length and even if you compare it to standard RVD chemotherapy you get a longer remission when you throw transplant into that mix.  And I think what will be of interest to us is further improving upon that by either different maintenance strategies or induction strategies, so new treatment before the transplant as well to further improve the outcomes of the transplant.

And then the other thing I should mention, this is not a study that is open yet but it’s a study that we actually had some meetings about through the BMTCTCN, so a cooperative group of transplant networks, trying to ask the question.  So this is a group—you know, I used to chair the myeloma committee, and I’m still on the committee—we try and look ahead.  Right?  So we say, what can we do as a strength of network of transplant centers that patients really need?  What is the question they want to ask?  And one of the unmet needs is high risk-myeloma.  So whatever we do right now, and there’s been data presented at this meeting too, we need to do better.

For those patients who have advanced stage of myeloma, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, the therapy we have right now is still not optimal.  And one of the things that we’re going to do that we’re very excited about is we’re going to open a study that we’re literally going to go home and start writing in January, using CAR-T cells after an autologous transplant for patients with high-risk myeloma.

Esther Schorr:
So that gives—that’s hope for patients that have not had any real viable treatments till now or durable ones.

Dr. Krishnan:
I think that durable is what we would say.  So we’re all very excited about that.  It’s going to harness our strengths as transplanters, our strengths in cellular therapy and CAR-T and moving it up front.

Esther Schorr:
Good.  Well, thank you, Dr. Krishnan for all the work that you and your associates are doing.  I know that it’s, especially for myeloma patients and their families, it’s so important.  So thank you.

This is Esther Schorr from San Diego at the ASH conference.  Remember, knowledge can be the best medicine of all.

Clinical Trial Mythbusters: How Does Medicare or Medicaid Impact My Ability to Participate in a Clinical Trial?

 

Clinical Trial Mythbusters: How Does Medicare or Medicaid Impact My Ability to Participate in a Clinical Trial? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Downloadable Guide

Cancer patients are living longer as a result of clinical trials that test new treatments, therapies, procedures, or new ways of using known treatments.

Watch along as a panel of experts from the Diverse Cancer Communities Working Group (CWG) Sustainable Healthy Communities, LLC, Baptist Memorial Hospital–Memphis, and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) explore the questions:

  • What do patients and their support networks need to know about clinical trials as an option for cancer treatment if they are insured through Medicare or Medicaid?
  • What requirements differ from region to region and what is covered or not covered?

Transcript:

Laura Levaas:             

Hello, and welcome to this Patient Empowerment Network Clinical Trial MythBusters program on a very, very important topic, what impact does Medicaid or Medicare have on a patient’s ability to participate in a clinical trial. My name is Laura Levaas, and I’m the lung cancer community manager for Patient Power. I’m also a Stage 4 lung cancer survivor. I’m two years out from diagnosis, and I’m also on Medicaid. So, this is a topic that’s really important to me on a personal level.

This program is produced by Patient Power.  We want to thank the following companies who provided financial support to make this possible. While they don’t have editorial control, we appreciate the support of AbbVie Inc., Celgene Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo, and Novartis for their support.

Today we are joined by some really amazing guests, the first being Mark Fleury from the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network out of Washington DC, followed by Jeanne Regnante, also out of Washington DC, and Jeanne is with the Diverse Cancer Communities Working Group, Sustainable Healthy Communities, and last but not least, nurse navigator Laura McHugh from the Baptist Cancer Center in Memphis, Tennessee. Welcome to all of our guests today. Thank you for joining us.

So, Mark Fleury, Mark is interesting because he has an understanding, a very deep understanding, about this issue from a regulatory and research perspective. He’s going to share with us what he’s learned about barriers in clinical trial participation and solutions to overcome some of those options.

Jeanne is going to share her viewpoint as part of the Diverse Cancer Communities Working Group. She helps share information about access to care treatment and inclusion in clinical trials for underserved populations.

And Laura McHugh who is joining us by phone (she is a friend of a friend of mine, and she’s really amazing) is a nurse navigator who has worked in the cancer space for 24 years. And she helps guide people in underserved communities every day as part of her working life. She works with Medicare and Medicaid patients on the daily. So, we’re looking forward to hearing from her.

So, back to our program, patients are living longer as a result of clinical trials that test new treatments, therapies, and procedures, or new ways of using known treatments for new ways. The myth here behind Clinical Trial MythBusters today is that being in a clinical trial isn’t covered by medical insurance particularly for Medicaid or Medicare patients. I know for me personally I’m interested in being in a clinical trial and I’m on Medicaid but I don’t even know what that means. So, I definitely need some guidance.

So, as we’re talking about this today, if you have any questions about if you’re a patient yourself or you’re a support person for a patient that has cancer or any kind of disease wanting to know about clinical trials on Medicare or Medicaid, we’re here to help you. Send your questions to questions@patientpower.info. So, viewers who are joining us today thank you again. If you’re on Medicare or Medicaid, what do you even do if you’re presented with the option to participate in a clinical trial to treat your condition? Let’s talk with Mark Fleury. Hi Mark.

Mark Fleury:              

Hello Laura. Thanks for having me on.

Laura Levaas:             

Yeah. We’re so, so grateful to have you on our program today because you have such a deep knowledge in this industry and on this topic. Can you tell us real briefly what exactly you do for the Cancer Action Network? And then I’d like to talk to you about barriers around Medicare and Medicaid.

