
Courtesy of Linda Morgan
Linda Morgan, 56, was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2005 and has participated in about 15 clinical trials. But experts say only one in 10 patients with Parkinson's ever voluteer for a trial so getting enough can be a slow process.
When Linda Morgan was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in October 2005, her doctor told her that her symptoms weren’t bad and instructed her to come back in a year.
Sit around and wait -- for a year?! No thank you, thought Morgan, who felt like she needed to do something after getting the scary diagnosis. Just a month later, she enrolled in a clinical trial -- and since then, she's participated in about 15.
“To get the cure that we want one day or the better drugs and the better treatments and better information about Parkinson’s, we all need to do our part and participate in clinical trials,” said Morgan, a pharmacist who lives in Asheville, N.C.
Clinical trials are a required part of the regulatory process to prove that new therapies are safe and effective. While studies for heart disease and cancer treatments can fill up in 24 hours, recruiting volunteers for Parkinson’s trials is a much slower process, of about one recruit per study per location each month, said Deborah Brooks, co-founder of The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research.
Fewer than one in 10 Parkinson’s patients ever participates in a trial, Brooks said, citing data from the National Institutes of Health from 2003-2004. A 2006 Harris Poll commissioned by the Fox foundation found that while about 80 percent of Parkinson’s patients would be willing to join a study, many haven’t been told of opportunities or given access to study information, Brooks said. Many people simply don’t know how badly they’re needed.
Parkinson’s is a degenerative central nervous system disorder that results in movement problems like trembling and rigidity and affects an estimated 1 million Americans. While medications offer relief from symptoms, there are none yet that halt the progression of the disease.
Committed to the research process, Morgan is among the nearly 2,500 people who have created profiles with the Fox Trial Finder, an online tool that the Fox foundation launched in beta in July.
The finder, which uses state-of-the art technology to match study volunteers with research trial coordinators, aims to get people into clinical trials and observational studies faster to speed the development of new treatments and ultimately find a cure, Brooks said.
“This is an example of how technology can enable us to bring new strategies to address a long-standing problem,” Brooks said.
“Patients have an opportunity to be engaged in many ways in accelerating treatments and participating in clinical trials is one of the most important ways,” Brooks said. “Cures don’t come out of the sky. They can be part of it.”
The problem of not enough volunteers for trials isn't unique to patients with Parkinson's, said Kathryn G. Whitford, vice president of the American Parkinson Disease Association. Some don't understand the variety of trials available, such as nutritional studies and exercise trials and "some patients are hesitant to do it because they think it would be against the wishes of their physician," Whitford said. "Some physicians are very encouraging and some hesitate for patients to experiment with new therapies especially if they are doing well on their current regimes."
The finder has refined matching technology that directs volunteers to studies for which they are qualified. In a unique feature, Brooks said, volunteers can store profiles and are notified when studies that match their criteria become available, so they don’t have to keep checking back. Research trial coordinators use the site to look for qualified volunteers. The two sides can contact each other - the volunteers are anonymous at first - to express interest or ask questions.
“They’re accessing smart-match technology that’s pro-active but privacy-assured that eases the burden to them,” Brooks said of volunteers. “It’s easier for the two sides. We’re trying to speed, simplify and target these matches.”
While other websites list research trials and can be searched by say, location, Brooks said Fox finder is easier to navigate. “It’s a 2012 kind of user experience,” she said.
“We didn’t come at this to be competing with other things,” Brooks said. “We saw there was a real opportunity for improvements on usability and functionality.”
Whitford said the Fox finder, and the other trial-listing sites, are all comprehensive. But she said the finder “is a more sophisticated tool [and] a very valuable tool in helping people to find the trial that would best suit their particular needs."
Since creating her profile over the summer, Morgan, 56, said she’s been notified of one study, but it was one in which she had already enrolled. On a recent check of trials in her area, she said she was disappointed to see that most did not have trial coordinators attached to them.
“It has great potential,” said Morgan, also a volunteer research advocate for the Parkinson’s Disease Foundation. “It’s very exciting to have a matching active engine out there. You put the info in and it does the work for you.”
And, she reminds the Parkinson’s community that volunteers are so important to research.
“When you think about it, the only way new medications or new treatments are available is because somebody volunteered to test it,” Morgan said. “They have to have volunteers.”
Have you ever volunteered for a medical trial? Or would you? Tell us on Facebook.
