Da­ta sug­gest US, UK uni­ver­si­ties fall woe­ful­ly short on re­port­ing clin­i­cal tri­al re­sults

Clin­i­cal tri­al da­ta are used by pa­tients, doc­tors and pol­i­cy­mak­ers to make in­formed choic­es about the ben­e­fits and safe­ty of in­ter­ven­tions — while the meth­ods and re­sults of all tri­als are cru­cial to the pace and di­rec­tion of sci­en­tif­ic progress. How­ev­er, there is a large body of ev­i­dence that sug­gests that com­plet­ed clin­i­cal tri­als are com­mon­ly left un­re­port­ed, and ed­u­ca­tion­al in­sti­tu­tions in the Unit­ed States and the Unit­ed King­dom — ar­guably the two biggest re­gions that breed the bulk of med­ical in­no­va­tion — have emerged as one of the key cul­prits guilty of these vi­o­la­tions.

In the Unit­ed States, Con­gress passed a law in 2007 re­quir­ing tri­al spon­sors — in­clud­ing uni­ver­si­ties — to post the re­sults of cer­tain clin­i­cal tri­als on clin­i­cal­tri­als.gov with­in a year of tri­al com­ple­tion, and a decade lat­er in Jan­u­ary 2017 the rule was fi­nal­ized. Since 2017, 40 lead­ing US uni­ver­si­ties should have post­ed the re­sults of 450 clin­i­cal tri­als — but over a third (31%) of those re­sults are miss­ing, ac­cord­ing to an analy­sis by Uni­ver­si­ties Al­lied for Es­sen­tial Med­i­cines (UAEM) in part­ner­ship with non-prof­it re­search ad­vo­ca­cy group TranspariMED.

The vi­o­la­tors in­clude some of the most ac­tive tri­al spon­sors: For ex­am­ple the MD An­der­son Can­cer Cen­ter, which has on­ly re­port­ed 77% of due tri­als, Mayo Clin­ic (42%), UC San Fran­cis­co (37%), New York Uni­ver­si­ty (21%), and Co­lum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty (17%).

A sum­ma­ry of re­sults by per­cent­age of each uni­ver­si­ty eval­u­at­ed can be seen be­low:

Source: UAEM, TranspariMED

Click on the im­age to see the full-sized ver­sion

Over­all, 140 clin­i­cal tri­als are still miss­ing re­sults and five uni­ver­si­ties are re­spon­si­ble for half of the un­re­port­ed tri­als: Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia San Fran­cis­co (17 tri­als with­out re­sults), Co­lum­bia (15 tri­als), Mayo Clin­ic (13), MD An­der­son Can­cer Cen­ter (12) and Chica­go (8), ac­cord­ing to the re­port.

These trans­paren­cy vi­o­la­tions are con­cern­ing con­sid­er­ing at least half of the valu­able med­i­cines that ex­ist to­day were orig­i­nal­ly de­vel­oped in uni­ver­si­ty labs with tax­pay­er fund­ing, in­clud­ing al­most all vac­cines, many HIV and tu­ber­cu­lo­sis drugs, and even in­sulin, the re­port not­ed. Be­tween 2010 and 2016, every sin­gle one of the 210 FDA-ap­proved med­i­cines can be traced back to fund­ing from the NIH, ac­cord­ing to a study pub­lished in the of­fi­cial jour­nal of the Na­tion­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences.

Mean­while, these trans­paren­cy trans­gres­sions are echoed in the UK. Reg­u­la­tions in Eu­rope are sim­i­lar. Any tri­al of of any med­i­c­i­nal prod­uct con­duct­ed since 2004 in an EU coun­try has al­ready been re­quired to reg­is­ter on the Eu­ro­pean Union Clin­i­cal Tri­als Reg­is­ter (EU­C­TR) and since 2012, spon­sors must en­sure that all reg­is­tered tri­als since 2004 dis­close their re­sults to the EMA with­in 12 months of tri­al com­ple­tion. But the de­lays to the EMA’s soft­ware plat­form pushed the fi­nal date for re­sults post­ing by spon­sors to late De­cem­ber 2016.

Ben Goldacre

In a BMJ study pub­lished in 2018 — led by Ben Goldacre, a best-sell­ing au­thor, med­ical doc­tor and re­searcher who fo­cus­es on un­pack­ing the mis­use of sci­ence and sta­tis­tics in his books Bad Sci­ence and Bad Phar­ma — it was found that in Eu­rope, of the 7274 tri­als where re­sults were due, 49.5% re­port­ed re­sults. Tri­als with a com­mer­cial spon­sor (such as a drug de­vel­op­er) were sub­stan­tial­ly more like­ly to post re­sults than those with a non-com­mer­cial spon­sor (68.1% v 11.0%), the analy­sis sug­gest­ed.

Out of his labs at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ox­ford, Goldacre set up an EU Tri­al­sTrack­er to con­tin­u­ous­ly mon­i­tor the re­port­ing of tri­als. As of 10 Jan­u­ary 2019, Goldacre and his team have iden­ti­fied 8,062 reg­is­tered tri­als that are ‘un­am­bigu­ous­ly’ due to re­port re­sults — but re­sults on just over half  (53.6%) have been post­ed to the reg­istry. The da­ta, which sug­gest­ed that UK uni­ver­si­ties were less re­li­able than drug de­vel­op­ers, sparked the in­ter­est of House of Com­mons Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy Com­mit­tee. UK uni­ver­si­ties could be brought in front of the com­mit­tee if they fail to im­prove their track record, and the com­mit­tee will ask them to ex­plain them­selves in a fol­low-up ev­i­dence ses­sion if im­prove­ments are not made.

