If you find this piece worthwhile, consider the Go Fund Me that’s funding ongoing care.

I was reading Tyler Cowen and Daniel Gross’s book Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives, and Winners Around the World, and in it they write: “You can open doors for other people at relatively low cost (perhaps zero cost) to yourself just by making some options more vivid to them.… You embody something, and that something will stir some others into action” (237). That’s a lot of what Bess and I are doing when we write about clinical trials, where getting the wrong answer means death: thus, our extensive focus on it, and the healthcare system more broadly. We’re trying to open doors, especially for people who are sick or who don’t realize what their options are.

Right now, according to “The pharma industry from Paul Janssen to today: why drugs got harder to develop and what we can do about it,” apparently “Only 6% of cancer patients take part in clinical trials nationally in the US, for instance, and the number is generally lower in other countries and for other conditions.” A lot of cancer patients don’t need clinical trials and are healed by existing treatments, but, even granting that standard-of-care often works, 6% seems low—it may be low because of poor guidance combined with fatalism. If my experience is representative,[1] a lot of cancer patients aren’t getting adequate help understanding the system and finding a trial. Bess and I only succeeded in finding a clinical trial to keep me alive because of our own perseverance and obsessiveness; we were explicitly encouraged by multiple oncologists not to bother and to let me die. My primary oncologist at the Mayo Clinic Phoenix offered zero guidance, aid, or advice. I can’t tell how common this is, though feedback so far seems to indicate the answer might be “pretty common.” For a normal person without some of our traits, background, and resources, getting an optimal clinical trial would be far harder, if not impossible—and it was already hard for us. I’m still puzzled that more people with poor prognoses on standard-of-care treatments aren’t working to get the best clinical trials they can.

What’s the barrier? Mindset, and discouragement from oncologists, is probably one problem. A guy named Richard Chen, whose profile says he wrote two books on clinical trial recruitment, said: “First, FDA’s remit is not, and has never been, to get therapies to patients.” He also said: “Its primary mission first and foremost, is to prevent unsafe drugs from injuring patients.” If the FDA’s remit isn’t to get therapies to patients, that’s bad, and its remit should change. The second comment is pure, unintentional comedy. Right now, I’m a dead man walking. The FDA is preventing “unsafe” drugs from injuring me, so that I can be “injured”—which is to say, killed—by a recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma infestation. If I’m injured or killed by a drug, that’s not so different from my ultimate trajectory anyway, and the knowledge that can be created from my situation might accelerate treatments and save the next guy’s life.

Moreover, we already have an example of a medical area that works well with minimal FDA interference: surgery. Maxwell Tabarrok describes the situation in “Surgery Works Well Without The FDA: The best evidence against the FDA:”

Despite extreme information problems and a complete absence of federal oversight, surgery seems to work well. Compared to similar patients on the waiting list, 2.3 million life years were saved by organ transplants over 25 years. The WHO claims that “surgical interventions account for 13% of the world’s total disability-adjusted life years.” Coronary artery surgery extends lifespan by several years for $2300 a year. Cataract surgery and LASIK can massively improve quality of life for a few thousand dollars.

Regarding drugs, particularly drugs for people who are already effectively dead, like me, we should be moving closer to a surgical model.

I think Chen is a smart and well-meaning person. But he’s so bureaucratized, and he’s so imbibed the FDA’s line, that he doesn’t realize the Kafkaesque absurdity of telling me, a dying man who’s failed all standard therapies, that the FDA is protecting me from potentially unsafe drugs, so that I can safely die of cancer. If the FDA didn’t flex their paternalism quite so aggressively, terminal patients could at least consent to try something that might help them, which is better odds than trying nothing and waiting for a certain end. Look, if the FDA wants to have long trial periods for dubious drugs like those meant to lower cholesterol or whatever, fine. Once a person has a fatal diagnosis, however, that person is probably, like me, a lot more inclined to take a flyer on what’s available and see what happens. And we should be allowed to do that. We’re terminal, not without capacity. If the FDA’s remit is, ultimately, preventing patient injury, maybe they should ask themselves if they’re causing injury with their current approach?

Knowledge among patients and oncologists seems to be another barrier, according to “Why drugs got harder to develop:”

Many patients are willing to take part in clinical trials in principle, but awareness is poor. About 50% of the time when patients are invited to clinical trials they accept, but 90% are never invited to participate, mainly because most patients are not treated in settings that conduct trials. Patients are also not necessarily aware of or educated about the benefits of trials, and how they may enable them to access a high standard of care. Leading clinical research centres often have too many studies and not enough patients. When it comes to the trial itself, the site may be far from where the patient lives, requiring them to travel or even relocate for the duration of the trial — without adequate support for doing so.

