|
Post by travelingrat on Aug 26, 2012 22:19:15 GMT -5
does anyone know how many clinics have signed on to VCT? i tried to find out this info by googling different questions and the only large clinics i could find for sure who had signed up were Celerion and SNBL and a few small ones in CA. has anyone gone to other large clinics and had to sign the VCT info waiver or whatever it is called? If a clinic is not signed up, how would info be shared with them? It seems that they would all have to sign up for it to be effective. so far i have never had a conflict with washouts ... but i know rats who have gone a few days less than 30 days when a really good study came up. if anyone has any info or thoughts on the subject, please share!
|
|
|
Post by antecubital on Aug 27, 2012 9:51:40 GMT -5
You have the same info as me: SNBL, Celerion, and a few others in CA.
If a clinic is not signed up, they don't get any information about you from VCT. The effectiveness is limited to the clinics that are a part of VCT. I would logically assume that no clinic can get information about you unless you've given consent to that specific clinic to look you up at VCT. (For instance, if you sign the consent at Celerion, SNBL can't look you up unless you give them permission to do so, even though they use VCT.)
I signed at Celerion, but ended up not doing the study. I was told that the only information they share is the name of the drug and the dates of the study. If that's it, I guess I'm okay with VCT. What I'm worried about is that units will report to it things like adverse events, clinically significant screening results that require a visit to your own physician, (false) positive urine screens-- basically anything that would exclude a subject from a study. But apparently that won't be the case-- I hope.
|
|
|
Post by travelingrat on Aug 28, 2012 14:39:13 GMT -5
when i went to the VCT website, they have a map of the US showing their "network." from the map, it looks like they have clinics signed up in just about every state ... but i do not believe that to be true. for one thing, if a clinic signs up, wouldn't they want potential study volunteers to know? if a lab rat wants to try for a study before an old study washout is over, why waste time and money by not letting them know first that they might be caught and subsequently banned? it doesn't make sense to me that a clinic would sign up and then not publicize that fact!
i don't mind registering with VCT either but i do agree that the potential for errors is there. and since screenings take place in a short time period, any mistakes made by VCT could cost a lab rat a study while things are getting cleared up ... and that might take weeks.
i too will just hope for the best!
|
|
|
Post by antecubital on Aug 28, 2012 16:37:51 GMT -5
Travelingrat, I think a clinic has to get your consent first before looking you up at and/or reporting info about you to VCT. They may not publicize it on their websites, but I don't think they can't contact VCT about you without your knowledge and consent.
I think it's just starting. Only this year have SNBL and Celerion signed on.
|
|
|
Post by idoitforthepong on Sept 6, 2012 23:43:45 GMT -5
spaulding does now
|
|
|
Post by sammyjo on Oct 5, 2012 14:08:39 GMT -5
Spaulding does, but does that mean that VCT automatically distributes that info to other clinics? I'm screening for an Abbott study in a few days. Will Abbott be notified by VCT that I just got out of a Spaulding study (under 30 days)?
Anyone know if Abbott in Chicago is checking other clinics to see if you just cleared a study?
|
|
|
Post by antecubital on Oct 5, 2012 14:59:35 GMT -5
Actually, I think Spaulding uses a company called clinicalRSVP, which as far as I can tell is not affiliated with Verified Clinical Trials (VCT). I don't know if they share information with eachother, although it's conceivable that in the future they'll merge or one will out the other.
I don't think a CRU will be checking up on you unless you're screening for a study. If you're just in their database, they probably won't bother. It may be that they have to pay a fee each time they run a check, so obviously they'd only do it if they had to.
If Abott doesn't participate in clinicalRSVP, then Spaulding would have no way of knowing your previous Abbott study unless you told them, or if it was the same sponsor for both studies.
If a clinic isn't sigend up, they would have no way of knowing what studies you've done without you telling them.
|
|
|
Post by sammyjo on Oct 6, 2012 12:47:33 GMT -5
I am actually screening at Abbott on this coming Tuesday and just got out of Spaulding a week ago. Abbott study is supposed to be no previous studies prior to Sept. 3rd. So I'm really hoping Spaulding doesn't share information with Abbott via a third party or Abbott may ban me or just refuse me for the study (its a big one, almost 8 grand)... Thanks for the comments and advice.
|
|
|
Post by carmel on Oct 10, 2012 1:24:52 GMT -5
I am actually screening at Abbott on this coming Tuesday and just got out of Spaulding a week ago. Did you get in? Seems like a very tough rule that Abbott has. The 3-month in between studies is rather strict. Did they ask you directly face to face if you've done a study recently? Or was it just on paper?
|
|
|
Post by sammyjo on Oct 12, 2012 15:12:30 GMT -5
I did not get into the study. They had a limit for ALT of 35 and mine was 38, I did a repeat and it was 40...
However, they don't seem to have any partnership with other clinics to do checks on volunteers to see if they just cleared a study somewhere else. There was no document to sign giving them permission to do that anyway...
So Abbott doesn't appear to share their data with other clinics on volunteers. They do have a criminal background check form, but they told me that even though you sign it, they don't process it.
