You are here
Pharma Keeps Trove of Drug Trials Out of Public View
A third of the clinical trial results that federal regulators reviewed to approve drugs made by large pharmaceutical companies in 2012 were never publicly reported, according to a new study that grades companies on their transparency.
According to the Washington Post, a handful of dogged researchers pored over thousands of pages of regulatory documents, counting up the number of trials Food and Drug Administration regulators reviewed, versus how many trials were published or publicly reported. The result is an inaugural transparency report card –– essentially an index showing just how much of the evidence about how the 15 drugs actually work in people is publicly available.
"Right now, there's a big push for evidence-based medicine. It’s impossible to have evidence-based medicine without the evidence," said Jennifer Miller, an assistant professor in the division of medical ethics at New York University School of Medicine, who oversaw the report. "If the public evidence is partial or biased, you risk having partial or biased [prescription] guidelines" on how to give the drugs to patients.
The study, published in the journal BMJ Open, shows gaps in transparency, but has limitations. It analyzed only a subset of drugs approved in a single year, 2012. The researchers also examined only whether clinical trials were registered and reported, not what the data suggested about how the drugs worked.
Clinical trials are normally conducted in sequence, with the earliest stage, phase I trials, designed to determine a drug's safe dose. Phase III trials, the largest and most authoritative trials, are designed to test the safety and effectiveness of drugs. According to 2007 FDA requirements, later-stage trials meeting certain requirements are generally required to be reported and registered. Only a small fraction of the trials the study identified were required to be disclosed for each drug, but five drugs made by three companies were rated as zero percent compliant. Three of the 15 drugs studied had at least one publicly unavailable late-stage phase III trial.
An FDA spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Miller has bigger plans going forward -- her non-profit, Bioethics International, which is funded by foundations and universities but not by pharmaceutical companies, will publicly grade the transparency of drug companies year by year in a report card format.
The idea of the "Good Pharma Scorecard" is that the public disclosure will provide an added incentive for companies to be more transparent. The researchers gave the companies each a transparency grade, based on what percentage of all trial results -- not just the ones required to be reported -- were made publicly available.
"To me the right number is 100 percent; if you’re selling a product on the U.S. market, the public and the clinical science community have a right to be able to review the results, and have a right to know on what basis" the drug is approved, said Joseph Ross, an associate professor of medicine at Yale University School of Medicine, another of the paper’s authors.
Three companies were in compliance with FDA-required disclosures and also scored well on transparency: Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Johnson & Johnson.
To understand why a selective look at the evidence might matter, given that regulators with full access to the evidence already determined that a drug is safe and effective, Ross pointed to Zaltrap, a colorectal cancer drug that was approved in 2012.
According to the study, the FDA reviewed 30 trials when considering the drug, made by Sanofi, but only 12 of those trials were published or publicly reported, for a transparency score of 40 percent. That means that physicians trying to decide how to use the drug had only a limited look at the evidence of how it worked in patients, Ross said -- potentially critical information since the drug initially cost more than $10,000 a month, and there was a similar medicine on the market. The study did not delve into what the nonpublished trials showed in each case, so it could not determine whether they would have provided usable information.
For years, it's been known that study results often go unpublished, languishing in file drawers, with concerns that those studies tend to be the ones with ho-hum or negative results. While some kinds of studies carry more weight than others, many researchers argue that seeing all the evidence can be informative, perhaps suggesting that a drug works better for one group of patients than another. And Miller argues that selective publication can also erode the trust that physicians and patients have in the drug and the company.
Bayer, another company that scored poorly on transparency and on its adherence to FDA guidelines -- with zero percent compliance for its colorectal cancer drug regorafenib (Stivarga, Bayer) -- said that it supports transparency. In addition to posting trials on its own website, Bayer shares information through an independent website, which allows researchers to request clinical data for new medicines approved after Jan. 1, 2014, spokeswoman Rose Talarico said.
A 2008 study in the New England Journal of Medicine examined evidence provided to the FDA in support of a dozen antidepressants. Nearly two dozen studies that showed the drugs didn't work were not published. Eleven others were "published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome," the authors wrote. Only three studies showing negative results were published. Overall, nearly a third of the studies submitted to the FDA weren't published.
Source: The Washington Post, November 13, 2015