Measuring clinical trial transparency: an empirical analysis of newly approved drugs and large pharmaceutical companies.
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To define a series of clinical trial transparency measures and apply them to large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and their 2014 FDA-approved drugs. DESIGN:Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of all clinical trials supporting 2014 Food and Drugs Administration (FDA)-approved new drug applications (NDAs) for novel drugs sponsored by large companies. DATA SOURCES:Data from over 45 sources, including Drugs@FDA.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, corporate and international registries; PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, corporate press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and personal communications with drug manufacturers. OUTCOME MEASURES:Trial registration, results reporting, clinical study report (CSR) synopsis sharing, biomedical journal publication, and FDA Amendments Acts (FDAAA) compliance, analysed on the drug level. RESULTS:The FDA approved 19 novel new drugs, sponsored by 11 large companies, involving 553 trials, in 2014. We analysed 505 relevant trials. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 86%-100%) of trials in patients were registered, 71% (IQR 57%-100%) reported results or shared a CSR synopsis, 80% (70%-100%) were published and 96% (80%-100%) were publicly available in some form by 13 months after FDA approval. Disclosure rates were lower at FDA approval (65%) and improved significantly by 6 months post FDA approval. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 75%-100%) of FDAAA-applicable trials were compliant. Half of reviewed drugs had publicly disclosed results for all trials in patients in our sample. One trial was uniquely registered in a corporate registry, and not ClinicalTrials.gov; 0 trials were uniquely registered in international registries. CONCLUSIONS:Among large pharmaceutical companies and new drugs, clinical trial transparency is high based on several standards, although opportunities for improvement remain. Transparency is markedly higher for trials in patients than among all trials supporting drug approval, including trials in healthy volunteers. Ongoing efforts to publicly track companies' transparency records and recognise exemplary companies may encourage further progress.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To develop and pilot a tool to measure and improve pharmaceutical companies' clinical trial data sharing policies and practices. DESIGN:Cross sectional descriptive analysis. SETTING:Large pharmaceutical companies with novel drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015. DATA SOURCES:Data sharing measures were adapted from 10 prominent data sharing guidelines from expert bodies and refined through a multi-stakeholder deliberative process engaging patients, industry, academics, regulators, and others. Data sharing practices and policies were assessed using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA, corporate websites, data sharing platforms and registries (eg, the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project and Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR)), and personal communication with drug companies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Company level, multicomponent measure of accessibility of participant level clinical trial data (eg, analysis ready dataset and metadata); drug and trial level measures of registration, results reporting, and publication; company level overall transparency rankings; and feasibility of the measures and ranking tool to improve company data sharing policies and practices. RESULTS:Only 25% of large pharmaceutical companies fully met the data sharing measure. The median company data sharing score was 63% (interquartile range 58-85%). Given feedback and a chance to improve their policies to meet this measure, three companies made amendments, raising the percentage of companies in full compliance to 33% and the median company data sharing score to 80% (73-100%). The most common reasons companies did not initially satisfy the data sharing measure were failure to share data by the specified deadline (75%) and failure to report the number and outcome of their data requests. Across new drug applications, a median of 100% (interquartile range 91-100%) of trials in patients were registered, 65% (36-96%) reported results, 45% (30-84%) were published, and 95% (69-100%) were publicly available in some form by six months after FDA drug approval. When examining results on the drug level, less than half (42%) of reviewed drugs had results for all their new drug applications trials in patients publicly available in some form by six months after FDA approval. CONCLUSIONS:It was feasible to develop a tool to measure data sharing policies and practices among large companies and have an impact in improving company practices. Among large companies, 25% made participant level trial data accessible to external investigators for new drug approvals in accordance with the current study's measures; this proportion improved to 33% after applying the ranking tool. Other measures of trial transparency were higher. Some companies, however, have substantial room for improvement on transparency and data sharing of clinical trials.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the accuracy of a 2015 cross-sectional analysis published in the BMJ Open which reported that pharmaceutical industry compliance with clinical trial registration and results reporting requirements under US law was suboptimal and varied widely among companies. DESIGN:We performed a reassessment of the data reported in Miller et al to evaluate whether statutory compliance analyses and conclusions were valid. DATA SOURCES:Information from the Dryad Digital Repository, ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA and direct communications with sponsors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Compliance with the clinical trial registration and results reporting requirements under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA). RESULTS:Industry compliance with FDAAA disclosure requirements was notably higher than reported by Miller et al. Among trials subject to FDAAA, Miller et al reported that, per drug, a median of 67% (middle 50% range: 0%-100%) of trials fully complied with registration and results reporting requirements. On reanalysis of the data, we found that a median of 100% (middle 50% range: 93%-100%) of clinical trials for a particular drug fully complied with the law. When looking at overall compliance at the trial level, our reassessment yields 94% timely registration and 90% timely results reporting among the 49 eligible trials, and an overall FDAAA compliance rate of 86%. CONCLUSIONS:The claim by Miller et al that industry compliance is below legal standards is based on an analysis that relies on an incomplete dataset and an interpretation of FDAAA that requires disclosure of study results for drugs that have not yet been approved for any indication. On reanalysis using a different interpretation of FDAAA that focuses on whether results were disclosed within 30 days of drug approval, we found that industry compliance with US statutory disclosure requirements for the 15 reviewed drugs was consistently high.