Mark Fleury:              

Sure. So, I work for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. We’re the policy and advocacy arm of the American Cancer Society, and we focus on public policy, so that’s regulation, laws that impact cancer patients. And specifically, my work deals with policies around research and drug and device development, so how can we get those findings that happen in the laboratory into the clinic. And specifically, that goes through clinical trials. So, I’ve spent the last couple of years with a large partnership of other stakeholders taking a really deep dive into looking at clinical trials and all of the challenges patients have in getting themselves enrolled as a part of those trials.

Laura Levaas:             

Good. We look forward to hearing more. Can you tell us a little bit about the current state of clinical trial participation in the US right now?

Mark Fleury:              

Sure. So, there’s not real solid numbers, but we believe somewhere between 6 to 7 percent of US cancer patients participate in a clinical trial right now. So, that’s a fairly low lumber overall, and it’s also a fairly low proportion of the patients who would be interested. Research has found that between 50 and 70 percent of patients would say yes to participating in a clinical trial if they were asked. But unfortunately, many are not asked. And some of those who are asked are unable to enroll for a variety of external reasons. One of the things that we do know is that the people who do enroll in clinical trials tend to be less diverse and better off financially than the overall population with cancer.

Laura Levaas:             

Okay. What are some of the barriers around Medicare and Medicaid patients who want to get involved in a clinical trial?

Mark Fleury:              

Sure. So, obviously, first of all, there has to be a clinical trial for the patient based on your clinical characteristics. But assuming that that is the case, for a patient to enroll in a clinical trial, it’s critical that their insurance cover the routine care costs of that clinical trial. In other words, there are costs in a clinical trial that a patient would see regardless if they were in a clinical trial not. Say, for example, the first step of any treatment is a surgery and then the second step in normal care would be one drug but in a clinical trial it’s a different drug.

Well, regardless, you’re always gonna get the surgery. It’s important that insurance cover that routine part of the clinical trial. And unfortunately, historically, that’s not always been the case. Fortunately, in Medicare, they have covered that since 2000. That is not the case universally for Medicaid. And we can talk a little bit more about that later if you’d like.

Laura Levaas:             

Okay. Perfect. I would definitely like to follow up on that topic seeing as I’m a Medicaid person myself. Can you touch briefly on what actually is different between the two programs in terms of clinical trial, the actual coverage? You mentioned routine care; is that for both programs?

Mark Fleury:              

Well, so what’s important to note is that Medicare is a federally administered program. And so, there is one universal federal policy, and if you’re in Medicare, it doesn’t matter if you’re in Florida or if you’re in Idaho, the policies are identical. Medicaid is an insurance program that while partially funded by federal dollars, it’s administered by each state. And as such, each state has quite different policies. So, if you’ve see one Medicare policy, it’s uniform. If you’ve seen one Medicaid policy, it’s only relevant in the state in which you happen to be. So, it could vary significantly from state to state.

Laura Levaas:             

Right. And so, depending on your state, you would need to follow up with your local maybe human services office to get specific questions answered.

Mark Fleury:              

That’s correct. Yeah. There are some resources (and I think we can provide those at the end of the webinar) where generally speaking some states have passed laws or signed agreements in which their Medicaid programs have to cover those routine care costs in Medicaid. And we can certainly make available those states. But even within those states, it’s important to look closely at the policies. For example, in Medicare, Medicare also covers any adverse events. So say, for example, while you’re being treated, you had to be admitted to an ICU for heaven forbid a heart attack or something like that. Medicare pays for all of those unexpected expenses. And that coverage may vary state by state in Medicaid.

Laura Levaas:

Okay. Thank you, Mark. We’re looking forward to those resources. And for those of you watching, we will definitely be providing a downloadable guide with all sorts of resources to help you. Thanks Mark.

Mark Fleury:              

You’re welcome.

Laura Levaas:             

Hi Jeanne.

Jeanne Regnante:        

Hey Laura.

Laura Levaas:             

Okay. I can’t wait to talk to you about this. I have so many questions. I feel like we could talk for an hour. So, aside from the myth, I came into this thinking, “I’m on Medicaid; I probably can’t get into a clinical trial when and if I get to that point.” And then also, “If I am, it’s probably cost prohibitive because I’m on a fixed income.” So, is participating in a clinical trial expensive or cost prohibitive if you’re on Medicare or Medicaid like I thought? I mean, I know Mark touched on some of the issues, but what would you say? How would you answer that?

Jeanne Regnante:        

For low-income patients, the cost of routine care and logistic support needed during a clinical trial is certainly a barrier to participation. And Mark pointed out some of these costs. But specifically in patients in rural communities, remote communities, aging population, children, patients with cognitive disabilities or physical disabilities. These are the same patients who have low access to care in general.

And covering the cost for routine care in a clinical trial and also the logistic support is a clear barrier to participation. So, there are clear barriers there, travel, housing, parking, paying for food, on having access to clinical trials not only for routine care costs like Mark alluded to but also logistical support being included in the clinical trials. So, all of those things are barriers.

Laura Levaas:             

And would you say that seniors are also part of this underserved population?

Jeanne Regnante:        

Absolutely, especially seniors that live alone, that are in remote rural areas in the United States. And remember, that’s 20 percent of the population, aging population, in those areas. So, clearly, we need to do better to engage those patients in care and also clinical trials.