Poor awareness is consistent with my experience—no one explicitly told me to seek clinical trials. Bess writes about the dearth of oncologists referring their patients to clinical trials in “Please be dying but not too quickly: part three” and I’ve written about this issue as well, but, as I mentioned above, if I’d followed my then-oncologist’s guidance, I’d have done some palliative chemo and then died. That doesn’t seem like an optimal outcome. If I die, Bess will be lonely. In spaces like oncology, I’d expect patients to be more like me—that is, highly motivated to attempt to not die. I don’t wholly understand what’s going on, which is why I titled my last essay on the subject “Puzzles about oncology and clinical trials.”

I guess (or infer from behavior) that most oncologists aren’t penalized or rewarded for helping their patients find and enter clinical trials. In the emergency room, a doctor who routinely misses heart attacks or strokes will find his or her license attacked and him or herself in a court room. In oncology, there’s apparently no real effort to consistently help patients who’ve exhausted standard treatments. It’s not, I guess, part of the professional elements of the profession, which I find surprising. Sure, many patients are likely elderly and too sick to pursue clinical trials, but a fair number must be like me: motivated and able to undertake somewhat arduous efforts to prevent or delay death.

One reason too few people participate may be logistical:

To get enough patients to fill up large trials companies need to conduct trials at multiple sites. The more sites involved in a trial, the greater the logistical complexities involved in coordinating that the protocol is executed appropriately across sites, the data is collected to a good standard, and the drug is distributed to all sites as needed. This all increases costs. More sites also increases variance in execution, and improper trial conduct can delay or even sink a development program. According to data from Tufts university, >80% of trials fail to recruit on time, actual enrolment times are typically around double the planned timelines, and ~50% of terminated trials result from recruitment failures. An estimated 11% of trial sites fail to recruit a single patient, and another 37% don’t reach their target enrollment criteria.

There are efforts to create “virtual” trial sites—in other words, to allow clinical trials to proceed at local sites that reach some minimum threshold of competence. To use myself as an example, if the petosemtamab trial I’m doing at UCSD included a real virtual site component, petosemtamab could be shipped to HonorHealth in Scottsdale or one of the Ironwood Cancer Centers in Chandler, and I could receive my infusions and monitoring locally, with the data reported to UCSD and/or Merus (the drug company). Although that would mean “more sites involved in a trial,” it also means less responsibility at each site. The “recruitment failures” issue is interesting in light of the fact that almost no trial sites seem to do basic, modern marketing.

I’m not hugely optimistic about fomenting real change. Real change is slow in a society like the United States, which has been characterized since the 1970s overwhelmingly by complacency, stasis, and status-quo bias. One sees that in our inability to build new housing, our inability to build new ships for the Navy, our refusal to accelerate subway development, our preference for interminable litigation over infrastructure, the Jones Act, the FDA, dishonest and tuition-seeking universities, and the innumerable other veto players who, like Richard Chen, are great at saying “no” and unable to say “yes.” I hope we can build O’Neill Habitats that will allow a re-opening of the frontier and a new space where the dreamers who are tired of hearing “no” can instead create a new polity where it’s possible to say “yes.” The United States is huge on safetyism instead of true safety—and human flourishing.[2] We can and should do better. I doubt we will, however, because the people who most need FDA reform are dead. They’re not writing. They’re not doing podcasts. They’re not agitating Congress.

Still, sometimes change happens, and the bureaucratic inertia is somehow overcome. For example, voucher and charter schools seem to continue to ascend, despite entrenched and intense monied union interests opposing them, and decades after their intellectual foundations were laid. Marijuana legalization seemed unlikely until it happened. Psychedelics look like they’re on the path to medical legalization, at the very least, and possible general legalization; based on my experiences, psychedelics are both safer and far more interesting than alcohol. SpaceX has revolutionized the space game, and I’d have incorrectly predicted failure. Tesla is the sole bulwark against state-affiliated and subsidized Chinese companies owning the entire electric car market. Who knows what’s possible? I don’t hope for this, but if someone in some senator or senior house member’s family gets cancer, and that senator or house member learns what I’ve learned, FDA reform might become a vital issue for that person. Few people I’ve seen online have defended the current system (there are some—just not a lot).

The fact that the current ossified, slow system has persisted as long as it has is an argument for it continuing. Good enough is good enough, right? Moreover, the way the press responds to events helps perpetuate stasis: if a drug has negative side effects, including potentially death, that gets plastered all over the news. Investigations are launched. Scapegoats are sought. If a drug works, and saves lives, the response is muted. The articles go unread. The beneficiaries are happy but don’t start campaigning for more and better medical treatment, faster. One person who dies from a drug outweighs one hundred who might be saved by another. It reminds me of all the press given to any kind of airline accident, even one without casualties, while 40,000 people a year die in car crashes, without most of them making headlines.