Project description:Selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting has the potential to bias the medical literature. The 2007 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) mandated clinical trial registration and outcome reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov, a publicly accessible trial registry.Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA documents, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all efficacy trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes between 2005 and 2014, before and after the FDAAA. For published trials, we compared the published interpretation of the findings (positive, equivocal, or negative) with the FDA reviewer's interpretation.Between 2005 and 2014, the FDA approved 30 drugs for 32 indications of cardiovascular disease (n?=?17) and diabetes (n?=?15) on the basis of 183 trials (median per indication 5.7 (IQR, 3-8)). Compared with pre FDAAA, post-FDAAA studies were more likely to be registered (78 of 78 (100%) vs 73 of 105 (70%); p?<?0.001), to be published (76 of 78 (97%) vs 93 of 105 (89%); p?=?0.03), and to present findings concordant with the FDA reviewer's interpretation (74 of 76 (97%) vs 78 of 93 (84%); p?=?0.004). Pre FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 80 (76%) trials as positive and 91 (98%) were published as positive. Post FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 71 (91%) trials as positive and 71 (93%) were published as positive.FDAAA was associated with increased registration, publication, and FDA-concordant outcome reporting for trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Mandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period. RESULTS:The FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p <?0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p <?0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR]?=?1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.17-1.99; p?=?0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR?=?2.47; CI?=?1.57-3.73; p?<?0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR?=?1; CI?=?1-1, p?=?NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR?=?1.20; CI?=?0.84-1.72; p?=?0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR?=?1.52; CI?=?1.16-1.99; p?=?0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR?=?2.06, CI?=?1.17-3.61, p?=?0.01). CONCLUSIONS:The enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.
Project description:Individual patients with life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases can petition the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through their physicians to have expanded access (EA) to drugs that are in clinical trials but have not reached full FDA approval (the "single-patient" investigational new drug [IND] application). Additionally, recent state and federal laws-so-called "right to try legislation"-allow patients to approach drug companies directly for access prior to FDA approval. While these pathways provide potential access for individual patients to investigational drugs, different EA pathways permit entire groups of certain patients to access investigational drugs prior to FDA approval. This review focuses on special categories of EA INDs intended for multiple patients-the intermediate-group IND and the widespread-treatment IND-as well as emergency authorization for use of investigational drugs and biological products (e.g., vaccines) in public health emergencies.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:After regulatory approval, drug companies, public funding agencies and academic researchers often pursue trials aimed at extending the uses of a new drug by testing it in new non-approved indications. Patient burden and clinical impact of such research are not well understood. DESIGN AND SETTING:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of postapproval clinical trials launched within 5?years after the drug's first approval, testing anticancer drugs in monotherapy in indications that were first pursued after a drug's first Food and Drug Administration (FDA) license, for all 12 anticancer drugs approved between 2005 and 2007. FDA, Medline and Embase search date 2019 February 12. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Our primary objective was to measure burden and clinical impact for patients enrolling in these trials. Each trial was sorted into a 'trajectory' defined by the drug and cancer indication. The risk was operationalised by proportions of grade 3-4 severe adverse events and deaths. The clinical impact was measured by estimating the proportion of patients participating in trajectories that resulted in FDA approval, uptake into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines or advancement to randomised controlled trials within 8?years. RESULTS:Our search captured 104 published trials exploring monotherapy, including 69 unique trajectories. In total, trials in our sample enrolled 4699 patients. Grade 3-4 adverse events were experienced by 19.6% of patients; grade 5 events were experienced by 2.8% of patients. None of the trajectories launched after initial drug approval received FDA approval. Five trajectories were recommended by the NCCN within 8?years of the first trial within that trajectory. Eleven trajectories were advanced to randomised controlled testing. CONCLUSIONS:The challenges associated with unlocking new applications for drugs that first received approval from 2005 to 2007 were similar to those for developing new drugs altogether. Our findings can help inform priority setting in research and provide a basis for calibrating expectations when considering enrolment in label-extending trials.