Laura Levaas:             

So, is it possible for us to draw any conclusions about how many people are on Medicare or Medicaid right now in the US? I did a little bit of internet sleuthing mainly through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, and it seems like there – the numbers that I came up with were pretty high, and it’s almost like 40 percent of the population is on Medicare or Medicaid. And so, has it –

Jeanne Regnante:        

That’s absolutely true. Look at by the numbers, there is 329 million people living in the United States, and that’s according to the last census, which is a hot topic these days. There is 60 million people on Medicare, beneficiaries, and about 66 million people Medicaid. So, together, that represents about 40 percent of the population. And we have to remember kids. So, there are 7 million patients on CHIP, which is part of the Medicaid program. So, if you include percentage of people on Medicaid plus kids on CHIP, that’s 22 percent of the population.

Laura Levaas:             

So, then circling it back around to clinical trial participation, how can we connect the dots here?

Jeanne Regnante:        

So, I think one of the main issues is clinical trial sponsors and the clinical trial operations folks in the sites working together to do a better job of reaching out to patients, ensuring that everybody is asked to participate, and not just selecting the ones who people think can participate but asking everybody to participate and understanding the eligibility of all patients and working together to help to cover their costs to keep them in chart.

Laura Levaas:             

Got it. Mark, I’m gonna pull you back into the conversation here for a minute. Can you touch briefly on what’s happening in the news right now around Medicare and Medicaid that could potentially impact clinical trials? Or maybe, Jeanne, you can speak better to that.

Jeanne Regnante:        

I’ll let Mark take that one.

Mark Fleury:

Certainly, so, Medicaid traditionally has been a program that has served primarily children in many states, children and pregnant women. Starting close to 10 years ago with the passing of the Affordable Care Act, states had the ability to expand Medicaid eligibility beyond those kids and pregnant women. And now we see many states who have expanded the roles of Medicaid recipients to healthy adults who just happen to be lower income.

And so, what that really has changed is the number of people obtaining their insurance through Medicaid. Obviously, there has been a lot of – it’s a state-by-state decision whether or not Medicaid is expanded. The Affordable Care Act as a whole is hanging in the balance in a court case, and there’s obviously been a lot of discussion about whether it should continue or not. So, certainly, the number of people who are supported through Medicaid is a dynamic number, and that certainly is subject to changing policies that are still under active discussion.

I will say that Medicare, again, the coverage for routine care costs in clinical trials for Medicare, long-standing policy since 2000 that has been relatively stable. And I would expect that to continue unchanged.

Laura Levaas:             

Thank you, Mark. And Jeanne, I’m gonna come back to you in a minute. For viewers that are watching, thank you for hanging in there with us. If you have any questions that you would like us to address in the program, we’ll get to that at the very end after we’ve talked with all of our esteemed panelists. Send your questions to questions@patientpower.info. So, now I would like to talk with Laura McHugh. Are you with us, Laura?

Laura McHugh:          

I am. Thank you so much for having me.

Laura Levaas:             

Hi. I am so excited to have you. I met Laura McHugh because she is a nurse navigator for a friend of mine who is ALK positive, which is the type of lung cancer that I have. And she works very closely with my friend and speaks so highly of Laura. So, I’m excited to have her on the program today. I wonder, Laura, if you could tell us why you think that clinical trials are important.

I wanted to share why they’re important to me personally. The medication that I’m on right now of course went through a clinical trial process, and it wasn’t even around before the year 2011. I was Stage 4 when I got discovered, which happens often with non-small cell lung cancer because many folks are asymptomatic. So, for me, what that means is if I didn’t have people going through the clinical trial process ahead of me, I probably wouldn’t be here today. So, on that level, is there anything that you can say why you think that clinical trials are important especially for people on Medicare or Medicaid?

Laura McHugh:          

Absolutely. I believe that the clinical trials pave the way. All of the genetic testing that’s done now, all of the testing that’s been done all the way down to a molecular level. So, with these clinical trials and all of the things that have been tested, it’s opened up doors beyond what we ever thought we would have for lung cancer. There are so many opportunities and lines of therapy that you never had before.

And across the board, I think clinical trials and participation in clinical trials, all of the people that have done that, just opened the doors for all of the people in the future. We had a lady who was in her 90s, and she met all of the requirements, participated in a clinical trial. And all the way through, she said, “I want to stay on this. I want to do this. It may not help me, but it will help everybody after me.” And that’s just profound.

Laura Levaas:             

Right. And so, Laura, tell the audience who you work with. I know that you specialize in thoracic cancers, and I know that clinical trials don’t always just focus on cancer. They deal with multitudes of diseases and conditions. But can you let us know who you work for because he’s famous in a way, right?

Laura McHugh:          

Absolutely. I’m actually the physician nurse for Dr. Raymond Osarogiagbon. He is well known in the field of lung cancer. That’s our specialty. We have a multidisciplinary meeting every week and a conference. He sits on the board for NCCN and multiple, multiple other things as far as paving the way for lung cancer. I’ve been actually privileged to be his nurse since he came in 2005. We’ve built our practice together, and, oh, the changes are just – the changes that I’ve seen in the years that we’ve done this are amazing. And he is brilliant; he is. He’s known all over the world. And our focus is lung cancer.

Laura Levaas:             

That’s great. Can you shed some light on the role of the patient navigator or the nurse navigator in what you do on a daily basis with your patients especially around clinical trials and folks who are on those government-supported insurances like me?