One person on LinkedIn said this about Bess’s clinical trial essay-guide:

An extraordinarily damning overview of the way things operate currently, that puts everything we complain about from within the industry into perspective. Thanks for sharing this Brad [Hightower—mentioned above] – as you say, a must read that underlines how we must all work together to improve things.

It might be a damning overview, but it also turns out that seemingly everyone working in or adjacent to clinical trials knows about the problems already. That includes everyone from the researchers themselves to the drug companies to the hospitals to the oncologists to the support staff. If a lot of people have known for a long time how bad the system is, and no one has managed to coordinate sufficiently to make substantial improvements, that implies that the problems will persist. Can Bess and I be the catalysts that finally galvanize some change? That’d be great, and yet I’m pessimistic. There’s a saying in investing: “The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” Call this Seliger’s Law: “A broken system can stay broken for longer than people have the time, energy, and ability to try fixing it.”

Still, Bess and I would like to try to make the world a better place, to the extent we can, and within whatever limits our abilities and skills may impose, and trying to nudge the clinical trial system into a better equilibrium is part of our effort. It’s too late to save my tongue, but it may not be too late to save the tongues and lives of others. In an alternate world, petosemtamab, or a cancer vaccine, would’ve been approved and available in Oct. 2022. I’d have gotten surgery, and then petosemtamab, which is way less toxic than chemotherapy. Maybe that wouldn’t’ve saved my tongue—but maybe it would’ve. Oncologists are reluctant to use chemotherapy, but modern alternatives like petosemtamab should help people like me in the future.

Cancer vaccines exist, though trials are moving achingly slowly. A company called Transgene is testing a cancer vaccine called TG4050 on patients with initial head and neck cancer diagnoses—the same diagnosis I had in Oct. 2022.  TG4050 is moving to a Phase 1b and 2 trial; according to the company, “The compelling initial Phase I data presented with NEC at ASCO 2023 showed that all evaluable patients treated with TG4050 monotherapy developed a specific immune response and remained disease-free.” I wish I’d remained disease-free; instead, I have no tongue and am likely to die soon.  

Despite my pessimism, “Why drugs got harder to develop” says: 

Yet, even though there are major forces pushing against drug developers, there is a sense that the industry is still underperforming, and that it could do more. One reason for optimism can be seen in the recent flattening of the slope of Eroom’s law following decades of declining productivity. It remains to be seen whether the recent uptick is a sustained turnaround or not. The pessimistic view is that it is illusory, a result of how drugmakers have side-stepped fundamental productivity issues by focusing on developing drugs for niche subpopulations with few or no options where regulators are willing to accept less evidence, it’s easier to improve on the standard of care, and payers have less power to push back on higher prices: rare disease and oncology in particular. It’s no coincidence that investment has flowed into areas where regulatory restrictions have been relaxed and accelerated approvals are commonplace: 27% of FDA drug approvals in 2022 were for oncology, the largest therapeutic area category, and 57% were for rare/orphan diseases.

That seems better than nothing. Maybe Congress and/or the FDA is responding to the Richard Chin logic I note above. The FDA has created systemic problems, and it can also create systemic solutions. For example, the FDA doesn’t really account for the time-value of money,[3] which is especially important in a high-interest-rate environment:

As a more general point, it would help if regulators could be more predictable and transparent in their decision making. In a survey of drug and device industry professionals, 68% said that the FDA’s unpredictability discouraged the development of new products. It can be hard to predict how regulators will react to a certain dataset in the context of high unmet need, so companies can be inclined to ‘submit for approval and pray’, even after receiving negative feedback on the data package from regulators during prior interactions.

“Hard to predict” means that many people stop pushing a drug before they start. Companies are competing for investable cash with all other companies; the more time-consuming (read: expensive) the FDA makes the process, the fewer drugs will even be attempted. “Why drugs are harder to develop” suggests the FDA be more accountable to patients:

A straightforward start to improve transparency across the industry would be for the FDA to disclose the formal ‘complete response letters’ (CRLs) issued when they reject a drug which contain the reasons for rejection. Making this information public would give future developers insight into the regulator’s thinking on a disease, with minimal downsides. How companies represent their CRLs to the broader market today is often misrepresentative of the actual reasons for rejection, potentially misleading patients as well as future investors and drug developers in the indication.