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Postmarketing commitments are clinical studies that pharmaceutical companies agree to conduct at the time of FDA approval, but which are not required by statute or regulation. As FDA increasingly adopts a lifecycle evaluation process, greater emphasis will be placed on postmarket evidence as a component of therapeutic evaluation. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine how often postmarketing commitments agreed upon by pharmaceutical companies at first FDA approval lead to new clinical trials and to establish the characteristics and rates of completion and dissemination of postmarketing commitments. METHODS:For new drugs and biologics approved in 2009-2012, we used public FDA documents, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus, to determine postmarketing commitments and their characteristics known at the time of FDA approval; number subject to reporting requirements, for which FDA is required to make study status information available to the public ("506B studies"), and their statuses; and rates of registration and results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication in peer-reviewed journals for all clinical trials. RESULTS:Among 110 novel drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 2009 and 2012, 61 (55.5%) had at least one postmarketing commitment at the time of first approval. Of 331 total postmarketing commitments, 33 (10.0%) were for new clinical trials; 27 of these were 506B studies subject to public reporting requirements, of which 12 (44.4%) did not have a recent (i.e., up-to-date) or closed (i.e., fulfilled or released) status provided publicly by the FDA. Although two postmarketing commitments were insufficiently described in FDA records to perform searches on ClinicalTrials.gov, nearly all (28, 90.3%) of the 31 remaining postmarketing commitments for new clinical trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the registered trials, 23 (23 of 28, 82.1%) were classified as completed or terminated, of which 22 (95.7%) had reported results. When considering all 29 completed or terminated clinical trials, registered or unregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only half (14, 48.3%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS:While only 15% of postmarketing commitments agreed to by pharmaceutical companies at the time of FDA approval were for new clinical trials, these trials were nearly always registered with reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov. However, only half were published, and despite FDA public reporting requirements, recent status information was often unavailable for 506B studies.
Project description:Importance:The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can use postmarketing requirements to mandate pharmaceutical companies to conduct clinical trials after the approval of novel therapeutics. Pharmaceutical companies can also agree to conduct nonmandated clinical trials as postmarketing commitments. However, when therapeutics are approved by the FDA without postmarketing requirements or postmarketing commitments, it is not well known how often pharmaceutical companies voluntarily conduct trials and report results monitoring safety or efficacy after approval. Objective:To characterize postapproval clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies of therapeutics initially approved by the FDA without clinical postmarketing requirements or commitments. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional analysis included postapproval clinical trials conducted with at least 1 site in the United States sponsored by pharmaceutical companies of therapeutics first approved by the FDA from 2009 through 2012. Analyses were conducted June 11, 2018, to November 30, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Postapproval clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov generating safety or efficacy data, characteristics including whether trials focused on approved or unapproved indications, study design elements, and rates of study completion and results reporting. Results:From 2009 through 2012, the FDA approved 110 novel therapeutics for 120 indications, of which 37 novel therapeutics for 39 indications did not have postmarketing requirements or commitments for new clinical studies at the time of first approval. For 31 therapeutics (83.8%), there were 600 postapproval clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Most trials investigated therapeutics for new indications (363 [60.5%]) or expanded populations of the originally indicated disease (122 [20.3%]). Trials were often small (median [interquartile range] enrollment, 44 [21-131] participants), nonrandomized (359 [59.8%]), unblinded (455 [75.8%]), and lacked comparators (381 [63.5%]). Approximately half of the trials (311 [51.8%]) assessed at least 1 clinical outcome. Of 300 terminated or completed trials, 204 trials (68.0%) had reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov a median (interquartile range) 16 (13-25) months after their primary completion date. For the 96 trials (32.0%) without reported results, a median (interquartile range) 35 (13-62) months had passed since their primary completion date. Conclusions and Relevance:Pharmaceutical companies frequently conducted clinical trials after approval, even when there were no clinical postmarketing requirements or commitments at approval. However, most of these trials evaluated new indications or expanded patient populations rather than monitored approved uses, and nearly half of the trials remained incomplete more than 5 years after original therapeutic approval.