Laura McHugh:          

Sure. So, we base all of our care – we – or I’m blessed to have a research department and two really dedicated research coordinators that I work with very closely. They’re not nurses like myself, but they do all of the coordinating for the care on the studies and all of the above from patients that are uninsured that are on Medicaid, Medicare, even private insurance. And what we do, we see primarily all of our new patients insurance allowing through our thoracic program.

So, I actually have a coordinator with me when I’m in clinic. And so, if we even think a patient is potentially eligible – not even just for a drug study. There are smoking cessation studies that we have, different protocols for that. So, it really starts at the beginning. There’s the surgical studies, different things like that. And every Wednesday is that clinic. And even during the week, if there’s anything going on, they come to our regular clinics as well and do follow up with the patient.

Laura Levaas:             

So, I hear chatters here and there – when I bring up the subject of clinical trials, I hear things like, “Oh, trials are only for young people,” or, “Trials are only for old people,” or, “Trials are only for this type of person.” Can you speak to that a little bit?

Laura McHugh:          

Wow. Yeah. Well, part of it is if you look at where we sit, there’s always – until now, in recent years, you heard about research but you didn’t really hear about research. So your older population, they were skeptical. It’s a different generation of, “Are you experimenting on me?” And part of your underserved communities, a lot of people didn’t know anything about it. They’re limited on getting to a physician in general much less being able to participate or being in a center that even focuses on clinical trials.

So, I think all of that in the past was very, very real. I believe now people are coming around and seeing, “Wow, anybody can do this.” I think people are still limited. Some people don’t have computer access. It’s hard in a day of electronics, we sit down and we can pull up all of this information, but not everyone can do that.

Laura Levaas:             

Right. We do make a lot of assumptions when it comes to those type of factors. So, being that you’re a nurse navigator, I imagine that when you’re seeing a patient, you’re thinking, “Okay, is there a trial that this person might be good for?” I don’t want to say convince, but how do you help people learn about clinical trials and the importance of it because when you and I spoke yesterday, you said you want to make it clear to patients it’s always voluntary, “We’re not dragging anybody into a study. We want to make sure that you want to be there”?

Laura McHugh:          

Absolutely. So, again, all of our patients are approved during a thoracic conference, and then all of the ones that we can bring to our clinic within our healthcare system we bring through that clinic, and if not, we bring them to our general oncology clinic. The physician will sit down with the patient. Of course, we’ve met with the coordinators, they’ve looked at everything. And they’ll come to us and say, yeah, they like this or this. The physician sits down and talks with them, and then I go in the room and talk with them as well. We tell them, “This is totally voluntary, something that’s open to you if you’re interested,” talk about it.

The coordinators go in and speak with them as well. We tell them to go home, “If you have any questions or concerns, call back.” And a lot of times they will. You have to be able to digest something. It’s a very overwhelming visit to walk in an oncologist office and be told all of this information and try to sort it all out on the spot. So, a lot of times they’ll go home, they’ll think about it, they’ll call back. Basically, communication, I just feel that’s the most important – it’s communication.

Laura Levaas:             

Absolutely. So, to circle back a little bit, do you feel like it’s realistic for patients that are on Medicare and Medicaid to be in a clinical trial?

Laura McHugh:          

Absolutely. I think it’s clinically appropriate for anyone that fits. If everything lines up the way it should and they’re able to participate, I think it would be wonderful if everyone would.

Laura Levaas:             

This may seem like a silly question, but do folks on those programs get the same care as somebody that has a private insurance?

Laura McHugh:

Absolutely, absolutely from our standpoint. Of course, I’m answering from my institution and what I know that we do. And they do, absolutely. And sometimes there are challenges. I mean, we’ve had patients that were uninsured, underinsured. Again, Medicaid, you have to make sure – Medicare’s a little bit different again because all of the guidelines were set state to state. Medicaid’s different because each state has its own – and if you see someone in Mississippi, sometimes they can’t come across to Tennessee to go to the hospital or to do this. So, it’s a patient-by-patient basis, but overall, I think our patients are being treated, being offered clinical trials, and should participate if at all possible.

Laura Levaas:             

Wonderful. And again, just to underline that clear and open communication is important.

Laura McHugh:          

I think communication is No. 1 for everything. People are scared. They have questions. They don’t even know what to ask immediately. So, I think all of the support you can give – everybody has a knowledge base and everybody is empowered with that knowledge. Sometimes it’s all about just listening, communicating, and then answering any question they have no matter how simple it may be to us. To a patient, it’s a very profound thing. And it could be as simple as, “How am I going to get back and forth? Do you have a way to help me?”

Laura Levaas:             

Thank you, Laura.

Laura Levaas:             

Okay. I’m gonna circle back to the group and just ask some questions. I wanted to rewind with Mark and talk about Medicare Advantage. I am on Medicaid for about another year and I’m going to be rolled into Medicare, which under typical – I mean, I’m 44 years old, and so Medicare is typically for people that are 65 and older. And so, for me, it feels a little bit strange, and I’m like, “I just want to know how are they different.” And so, I have called my local CMS office, my local Social Security disability office. And I feel like I get different information. So, it’s sifting through everything. I just wanted to call out Medicare Advantage because you mentioned that. Can you expand on that and how it ties in with clinical trials?

Mark Fleury:              

Sure, sure, happy to. So, traditional Medicare has multiple parts. You have Medicare Part A, which is the hospitalization, and Medicare Part B, which is the physician portion, and then a Medicare Part D, which is the drug portion. A few years back (understand the complexities of all the pieces and parts of Medicare) there was a decision to allow private insurance companies to administer all the programs together on an optional basis.