Read more from TODAY Health:


I wish there was a trial of some kind for solutions to Alzheimer's. I have not heard of any and my mom's doctor has not suggested any. Which means we may have a bad doctor that doesn't care about her patients. I feel all doctors should be responsible for going over potential cures and educating their patients to possible approaches to finding a cure. Most don't. Most are too afraid of being sued to be caring.
gizmowiz: It may be that your doctor just isn't aware of any trials in your area; or there may be some other reason - it doesn't necessarily mean the doctor doesn't care about her patients.
Anyway, here's a link that you can use to search for ongoing Alzheimer's Trials.
http://www.alzheimers.org/clinicaltrialsd/
Good luck.
If the doctors were more educated about their treatment options to their patients, and perhaps be a little bit more proactive, then the said doctor might be of more use other than just being a payment collector.
Heh.
DaveT: Most physicians are well educated about treatment options. The fact is there are a lot of clinical trials ongoing for many different things (the link above says there are 48 clinical trials for Alzheimer's) - perhaps these trials aren't in the area the patient is at, or perhaps the physician knows this patient doesn't qualify for those trials, perhaps the physician isn't aware of a trial in that patients area because it's a new trial the physician hasn't been informed of yet, perhaps there is some other reason the physician didn't mention a trial to the patient and the patients family. We don't know what the reason is - to assume it's because the physician isn't educated about treatment options or that they don't care is a huge assumption.
Then they are at more fault for not doing what was right. Taking care of their patient.
Excuses, excuses, and more excuses.
DaveT: Again, we don't know the reasons why a patient isn't informed of a clinical trial - there are valid reasons for not referring a patient for clinical trial other than a physician not taking care of their patient. You are making an assumption that the physician is not taking care of their patient when they don't automatically recommend a clinical trial. Just because there are clinical trials out there doesn't mean that the patient can participate in them - maybe the patient isn't eligible for a trial. There is a chance that the physician hasn't been made aware of the trial (for whatever reason). It's rather presumptuous to assume a physician isn't taking care of their patients just because they don't recommend a clinical trial for every patient.
Good for Mr. Fox. Cannot knock him. If I recall, a few years ago, Rush (I feel no pain) Limbaugh, made some remark that the tremors than Mr. Fox had were merely staged.
I hope that better medications appear soon.
I think Mr. Fox should give Limbaugh a few tremors to the face for such a rude comment
I hope for many in these trials. . . my mom can't participate (though has Parkinson's) because she is schizo-effective and bipolar (some meds which over 40 years have probably caused the Parkinsons. . . ). I pray for all of those suffering including Michael J. Fox
I hope he knows what kind of trial he's trying to recruit for. Double blind trials are all the rage for testing new drugs, with the placebo group(s?) a central part. The pharmaceutical industry holds these trials in superstitious awe, testing drugs so that neither doctor nor patient supposedly knows whether they're getting the real thing or the inert placebo. Perhaps this is why there are so few volunteers.
Double blind studies aren't "all the rage", but rather an important tool for eliminating bias. Even if only the doctor knows (a blind study) he may inadvertently... or purposely... pass off his bias to the patient and skew results. For an accurate trail, a double blind test is the most effective. All trials need a control group. A double blind study just makes that control group unknown to all parties until after the trial has finished.
Anyone interested in a clinical trial for any disease should know about www.clinicaltrials.gov. Every trial being run in the United States is required to register with this site. It's very user friendly--check click on search and then type in the disease you want to research. You can also type in a location to make it more specific. Every trial is required to post a contact, and that can get you started towards enrollment.
Do not forget the medical ethics for some of the volunteers may not receive what the real medicines that they suppose to have.
As long as they know that getting a placebo is possible, the ethics are ok. And if the drug doesn't work getting the placebo wasn't a rip off. If it doesn't, then the control group is next in line to get the real thing.
Hey don't knock the placebo effect either. Some percentage of the placebo group will show improvements.
Right, that's the whole reason you use a placebo. If a pill that is going to cost $100 a piece (or even $5 for that matter) doesn't do anymore than sugar then it is a waste of time and money.
I think Fox is a one of the best examples of the BEST Hollywood has to offer. Too few of him in that community that give back as much as they can.
I think they should keep Michael J. Fox's name on it but let someone else do the aiming... just sayin'...
wow...one of the most inappropriate comments I've seen on here in a while.
II"mm MMiicchhaaeell J.J. FFooxx,, aanndd II aapppprroovveedd tthhiiss mmeessssaaggee.
and then you top it...