Paul Hudson, Getty Images

UP­DAT­ED: Sanofi CEO Hud­son lays out new R&D fo­cus — chop­ping di­a­betes, car­dio and slash­ing $2B-plus costs in sur­gi­cal dis­sec­tion

Earlier on Monday, new Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson baited the hook on his upcoming strategy presentation Tuesday with a tell-tale deal to buy Synthorx for $2.5 billion. That fits squarely with hints that he’s pointing the company to a bigger future in oncology, which also squares with a major industry tilt.

In a big reveal later in the day, though, Hudson offered a slate of stunners on his plans to surgically dissect and reassemble the portfoloio, saying that the company is dropping cardio and diabetes research — which covers two of its biggest franchise arenas. Sanofi missed the boat on developing new diabetes drugs, and now it’s pulling out entirely. As part of the pullback, it’s dropping efpeglenatide, their once-weekly GLP-1 injection for diabetes.

“To be out of cardiovascular and diabetes is not easy for a company like ours with an incredibly proud history,” Hudson said on a call with reporters, according to the Wall Street Journal. “As tough a choice as that is, we’re making that choice.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

De­vel­op­ment of the Next Gen­er­a­tion NKG2D CAR T-cell Man­u­fac­tur­ing Process

Celyad’s view on developing and delivering a CAR T-cell therapy with multi-tumor specificity combined with cell manufacturing success
Overview
Transitioning potential therapeutic assets from academia into the commercial environment is an exercise that is largely underappreciated by stakeholders, except for drug developers themselves. The promise of preclinical or early clinical results drives enthusiasm, but the pragmatic delivery of a therapy outside of small, local testing is most often a major challenge for drug developers especially, including among other things, the manufacturing challenges that surround the production of just-in-time and personalized autologous cell therapy products.

What does $6.9B buy these days in on­col­o­gy R&D? As­traZeneca has a land­mark an­swer

Given the way the FDA has been whisking through new drug approvals months ahead of their PDUFA date, AstraZeneca and their partners Daiichi Sankyo may not have to wait until Q2 of next year to get a green light on trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201).

The pharma giant this morning played their ace in the hole, showing off why they were willing to commit to a $6.9 billion deal — with $1.35 billion in a cash upfront — to partner on the drug.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA in-house re­view spot­lights an is­sue with one of Hori­zon's end­points but notes ef­fi­ca­cy for lead drug

The FDA in-house review highlights a disagreement of investigators’ use of a key endpoint by Horizon Pharma in the late-stage trial for the top drug in its pipeline, but largely agreed that the antibody was effective.

Horizon submitted a BLA for thyroid eye disease (TED) drug teprotumumab in March, less than two years after they bought the drug (and the rest of a division) from Narrow River for $145 million upfront. With breakthrough status, priority review, orphan designation and in-house sales projections of up to $750 million, the one-time Roche reject became the marquee pipeline asset for a company that’s developed some of the world’s most expensive drugs.

Seat­tle Ge­net­ics de­tails pos­i­tive OS and PFS da­ta for tu­ca­tinib in breast can­cer

Seattle Genetics $SGEN is showing off more positive data around tucatinib, its pivotal-stage drug for HER2 positive breast cancer.

A month after hearing about solidly upbeat hazard ratios, we learned today that the estimated progression-free survival rate at one year was 33% in the tucatinib arm compared to 12% for patients taking trastuzumab and capecitabine alone.

Median PFS was 7.8 months (95% CI: 7.5, 9.6) in the tucatinib arm, compared to 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.2, 7.1) in the control arm.

Bat­tered, cash hun­gry In­tec feels the burn of No­var­tis re­jec­tion

It’s a case of some bad timing for Intec.

Just when a key trial testing the company’s Accordion drug delivery tech imploded in Parkinson’s disease, they handed Novartis data from a successful PK study of a custom Accordion pill engineered to deliver a Novartis compound to entice the Swiss drugmaker into signing a licensing agreement.

Novartis said thanks, but no thanks.

For the cash-strapped Israeli drug developer, the failure to clinch the deal marks a big blow. As of the third quarter, the company has $15.7 million in cash and equivalents, which HC Wainwright analysts estimate will keep the lights on into mid-2020.

Bris­tol-My­ers shows off a low-pro­file AML con­tender it gained from Cel­gene buy­out — and they’re tak­ing it straight to the FDA

Bristol-Myers Squibb reaped an enormous pipeline with its much-criticized $64 billion megadeal to buy Celgene. And it got a few hidden gems in the deal.

One of those gems was brought out for display on Tuesday, with a late-breaker at ASH on CC-486, which is now being prepped for regulatory filings at the FDA and elsewhere.

Celgene top-lined the positive results in a maintenance setting for acute myeloid leukemia a few months ago, but at ASH investigators pulled back the curtains on the all-important data they believe will give them an advantage in the commercial wars to come.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

De­sert­ed by Astel­las and Mer­ck, lit­tle Cor­re­vio still can't win over FDA pan­el con­cerned with its AFib drug's safe­ty

When the FDA spurned Astellas’ pitch for atrial fibrillation drug vernakalant in 2008, regulators made it abundantly clear that it wasn’t the efficacy they had a problem with — two Phase III trials had shown the drug successfully restored 52% of patients’ heartbeat from irregular to normal — but the cardio safety issues for a drug that was to compete with well established, low-risk options. One licensing deal, one clinical hold and several studies later, the chances of approval aren’t looking any better.

New trade deal knocks out long-sought bi­o­log­ics pro­tec­tions for drug­mak­ers

House Democrats negotiating with the Trump Administration on a new North American trade deal settled early on four issues: enforcement, labor and environmental standards and drug pricing.

On drug pricing, Politico reports, Trump crumbled within weeks of heightened negotiations.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 67,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.