So, if you qualify for Medicare, you can use the traditional what’s called fee-for-service Medicare or you can go through a private insurance company. So, this might be an Anthem or a Blue Cross or another private insurance company like that who has been authorized to bundle all of your Medicare benefits together under one program. Now because it is a privately run version of Medicare, they’re required to offer the minimum benefits, but they do have some flexibilities in how they administer that.

So, a traditional fee-for-service Medicare, as long as a physician advertises that they accept Medicare patients, you can go anywhere you want to. If you live in Florida and you go on vacation into Los Angeles and become ill and you want to go visit a physician there, as long as they accept Medicare patients, that’s fine. Medicare Advantage on the other hand looks a lot more like private insurance in that they sometimes build closed networks, so, you can only go to certain systems or only go to certain doctors. So, that’s an important difference between the two.

And in terms of with clinical trials, how that’s affected, if you want to enroll in a clinical trial and you’re Medicaid Advantage, right now the current policy is for the portion of your care that is related to the clinical trial, you would revert back Medicare fee-for-service, traditional Medicare. That doesn’t mean that you are kicked off of Medicare Advantage, but anything related to that clinical trial would be handled from a payment and a billing standpoint through traditional Medicare.

So, if you’re on a cancer clinical trial, all those cancer clinical trial bills would go through traditional Medicare. But say, for example, you needed to get your flu shot or had a cold or something like that, that would still be handled under your traditional – or under your Medicare Advantage. You wouldn’t be kicked off of it. It’s just the treatment part of your clinical trial would go through traditional Medicare. So, a little confusing, but that’s where we are from a policy standpoint today.

Laura Levaas:             

Okay. Jeanne, I wanted to ask you – and again, if you want to defer this to one of our other panelists, that’s A-okay. I’m thinking of folks who have some barriers around those additional costs in a clinical trial. Is it typical or acceptable for the, for example, pharmaceutical company or the sponsor of the clinical trial to pick up some of the costs that may not be covered under Medicare or Medicaid?

Jeanne Regnante:        

The answer to that question is yes, it is appropriate for them to do so. And actually, there is an FDA guidance document (it’s Guidance for Industry) that actually reinforces their ability to do so because there has been some concern that covering costs like logistical costs or hotels or travel or giving people a gas card would create undue influence. So, I think the FDA put out a draft guidance that’s clearing that up and basically reinforcing the fact that pharmaceutical companies are able to do that.

I can tell you from our working group, we have 10 active major pharmaceutical company members in the Diverse Cancer Communities Working Group. And I asked them what they usually do in this space, and during the planning phase of the clinical trial, they go out to their sites to ask for a budget and ask them what they need in terms of routine care costs and also logistical costs. And the site sends that information in. And generally, the pharmaceutical companies cover those costs.

What I’ve found to be the case, which is interesting to me, is that the clinical trial operations team in the sites have a lot to do, they have a lot of work to do. And this was brought up to me by a couple of leaders in pharmaceutical companies, that what they’ve learned is that they also need to ask what capabilities do you need, do you need people support or FTE support to be able to adjudicate and track those costs at a site level and validate them and close them out and pay them. And a lot of times, the answer is yes and pharmaceutical companies are paying for those FTEs at the site. So, those costs are being covered when the site asks for support.

Laura Levaas:             

Got it. So, since we’re talking about this topic anyway, that draft to FDA guidance publication, I’m gonna say it. It’s a really long title. It’s a mouthful. But I’m hoping you can break down a little bit of that. So, it’s called Enhancing the Diversity of Clinical Trial Populations, Eligibility Criteria, Enrollment Practices, and Trial Designs Guidance for Industry. What is the meaning –?

Jeanne Regnante:        

So, I do want to paraphrase what the FDA says, but I’m gonna read the portions that I think are appropriate for this discussion. So, there’s a section in this guidance that was put out in June, and it’s a draft guidance, so, it’s open for public comment. And it focuses on study design and conduct considerations for improving enrollment in the industry. There’s a big section. I really would urge everybody on the call to read this section because I think it’s really great and progressive and quite empathetic of a major governmental agency to put out this guidance to industry.

It gives examples. It notes the burden for trial participants in remote and rural locations, for example, and also acknowledges the trial burden on the elderly, children, disabled, and cognitively impaired individuals who require caregiver assistance. So, what the FDA does in this guidance is they encourage industry to reduce No. 1 the number of study visits where possible and use electronic communications or mobile technology to monitor the patient for safety and efficacy because of the challenges of a number of folks in this patient population.

They also encourage industry to make sure that patients are aware of financial reimbursements, and that’s what Laura does. She manages their expectations in the recruiting stage and reinforces the fact – and the guidance also reinforces the fact that the FDA does not consider reimbursement of travel, lodging, parking, time, and other considerations to raise issues concerning undue influence. And they also reinforce that the amount of dollars that might be reimbursed should always be addressed with the local IRB. So, I think this is a very progressive guidance to give the industry so there are no questions on what they can and cannot do.

Laura Levaas:             

Okay. Thank you very much. Laura McHugh, quick question, and Mark touched on this earlier in the program, what if something goes wrong in a clinical trial and a patient has to be hospitalized or treated for an unexpected reason? That’s covered, right?

