• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Clinical Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Ethics of Pay-to-Play Trials: SACHRP Recommendations

Ethics of Pay-to-Play Trials: SACHRP Recommendations

test-tubes-money
October 21, 2019
Colin Stoecker

Recognizing that some trials must ask patients to share the cost of expensive investigational drugs, supplies or tests, the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) has developed recommendations to help sponsors stay on the right side of that ethical line.

The recent growth of the “pay to play” concept has led to a number of fraudulent trials — especially in the area of stem cell therapies — that draw patients into paying high costs for medically unsound treatments.

According to SACHRP, sponsors should only charge to cover the cost of a study, not to turn a profit, and should have to justify charges to their IRBs. The committee recommends a series of questions to guide sponsors in developing the justification:

  • Does the study meet relevant thresholds of scientific quality?
  • Is the risk-benefit balance justifiable?
  • Why are traditional research funding sources not used?
  • Will requiring payment influence equitable subject selection?
  • Is requiring payment likely to interfere with the patient’s decision-making process?

In justifying charges, sponsors must be open and honest with their IRBs, says one compliance expert.

“At the heart of this debate is transparency,” says David Borasky, vice president for IRB compliance at WCG Clinical, who co-chaired the October SACHRP meeting at which the recommendations were developed. “Be transparent with the IRB about the need to charge, the costs to participants and telling the subjects about costs, research and the difference between medical care and clinical trials,” Borasky says. “Otherwise it’s hard to come up with specific guidelines.”

Because pay-to-play trials offer plenty of ethical pitfalls, they become a balancing act between the FDA, the IRB, the investigator and sponsor, and ultimately affect the patient, according to Borasky.

Some pay-to-play proposals he has seen clearly have been trying to circumvent the system. Submitting an investigational new drug (IND) application to the FDA should have been the first step. “The submitters of those studies generally have withdrawn their application at that point,” he says. “They are trying to avoid FDA entanglements.”

The IRB’s role is to question the motivation for charging in the first place, Borasky says, adding that he always defers to the FDA.

“When studies come in with this type of a framework, we look at them critically, look at the consent process and FDA regulations,” and call them out if they aren’t compliant.

Companies that aren’t forthcoming about why they haven’t gone through the appropriate FDA channels get special scrutiny, Borasky says.

“There is concern that these are not the most scientifically robust studies,” he says. “We ask if they have an IND with the FDA and is this documented appropriately as an investigational new drug study. If they hedge us or don’t engage with the FDA, then it’s a red flag.”

Another area of concern when dealing with pay-to-play trials is the patient’s inability to discern between clinical care from a doctor and that of scientific research. This therapeutic misconception could be worsened by bringing a cost factor into the study, Borasky says. Paying to participate in a clinical trial isn’t the same as paying for an approved treatment. More clinical trials fail than succeed, he points out.

There is also concern that pay-to-play trials will attract more affluent subjects who can afford the higher cost or give those subjects the wrong motivations to participate in the first place, causing them to base their expectations on monetary value.

At the other extreme, poor patients or those under undue influence, like prisoners, might be more susceptible to these types of trials.

“Historically, what IRBs have been worried about is exploitation,” says Borasky. There are concerns that clinical research studies are attractive to individuals with financial limitations because they may not have access to any other kind of healthcare.

“Research is not meant to exploit low economic status people, and this flips that on its head and asks ‘Should we worry if only people with lots of money can afford to pay extra to be able to get the treatment?’”

As far as cost goes, there is no hard and fast rule for sponsors on how much or how little to charge to cover the costs of a study, Borasky says.

“The IRBs are left to make a lot of decisions without concrete guidelines,” he says. “Researchers should be expected to make reasonable efforts to offset those concerns.”

Upcoming Events

  • 12Apr

    The Participant Playbook Webinar Series, Part 3 — Rethinking the Development of Participant-Centric Clinical Trial Technology

  • 25Apr

    Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for Drugs, Devices and Clinical Trials

  • 26Apr

    FDA’s New Laws and Regulations: What Drug and Biologics Manufacturers Need to Know

  • 27Apr

    Califf’s FDA, 2023 and Beyond: Key Developments, Insights and Analysis

  • 17May

    2023 WCG Avoca Quality Consortium Summit

  • 21May

    WCG MAGI Clinical Research Conference – 2023 East

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Five Ws

    Consider the Five ‘W’s to Understand Potential Participants

  • QandA-360x240.png

    Perspectives from Smaller-Sized CROs: Q&A with Cheryle Evans

  • White House

    Trial Stakeholders Advise White House on Emergency Research Infrastructure

  • SurveywBlueBackground-360x240.png

    Stress Levels Continue to Climb in Healthcare Workforce, Survey Finds

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Data

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing