 |
 |
Edie: The post just prior to yours was a similar request from Joe (who had the original question yesterday). His request was off list so you didn't see my response. You sound as if you're in pretty good shape and are beyond most if not all the problems I encountered. At this point, it looks like you will take over as resident 'expert' Joe: The best advice I can give you is to be proactive, based upon my own experience. The contact at the study is a young, nice accommodating woman named Stephanie. As nice and accommodating as she is, she appears to be overloaded and working with little guidance. Examples: 1. Although I called every two weeks after I confirmed their receipt of my records from my Neuro, they waited until the day before the committee was to meet to review my records to do a preliminary review. At that point they decided they needed something else (I'll elucidate below) and if it hadn't luckily been available I would have missed that session of the review. As best I can tell, reviews do not take place too frequently. 2. They apparently require that the stage of your disease be rated (on whatever the scale is called - I'm away from home so I don't have access to my own notes or records) and If you haven't been rated by your neuro (I also don't know how current this rating has to be -- you need to ask), you will have to be. 3. I finally got all that out of the way some 4 months or so after my original submittal. Stephanie and I were up to scheduling a date for me to go to Philadelphia for a final evaluation and I believe, the concomitant beginning of the program for me. We agreed on a date and then she said she needed to review my meds once again. When I told her that I had just started a (voluntary) program to replace my Sinemet with Requip, she had to cancel my appointment because the protocol demands that your medications be stable for three months prior to evaluation and start (and by the way, have to remain stable during the trial or you have to drop out). I suggested to her as nicely as I could (I certainly didn't want to be antagonistic at this point), that had I known that, I never would have started the change in my medication: that the change was voluntary, not mandatory; and that I was very disappointed since I wanted very much to enter the study. Since we had become such frequent talking partners, she was somewhat empathetic but had no choice but to follow the protocol guidelines. I suggested that for the sake of people like me it would be helpful if they published the guidelines and sent it along with the introductory literature so that where possible, we could insure our own conformance. She agreed but allowed that she could only do what she was told to do. So instead of entering the study in mid December, I am now consigned to wait until I finish my drug experimentation which will probably put me int an April time frame. Joe, these are only my experiences and I'm sure that other glitches have developed with other applicants. Probably as many glitches as there are applicants. Stay on top of it and ask every question you can think of until you finally get an appointment. Good luck. With any luck, perhaps we will become fellow statistics. Paul H. Lauer