Laura McHugh:          

It has been for our patients. If it’s Medicare, what you always look at is standard of care. And the Medicaid patients that we’ve had, when they’ve been hospitalized, to my recollection, we’ve not had anyone that we’ve had difficulty substantiating why it should be covered. I mean, sometimes you have to go the extra step and go back and forth with the insurance companies or Medicaid. But we so far have been able to get it covered.

Laura Levaas:             

I have a couple of questions that have come in from the audience, and feel free, Mark, Jeanne, or Laura. I’m assuming that a nurse navigator or a doctor is going to have the best information on where to find out about a clinical trial. But where are the best resources for someone to go? And again, I’m cancer focused because I have lung cancer and I work for Patient Power. And we support all types of folks with cancer. But there are folks that are in clinical trials that are not cancer related. Mark, what would be a source where somebody can find a clinical trial?

Mark Fleury:              

Sure. So, in looking at the current cancer clinical trial landscape, we know that the overwhelming majority, probably 75 to 80 percent of patients, who end up on a clinical trial found that clinical trial because someone on their care team recommended it or someone from the clinical trial team approached them. So, it’s most common that someone from the medical system invites that patient. But we also know that a lot of patients get their cancer care at very small practices (they might be single-doc practices or things like that) where clinical research is not a normal part of what they do. And in that case, you would not necessarily hear about clinical trials from your nurse or from your physician.

In those cases, it’s up to an empowered patient to find the clinical trial on their own. And that’s obviously a little bit harder but certainly not impossible. And there are public-facing websites. Some of them are sponsored by the government, things like ClinicalTrials.gov where all clinical trials whether cancer or not are listed in the United States. And NCI has one, trials.cancer.gov, which is just NCI sponsored, which is the National Cancer Institute. So, it’s federally funded clinical trials.

But additionally, many patient organizations both have general educational materials about clinical trials – so, for example, the American Cancer Society at the website cancer.org has information about clinical trials. At the moment, we don’t have a matching window, if you will, but many patient-advocacy organizations also actively help patients one on one with matching. So, many of these are disease specific. So, there are lung cancer groups who you can call at the hotline, colorectal cancer, etc. Many patient-advocacy organizations will do the direct handholding and navigation if your own provider does not do that for you.

Jeanne Regnante:        

I just want to add to that great list that Mark gave in terms of finding clinical trial sites. So, just a shout out to Stand Up To Cancer, they have a clinical trial matching site for any type of cancer. You can contact them, and they will actually match you to a clinical trial site in your area so you can give that information to your provider so they can call them to see if you qualify. Sometimes it’s difficult for anybody, myself included, to understand what clinical trial I might be eligible for just by looking at a site. So, it’s nice to have somebody do that for you.

Also, all the major pharmaceutical companies have if you happen to know about a given therapy or that you might be looking to be on because you heard about it it’s good to ask for help from somebody to find out what company makes it go to their website. And they all have clinical trial information on their sites as well.

Laura Levaas:

Thank you. And I’d like to share a little bit about my personal experience. When I was diagnosed, I was told about a Facebook group for my specific type of lung cancer mutation. And I learned about clinical trials from that group. And if I had never, like you said, Mark, been an empowered patient and been very curious in wanting the best care for myself, I probably would not have found out about those trials because some of them are just fly under the radar; they’re doing their work.

I think these are some great resources, and thank you for sharing those. One more question that I would like to ask the group before we – we have a couple of questions that came in from the audience, which is awesome. What is one solution (Mark, we’ll start with you) that you would like to put forth to address the issue of better clinical trial participation for Medicare and Medicaid patients which really, I mean, goes out to the larger group, I mean, really for anyone?

Mark Fleury:              

Yeah. Well, I think specifically within the population of Medicare and Medicaid, as I mentioned at the outset, Medicare has a uniform national policy. So, someone like Laura, if she became a clinical trial professional in a different state, the Medicare policy would be the same it doesn’t matter what state you’re in. Whereas Medicaid, it varies so much, and that can be quite a bit of hurdle.

As I mentioned, I work in the policy and advocacy portion of ACS, and so, we focus on legislation. And so, one of the public policies that we have been advocating for (and there’s actually a piece of legislation before Congress right now), it would harmonize all 50 states plus DC Medicaid policies such that standard of routine care costs in cancer clinical trials would be covered in all 50 states in the same way and there wouldn’t be this ambiguity or uncertainty from state to state in terms of how it’s covered. So, that would be my one wish within this question if I could wave my magic wand.

Laura Levaas:             

Yeah. That would very much clarify everything. Ms. McHugh, do you have a solution? What would you like to see happen to get more folks participating in clinical trials specifically those on the Medicares and Medicaids?

Laura McHugh:          

Again, from my nursing background, a lot of it’s communication. And I think it’s sitting down with patients and explaining what some of the benefits are, what the risks are but what the benefits are because truly the benefits outweigh the risks. People worry about money and they worry about all of these things. Well, if it’s Medicare, it’s standard of care. Anything above and beyond, if there’s a problem, then you appeal back to the drug company, the provider.

Opening doors, communicating with patients, telling them, “You have a more active role in your own healthcare when you’re on a clinical trial. You’re empowered. You’re educated. You’re the first to benefit from this drug. You have your health professionals close. You’ve got a research coordinator, your nurse, your doctor, access to new drugs that may not be available.” I just feel like communication and – we’re totally sitting down with someone and explaining and taking some of the fear away from what people think about being on a clinical trial.