Good luck all...
|
|
|
Post by carmel on Oct 15, 2012 14:09:27 GMT -5
I did not get into the study. They had a limit for ALT of 35 and mine was 38, I did a repeat and it was 40... Thanks for updating us, sammyjo. I appreciate that. It probably won't brighten up your day, but I did give you some karma. I guess I'm lucky to have an al ALT of 25. But I'm not perfect in other areas. My Hematocrit and Ferritin are a little over the limit according to one source, but not others. I don't know if any clinics are strict about this area or not.
|
|
honestlabrat
Junior Member
Another day, another $, bad techs who cant draw blood make me holler
Posts: 50
|
Post by honestlabrat on Nov 19, 2012 17:25:32 GMT -5
Logically there should be a standard database for clinical study participants, (similar to for example, the DMV which tracks your driving record from state to state by your social) but that, imo will never happen. Some clinics would never want to participate because the dirty secret is they know very well many lab rats are going from study to study and not following washout period, but without these very same participants they wouldnt get some of their studies filled. In the end the name of the game as always is money, and clinics need to complete as many of these trials in a timely manner to hopefully get the drug passed to the public market.
The only way that there will be a nationwide database that tracks participants that do clinical research trials is if the government gets involved. That will only happen if soing catostrophic happens such as a much of subjects dying from a study that leads to legistation, etc. I agree in theory that a nationwide database which would track your participation at all clinics through your social makes sense and is safe for both the volunteer as well as the clinic but I dont see how they will get all the clinics to agree to join these databases until they are forced to do so. Even when these major pharmacutial companies get together at annual meetings to discuss research etc, not everyone is present, and you have the differences between the large corporate pharmacutial companies and the smaller private vendor type businesses which have different statues and ways of doing things. In the end though, it comes down to getting PAID, whether your the lab rat or the drug company.
|
|
|
Post by labrat1 on Nov 27, 2012 12:21:46 GMT -5
I recently screened at SNBL. They had me sign a special kind of consent form to let me know that other clinics would be contacted so as to find out if I had done a study anywhere within the past 30 days. I was even given a certain paper that looked soing like a diploma-like certificate that had my name on it saying soing very much to the effect of ' This person has passed SNBLs VCT evaluation system and is qualified to participate in study # ------- ' One of the SNBL recruiting staff told me that if a clinic is not signed in with the VCT system there is no way to find out if the volunteer had done a study at that clinic without VCT. I spoke with a SNBL nurse and mentioned to her that the study will start weeks away from the screening date and a person could try to do another study between now and then and if the person has passed the SNBL screening, wouldn't s/he have to go through VCT again before being dosed to see if s/he had done a study elsewhere. The nurse said that there is only one VCT check-up per study because if the person who passed SNBLs VCT evaluation tries to do another study, it will show on the other clinic's databases that s/he already screened at SNBL and the applicant volunteer will be asked which study s/he rather do? This nurse did not mention the fact that there are clinics not signed up with VCT.
VCT seems to be a very limited system and in the greatest sense probably won't do much to prevent cheating. A research site cannot just check your records with another site without telling you and if they do, ( some might ), they are getting information about you without your permission even if it has to do with protecting your own health and making sure that you do not interfere with study integrity. Also, if one research site just calls up another research site and out of nowhere without a volunteer's signed consent asks information about a volunteer, there is a breach of confidentiality there. If there are clinics that do this, it could turn into a big legal matter regarding one clinic just giving another clinic information about a volunteer . The clinic that is asked to give information and just gives it, is the one which can get into the most trouble. Or, so it all seems.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Red on Sept 4, 2013 8:38:43 GMT -5
when i went to the VCT website, they have a map of the US showing their "network." from the map, it looks like they have clinics signed up in just about every state ... but i do not believe that to be true. for one thing, if a clinic signs up, wouldn't they want potential study volunteers to know? if a lab rat wants to try for a study before an old study washout is over, why waste time and money by not letting them know first that they might be caught and subsequently banned? it doesn't make sense to me that a clinic would sign up and then not publicize that fact! i don't mind registering with VCT either but i do agree that the potential for errors is there. and since screenings take place in a short time period, any mistakes made by VCT could cost a lab rat a study while things are getting cleared up ... and that might take weeks. i too will just hope for the best! What's the VCT site?
|
|
|
Post by travelingrat on Sept 4, 2013 9:56:47 GMT -5
the vct site is www.verifiedclinicaltrials.com. i don't see the map any more ...maybe they took it off as false advertising. imo, vct seems to be mostly a big promotional money-making hype thing, like the so-called certifying group called AAHRPP that supposedly certifies clinics yet in reality seems to be more like a diploma mill sort of thing. the rats i know are careful about their health. and if someone is in a study and has zero side effects and great exit labs, the 30 day washout periods make little sense to me. re my own health, i am more interested in making enough money for basic food and shelter than i am in following often-illogical rules set up by paper-pushers in luxury offices and receiving hefty salaries. i have also been told by several nurses that the Phase I testing doesn't matter a whole lot anyway (except if a drug seems to cause a big number of side effects) because months and years of extensive Phase II and III testing lie ahead. and even then, major pharmas like have had to pay millions and millions in fines ($50 million in 's case)for CONCEALING side effects that occurred in patient trials ... how crazy is our world? !!!! so far the only clinics i know that use VCT are Celerion, SNBL, Clinilabs, and Spaulding. Mostly i go to clinics in FL and to smaller clinics and none of them have VCT. i have asked several doctors in smaller clinics if they were going to get VCT for their clinics and they all said no, too expensive and they did not think it was necessary for their clinics.
|
|