How Would Google Run A Clinical Drug Trial?
By Rob Wright, Chief Editor, Life Science Leader
Follow Me On Twitter @RfwrightLSL
How would Google run a clinical trial? This was just one of the questions posed by Pfizer’s head of clinical innovation, Craig Lipset, to Google Venture’s general partner, Krishna Yeshwant, M.D. during the keynote fireside chat at the Conference Forum’s 3rd Annual Disruptive Innovations To Advance Clinical Trials Conference (Dpharm) in Boston, Sept. 19 to 20, 2013. Yeshwant’s answer, “The lens Google looks through is the consumer’s eyes.” Thus, he believes clinical trials should be more consumer friendly, striving to take advantage of the current trend of pervasive computing (also called ubiquitous computing) which involves the embedding of microprocessors in everyday objects so they can communicate information. Product examples of this include Google Glass, a wearable computer with an optical head-mounted display, and Fitbit bands, wearable bracelets that are fitness trackers. According to Yeshwant, drug companies need to think of ways to hook into existing consumer habits in an organic sort of way, so data can be collected in real time with minimal interruption to daily living. For those who think Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) might not know much about drug development, perhaps you should take a look at the Google Venture’s webpage.
What Does Google Know About Drug Development?
The reality is — Google is not yet inventing drugs. However, the company’s stated mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. One of the big struggles in the drug development space is the gathering of data during clinical trials. Another struggle is getting venture capital — something Yeshwant knows something about. Prior to joining Google, he helped start an electronic data interchange company acquired by Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) and a network security company acquired by Symantec (NASDAQ: SYMC). According to Yeshwant, the idea behind the creation of Google Ventures is to try to help remove obstacles he and other successful entrepreneurs encountered during the phases of creating companies. The self-described “radically different” kind of venture fund has partnered with over 200 companies, investing $300 million per year in a variety of business, including life sciences. For example, Google has contributed funding for Adimab, which researches therapeutic antibodies, a type of protein the body’s immune system uses to defend itself against foreign threats, for medical applications; and genetic-testing start-up, 23 and Me. Yeshwant explained the common thread amongst all the companies Google Ventures tries to invest in is some sort of transformative component. “If the idea were to work, it would have a profound impact on some industries,” he stated. He admits that not every idea will work. However, he and the Google Ventures team do not let the fear of failure or past failures (e.g. Google Health) dissuade the company from continuing to try new things. A recent example presented jointly at the conference he supports is Novartis partnering with Walgreens to utilize the pharmacy’s database to recruit clinical trial participants, as well as the company’s infrastructure so participants can visit their local pharmacy for routine clinical trial tests.
Though a reader sent me feedback on the conference stating it wasn’t very disruptive, I would be hard pressed to note a presentation I didn’t find valuable. That being said, I think the conference would benefit from providing more opportunities for Q&A with the audience and consider adopting a TED Talks format — typically 20 minutes or less, and some visuals, but not the usual 40+ PowerPoint slide presentation. Many of the talks at Dpharm ran long. In the essence of time the Q&A was either very short, or altogether skipped. I think conferences in general would benefit from having a better handle on time management, as well as having someone actively involved in soliciting questions from the floor. In my opinion, one of the most powerful presentations happened the day before the start of Dpharm, at the co-located 4th Annual Executing Global Clinical Trials conference, September 18.
Through The Eyes Of The Patient
I had never attended the Global Clinical Trials conference, even though it has always been co-located with Dpharm. Though the conference was small, sometimes less is more. I would estimate there were fewer than 100 people. As a result, the setting was much more intimate, providing excellent opportunities to network and engage with the speakers. The last presentation of the day, The Patient Panel, consisted of Kathy Gram, director of patient advocacy at Millennium, asking questions to three people who participated in a clinical trial. This was the powerful presentation I alluded to earlier. I got to hear how Lori decided to take part in a blinded placebo-controlled trial for a Hepatitis-C treatment. I learned how Christine ruined her PalmPilot from ice melting in her purse when attempting to keep her experimental multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment cold during lengthy commutes. Mark, a trained lawyer, described with much lament, the legal consent forms he had to wade through and sign in order to participate in a cancer treatment trial. All said they would participate in a trial again, as well as recommend others to do so as well. Another insight they all shared was that the nurse who served as their point of contact during the trial was critical to their positive experience. Though Lori participated in a trial that had the potential of her being put on a placebo, she only did so out of desperation in hopes of getting enrolled in the active medication arm of the study. Both Mark and Christine stated they would not participate in a clinical trial if there was the chance of possibly getting a placebo. As companies struggle with data collection, informed consent, and the placebo dilemma, perhaps they need to take Google’s approach of viewing the problem through the eyes of the consumer/patient. Want a good place to start? Checkout Caring Bridge, a website mentioned by one of the clinical trial participants which shares stories and insight from a variety of perspectives of people involved in any type of health event.