Laura Levaas:             

I have a friend in the lung cancer community that was in a clinical trial. I don’t remember the specific drug, but she is still on it after it came out of trials. And she’s been on it for years, which is amazingly successful. And if not for that trial, she wouldn’t be where she is. And so, that’s just amazing. Okay. And then, Jeanne?

Jeanne Regnante:        

You know what, first of all, I agree with what Mark said and what Laura said. First of all, it needs to be legislated. And No. 2, there needs to be better communication amongst trusted providers, trusted community leaders, primary care physicians to talk to patients to have them understand that a lot of these trials now include placebo versus standard of care and also help them to manage their expectations in terms of what will be covered in terms of their cost. And the folks that need to do that are the closest to the healthcare systems and patient navigators and care coordinators who can talk to an individual specific situation.

I think in addition to all those things, I think that generally industry needs to do a better job of placing trials where the patients are. Although that seems quite trite, patients that are in underserved communities or in rural communities, they don’t often have access to these cancer centers which are big academic centers that do a lot of these trials with big innovations.

And I think that we need to get much more creative to make sure that either the reach out from those academic centers go out to community centers or we do a better job placing clinical trials in community research centers to ensure better accessibility because really, logistical support, even if you cover it, even if the industry covers it or cancer care covers it or the American Cancer Society cover it or a laser X organization covers it, it’s still a challenge and a barrier.

So, I think we need to do a better job overall. The infrastructure needs to place trails where the patients are because cancers are not homogeneous across the United States. They appear in different places with higher risk and higher prevalence. And we need to use that data to place trials where the patients are.

Laura Levaas:             

I agree. I’m actually located in Denver, Colorado, and I was doing some research for a blog post recently. And I went to American Cancer Society, Mark, just to look for what are the most recent statistics by state in terms of cancer. And obviously, it’s not lung cancer specific. But I was shocked to find out that Colorado has one of the highest percentages in the country of cancer occurrence. And I was surprised. So, Laura, would it be appropriate – this article that you sent me this morning from ASCO, would this be appropriate to include in our downloadable guide for our guests after the program? This was about the Affordable Care Act because we were talking about how people can get involved if they’re interested. What do you think, should we include this, Jeanne?

Jeanne Regnante:        

Oh, I heard you say Laura.

Laura Levaas:             

Yeah. Sorry.

Jeanne Regnante:        

I think it’s a really well thought out piece to help folks understand how they can get involved with their legislators and understand that this act and this piece of legislation to advocate [inaudible] [00:50:28] specifically for patients that are on Medicaid in the United States so they can get the same benefit of routine care that Medicare patients get.

Laura Levaas:             

I do have a question from Steve, one of our audience members, and he says, “Can Medigap Plan F help with paying for clinical trials? If the clinical trial accepts Medicare, would my out-of-pocket expenses be covered? I’m worried that any extra testing would be my responsibility.”

Mark Fleury:              

Yeah. I’m happy to jump in with a quick answer on that.

Laura Levaas:             

Okay. Thanks Mark.

Mark Fleury:              

So, I mentioned a little bit before about what’s required to be covered. When you think about costs involved in a clinical trial, I’ll put them in three buckets. There is the normal routine medical care that you would get. So, for example, if you would normally get surgery and then followed up by some sort of chemotherapy, everybody’s gonna get the surgery regardless. And then say, for example, ordinarily routine care would be you would get a scan every six months after surgery, but the clinical trial because they want to collect more data wants to have a scan every three months instead of every six months. And the clinical trial is testing a new drug after surgery.

So, Medicare would pay for the routine costs, which would be the surgery and then a scan every six months. The clinical trial sponsor would pay for the drug, which is what you’re testing in the clinical trial. So, the patient doesn’t have any responsibilities for that. And since there’s basically twice the frequency of scans, the sponsor would pay for every other scan.

Now what’s important is that while Medicare covers the routine care costs, it covers them the same way it would cover any other cost. So, if you have a co-pay for a doctor’s visit that is routine, just because you’re on a clinical trial, that co-pay doesn’t disappear. So, if you have a Medigap plan that covers those co-pays, it should cover them the same way as if you were not on a clinical trial because the only responsibility for the patient is the co-pays of the routine care costs, and Medicare will pick those up.

So, anything that’s not normal from a medical standpoint will be paid for by the sponsor. Now as Jeanne aptly pointed out, if you’re coming in twice as often for tests, even if the test itself is paid for, you might be paying for the parking garage twice as often or gas to travel twice as often. And those are nonmedical costs that can add up, but they’re not really involved with insurance, but you can sometimes get money from the sponsor or other third-party support organizations like ACS.

Laura Levaas:             

We have one more. Annie B, “I’m on Medicare. Where do I find a clinical trial in my town?”

Mark Fleury:

Typically, most of the ways that you find clinical trials, again, you can work directly with where you’re seeking care. So, if you have an oncologist, you can ask them about clinical trials. And if they conduct them, they will screen you for the trials that they have open at their site. If they don’t conduct clinical research, then you would either go to one of these public websites like a ClinicalTrials.gov, you could call an advocacy organization. There are several in the lung cancer space, and we can provide a number of different links to different matching engines or third-party organizations that could help match you. But clinical trials typically are not restricted based on insurance types. So, you would use the same search engines as anyone else would.

Laura Levaas:             

Okay. All right. Well, I want to say thank you so much to our esteemed guests for joining us today. We learned so much today about clinical trials, Medicare and Medicaid, the different options. So many takeaways here. We will have a downloadable guide available as well as a replay of the program in case you’d like to dig in a little bit deeper.