I’m not the only one thinking about reform; pretty much everyone in the industry is. To return to a point I raised at the beginning of this essay, reforms could also make clinical trials easier for patients to access. Bess and I spent thousands of dollars and countless hours learning how the clinical trial system works and then how to participate. Initially, no one comprehensively helped us on this journey; my original oncologist at the Mayo Clinic Phoenix was and likely still is sluggish. Mayo Phoenix has a great ENT department but appears to be poor in oncology, which is surprising for an organization with a reputation for cancer care. Bess and I had to learn what we know piecemeal, which is part of the reason we’re trying to describe comprehensively what we’ve learned and how other people’s experiences can be made better.

The best trial for head and neck cancers is petosemtamab, and that trial is being hosted at UCSD. Bess and I are lucky enough to have the resources necessary to get me there twice a month from Arizona for infusions, thanks in large part to the generosity of friends and strangers who’ve contributed to the Go Fund Me. I’ve been saying that being sick for an extended period of time has at least three components to it: health itself; financial well-being; and managing healthcare. Drop any one of the three and the other two are likely to fall too. Very few people can help my health or healthcare directly, but the contributors to the Go Fund Me have made the financial challenges easier.

What’d make things better for everyone, however, is reforms like virtual trial sites. The healthcare team at UCSD has been great, but being infused locally would negate the need to be away from home six days a month, the cost of flights, hotel, and the huge energy expenditure all that entails. The process of getting a clinical trial medication can and should be less expensive and arduous than it is. I can see why most people who might want to participate in the better clinical trials for their illness run out of money and energy to pursue those trials. Bess and I were ready to move anywhere. Fortunately, we’ve not had to move somewhere expensive and far from family and friends. We were ready to, though. We may still have to one day—and maybe, but hopefully not, soon.

Both of us also wish that there were greater transparency around which trials are doing well in terms of patient outcomes and which trials aren’t doing so well. We’ve learned via experience that right now, there’s no substitute for establishing care at a bunch of sites and listening to the oncologists there. Oncologists running trials will often tell you how things are going for trials that’ve been running for a while. If they’re enthusiastic about a trial, it’s often because they see a lot of patients doing well on it. They have observational data that outside docs and institutions have to wait months, maybe years, to get wind of.

Sometimes they’ll also steer patients away from trials that aren’t producing enough positive results. I’m grateful to the docs who’ve quietly advised us against floundering drugs. Some oncologist meetings produce non-public intel about which trials are most promising, provided enough patients have received the drug in question; the oncologists won’t know much if you’re like the first or fifth or tenth human to be dosed with a novel substance, but a lot of these trials have built up years of data. If a site has run through dozens or as many as 100+ patients, the oncologists will have a sense of whether it’s working, even if nothing “official” has been released.

This is one of innumerable tiny facts and practices about effectively participating in clinical trials that we’ve discovered. I’ve never read anyone else who’s put out things like this, just like I’ve never read anything remotely like Bess’s clinical trial guide-essay, “Please be dying, but not too quickly.” Somehow, a lot of this essential information isn’t making it into the larger information ecosystem. The lack of quality information has been driving my writing over the last five months, including my last essay, “On not being a radical medicine skeptic, and the dangers of doctor-by-Internet.” We collectively can and should be doing better. I’m trying to be part of the solution. In reading this, and passing it to others, you’re part of the solution, too.

If you’ve gotten this far, consider the Go Fund Me that’s funding ongoing care.

• See also Alex Tabarrok’s “Conditional Approval for Human Drugs,” in which he says “I think that the FDA’s excellent arguments for conditional approval apply to human drugs as well as to (other) animal drugs and even more so when we recognize that human beings have rights and interests in making their own choices.” And he also ends on a hopeful note: “Dare I say it, but could the FDA be lumbering in the right direction?”
• Part III of Bess’s clinical-trial odyssey has recommendations for improvements.

---

[1] Which I hope it isn’t, and yet the emails I’ve been getting indicate that my experience is distressingly common.

[2] The book Where is My Flying Car? by J. Storrs Hall is good on this. We should have so many nuclear power plants that power is almost too cheap to meter, we should have O’Neill Habitats that re-open the political frontier in order to let the non-complacent gather and advance the human condition, and we should have progressed much further in curing cancer and making biology a variable rather than a constant. That we’re content to creep and crawl on the earth rather than soar into the heavens is an indictment of our whole society. Too many lawyers, too few makers.

[3] Bess asked what the time-value of money is. Briefly, it’s how much an investment or investor would lose or gain from alternatives. Take a simple example: you can invest a million dollars in a company running a clinical trial, or in a money-market fund paying 5% a year. If you invest in the money market fund, you wind up with $1,050,000 at the end of the year. If FDA delays cost you a year, you’ve effectively lost the $50,000—you have more like $950,000! Inflation matters in these calculations, too.

This is also why delays to housing construction are so evil.