Multiple Myeloma an incurable disease, but I have spent the last 25 years in remission using a blend of conventional oncology and evidence-based nutrition, supplementation, and lifestyle therapies from peer-reviewed studies that your oncologist probably hasn't told you about.
Click the orange button to the right to learn more about what you can start doing today.
What would you say if I told you that myeloma clinical trials downplay side effects? Meaning, when oncology writes up the results of a given clinical trial for, say, a new chemotherapy drug, the authors overwhelmingly use the terms
If you are a myeloma patient who underwent chemotherapy, how did you feel about your side effects such as
Raise your hands. Did you find them “well-tolerated?” Or possibly “tolerable?”
To be fair, if you wanted to participate in a clinical trial for your incurable blood cancer, you would have participated regardless of the expected side effects. I’m highlighting the research linked and excerpted below in an effort to establish two things:
When I was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, I participated in two clinical trials. I had to sign a waiver first. Did you sign a waiver when you entered your clinical trial?
Participating in an oncology clinical trial can have both risks and benefits, and individuals considering participation should carefully weigh these factors. Here are some general risks and benefits associated with participating in oncology clinical trials:
Signing the waiver that I mentioned above is tied to the first Key Consideration above- informed consent. If the research papers for myeloma clinical trials are biased there is no way that patients can give informed consent.
Have you been diagnosed with multiple myeloma? Are you considering entering a clinical trial? If you would like to learn more about preventing the short, long-term and late stage side effects from chemotherapy and radiation let me know- thanks-
“Results Of the 65 RCTs included, 56 (86%) used minimizing terms when describing treatment-emergent AEs. The most frequently used minimizing terms were well-tolerated or tolerable in 29 trials (45%), manageable in 18 (28%), and acceptable in 16 (25%).
Grade 3 or 4 AE rate in the examined RCTs ranged from 23% to 94%, with a median of 75% (IQR, 59%-82%). A univariate regression analysis demonstrated no association between the use of minimizing terms and grade 3 or 4 AE rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 0.88-2.10] per 10% AE rate increase; P = .17) or grade 5 AE rates (OR, 3.16 [95% CI, 0.27-12.7] per 10% AE rate increase; P = .45).
Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that trial investigators and sponsors regularly use minimizing terms to describe toxic effects in MM trials, and use of this terminology may not reflect actual AE rates in these studies.
Instead of using these terms, trial investigators should highlight event rates and patient-reported outcomes, to allow clinicians and patients to better evaluate the true tolerability of AEs…
“Results: Bias in favour of industry is apparent in every one of the themes examined with the result that research funded by industry undermines confidence in medical knowledge.
Conclusions: Bias induced by commercial concerns can be countered in one of two ways. The first is to erect a firewall between the money and the people doing the research and the data analysis. The other approach is to develop an entirely separate funding source that is independent of the pharmaceutical industry…”