Really, I think my takeaway from the whole program is that there are options out there. Clinical trials can be a great solution for your medical care of your disease. I personally am all for it. I know it’s a very personal decision, whether you want to participate or not. But I decided early on that I would definitely enter a clinical trial because I’m willing to sacrifice myself for future generations because there are people that came before me that did the same and I would not be here today if not for that. So, thank you again for joining us Mark, Jeanne, Laura. We very much appreciate you.


We thank AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Daiichi Sankyo, and Novartis for their support. 

A Conversation With Becky Pleat

Specialty Pharmacy and the Patient Journey with Specialty Medication

In this segment of A Conversation With, Becky Pleat the Associate Director of Medical Managed Care Oncology Specialist at Sanofi discusses specialty pharmacy and the patient journey. Becky answers the following questions:

  1. What is a specialty drug?
  2. What is a specialty pharmacy?
  3. Where can patients find a specialty pharmacy?
  4. How do patients receive a specialty medication?
  5. Will a specialty medication be covered by a patient’s health plan?
  6. What kinds of services and/or resources are offered at specialty pharmacies?

Medication Maintenance Tips for Caregivers

Managing medications can be difficult to do, especially if you’re a senior caregiver. Helping someone else remember to take medications on time and work to find the right balance for them can seem like a daunting task. Thankfully, we’ve got a list of tips and tricks to help make things flow more smoothly.

Make Sure Providers Are Aware Of Vitamins And Supplements

Medical providers should be aware of any vitamins and supplements a person is taking. Regardless of how natural they are, they can interfere with medications and other treatments. For example, someone on blood thinners should not be taking a supplement with vitamin K. Most blood thinners work by inhibiting the production of this vitamin in the body. Taking a vitamin K supplement can negate the work of blood thinners.

Instructions

Make sure to go over medication instructions with the senior you’re caring for. If they are able to, they should know the names of each medication along with dosages and what times to take them. It doesn’t hurt to type up instructions about medications so that all information is in one place and easy to access. Consider adding in what side effects they should seek help for. That can serve as a list for caregivers and seniors to check on in case of adverse events.

Alarms

Set alarms to remind seniors to take their medications. There are many options to choose from. Smartphones allow you to set up reminders with different sounds each time which can help people differentiate between medication doses and other alerts. Electronic personal assistants like Alexa or Google Home can easily be used for reminders as well. If the senior you’re caring for struggles with newer technology, consider a few alarm clocks around the home.

Keep A List

Keeping a list of medications can help seniors and caregivers alike remember what medications are due at what time. Lists that have both a visual of what the medications look like and allow people to check off a medication dose can be useful tools. If you’re going with this kind of list, make sure that you have multiple copies. Placing one next to a pill organizer and another on the fridge can help remind people to take medication before they’ve even missed a dose.

Smartphone apps can also be helpful in tracking this information.

Follow Up

It’s important not to just set alarms or reminders, but check in to ensure that someone has taken their medication. It can be easy to turn off an alarm and still forget to take medication as scheduled. Following up with the senior in your life can remind them that they didn’t take their most recent dose.

Store Medications Properly

Most medications do best when stored between 68 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, many of them need to avoid humidity, direct sunlight and more. Medications should not be stored in vehicles, on windowsills or other sunny and warm spots or even in the bathroom. Consider storing them in a cool, dry space in the kitchen or living space.

When medications aren’t stored properly, it can affect their potency and make them potentially dangerous. If you’re concerned that your senior’s medications have been affected, here’s what you need to watch out for:

  • Odd smells
  • Discolored pills, tablets and injections
  • Cracked or crumbled pills
  • Pills and tablets that are stuck together
  • Creams and ointments that show separation
  • Cloudy injections

If you see these signs, contact your senior’s pharmacist as soon as possible.

Sort Medications Into Pill Organizers

Set aside time each week to go through the medication your senior takes and place them into pill organizers. These can make it easier to remember to take medications as prescribed or even transport them while traveling. Some organizers can remind people to take their medications and even alert others that a dose has been missed.

Make Sure All Caregivers Know About Medications

A sure way to have seniors miss their medication doses is to have senior caregivers who aren’t on the same page. Without everyone being in the know, it becomes increasingly difficult to set reminders and follow up with seniors about medication doses.

Plan Ahead For Refill Needs

Refills may come up on days where a senior is alone. When that’s the case, they may forget or be unable to pick up their refilled medications. Refills may even be due when someone is planning to be out of town. Make sure to plan ahead adequately for refills and work with a person’s pharmacist.

Consider Compounding Medications If Needed

Compounding is a process where medication is tailored to a person’s specific needs. This can help remove any dyes a patient is allergic to or turn a pill into liquid for those who struggle with swallowing pills.

Get Tips from A Medical Provider

When methods to help your senior aren’t working as well as you had hoped, take some time to check in with their medical providers. Nurses have amassed a wealth of information on improving their patients’ quality of life. They are likely to have some ideas on how to make managing medications more effective.

Always Communicate With Family Members

Whatever steps you take to maintain a senior’s medication schedule, make sure that you’re communicating any difficulties with the senior’s loved ones. Family should also always be aware of any medication changes. When so many seniors rely on a variety of paid and family caregivers, it’s incredibly important for everyone to be in the loop on the storage, administration and organization of all medications, vitamins and supplements.