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pharmaceutical companies and other trial sponsors must submit certain trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The validity of these results is unclear. PURPOSE:To validate results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov against publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews on Drugs@FDA. DATA SOURCES:ClinicalTrials.gov (registry and results database) and Drugs@FDA (medical and statistical reviews). STUDY SELECTION:100 parallel-group, randomized trials for new drug approvals (January 2013 to July 2014) with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov (15 March 2015). DATA EXTRACTION:2 assessors extracted, and another verified, the trial design, primary and secondary outcomes, adverse events, and deaths. RESULTS:Most trials were phase 3 (90%), double-blind (92%), and placebo-controlled (73%) and involved 32 drugs from 24 companies. Of 137 primary outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, 134 (98%) had corresponding data at Drugs@FDA, 130 (95%) had concordant definitions, and 107 (78%) had concordant results. Most differences were nominal (that is, relative difference <10%). Primary outcome results in 14 trials could not be validated. Of 1927 secondary outcomes from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA mentioned 1061 (55%) and included results data for 367 (19%). Of 96 trials with 1 or more serious adverse events in either source, 14 could be compared and 7 had discordant numbers of persons experiencing the adverse events. Of 62 trials with 1 or more deaths in either source, 25 could be compared and 17 were discordant. LIMITATION:Unknown generalizability to uncontrolled or crossover trial results. CONCLUSION:Primary outcome definitions and results were largely concordant between ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA. Half the secondary outcomes, as well as serious events and deaths, could not be validated because Drugs@FDA includes only "key outcomes" for regulatory decision making and frequently includes only adverse event results aggregated across multiple trials. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Library of Medicine.
Project description:Importance:Clinical trial evidence used to support drug approval is typically the only information on benefits and harms that patients and clinicians can use for decision-making when novel cancer therapies become available. Various evaluations have raised concern about the uncertainty surrounding these data, and a systematic investigation of the available information on treatment outcomes for cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warranted. Objective:To describe the clinical trial data available on treatment outcomes at the time of FDA approval of all novel cancer drugs approved for the first time between 2000 and 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants:This comparative effectiveness study analyzed randomized clinical trials and single-arm clinical trials of novel drugs approved for the first time to treat any type of cancer. Approval packages were obtained from drugs@FDA, a publicly available database containing information on drug and biologic products approved for human use in the US. Data from January 2000 to December 2016 were included in this study. Main Outcomes and Measures:Regulatory and clinical trial characteristics were described. For randomized clinical trials, summary treatment outcomes for overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response across all therapies were calculated, and median absolute survival increases were estimated. Tumor types and regulatory characteristics were assessed separately. Results:Between 2000 and 2016, 92 novel cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 100 indications based on data from 127 clinical trials. The 127 clinical trials included a median of 191 participants (interquartile range [IQR], 106-448 participants). Overall, 65 clinical trials (51.2%) were randomized, and 95 clinical trials (74.8%) were open label. Of 100 indications, 44 indications underwent accelerated approval, 42 indications were for hematological cancers, and 58 indications were for solid tumors. Novel drugs had mean hazard ratios of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81; I2?=?46%) for overall survival and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.47-0.57; I2?=?88%) for progression-free survival. The median tumor response, expressed as relative risk, was 2.37 (95% CI, 2.00-2.80; I2?=?91%). The median absolute survival benefit was 2.40 months (IQR, 1.25-3.89 months). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, data available at the time of FDA drug approval indicated that novel cancer therapies were associated with substantial tumor responses but with prolonging median overall survival by only 2.40 months. Approval data from 17 years of clinical trials suggested that patients and clinicians typically had limited information available regarding the benefits of novel cancer treatments at market entry.