EU uni­ver­si­ties are mis­er­ably lax at re­port­ing clin­i­cal tri­al re­sults, analy­sis sug­gests

The val­ue of pub­lish­ing clin­i­cal tri­al da­ta can­not be ex­ag­ger­at­ed — it is cru­cial to the pace and di­rec­tion of sci­en­tif­ic progress, and crit­i­cal to the knowl­edge base em­ployed by pa­tients, doc­tors and pol­i­cy­mak­ers to make de­ci­sions about the safe­ty, ben­e­fits and adop­tion of treat­ment in­ter­ven­tions. But not every­body is quite as con­cerned with the toll clin­i­cal tri­al trans­paren­cy trans­gres­sions can take on pa­tient health, pub­lic health pol­i­cy and med­ical ad­vance­ment — a new re­port sug­gests Eu­ro­pean Uni­ver­si­ties are ex­tra­or­di­nar­i­ly guilty of these re­port­ing vi­o­la­tions.

The re­port, pub­lished on Tues­day, eval­u­at­ed the per­for­mance of 30 Eu­ro­pean uni­ver­si­ties that have spon­sored the largest num­ber of clin­i­cal tri­als gov­erned by the Eu­ro­pean Union. Since 2014, the EU has man­dat­ed every study reg­is­tered on the EU clin­i­cal tri­als reg­istry post sum­ma­ry re­sults on­to the reg­istry with­in one year of com­ple­tion (6 months for pe­di­atric tri­als) — these rules al­so ap­ply to tri­als com­plet­ed pri­or to 2014, and must be ad­hered to ir­re­spec­tive of whether re­sults have been pub­lished in aca­d­e­m­ic jour­nals.

Al­to­geth­er the eval­u­at­ed uni­ver­si­ties have spon­sored 4,575 clin­i­cal tri­als, of which re­sults are ver­i­fi­ably due for 940 tri­als. But on­ly the re­sults of 162 (17%) tri­als have been post­ed on the EU Clin­i­cal Tri­als Reg­is­ter, the re­port found. Da­ta for the study was col­lat­ed and analysed by a con­sor­tium of Eu­ro­pean in­sti­tu­tions: UK’s TranspariMED, Ger­many’s BUKO Phar­ma-Kam­pagne, Bel­gium’s Test Aankoop and Nether­land’s Health Ac­tion In­ter­na­tion­al (HAI).

“Fail­ure to ful­ly and rapid­ly re­port clin­i­cal tri­al re­sults is not a vic­tim­less crime…Some (UK) uni­ver­si­ties have al­ready post­ed over 90% of their tri­al re­sults, show­ing that where there is a will, there is a way. Why are uni­ver­si­ties that break the rules still re­ceiv­ing pub­lic funds to run ad­di­tion­al tri­als?” Till Bruck­n­er, founder of TranspariMED said in a state­ment. Truck­n­er co-au­thored a re­port in 2017 that analysed six drug case stud­ies — in­clud­ing Vioxx and Tam­i­flu — in which tri­al opac­i­ty di­rect­ly harmed pa­tients, tax­pay­ers and/or in­vestors.

In the cur­rent analy­sis, most of the 778 clin­i­cal tri­als ver­i­fi­ably miss­ing re­sults were run by uni­ver­si­ties in Den­mark (246 tri­als), Aus­tria (225), and Ger­many (117) and none of the as­sessed uni­ver­si­ties in France, Italy, Nor­way and Swe­den have made a sin­gle clin­i­cal tri­al re­sult pub­lic on the reg­istry, the re­port found.

Da­ta ex­tract­ed from the EU Clin­i­cal Tri­als Reg­is­ter via the EU Tri­als Track­er. Ac­cu­rate as of 01 April 2019.

Click on the im­age to see the full-sized ver­sion

These num­bers above may not even re­flect the ac­tu­al state of af­fairs, giv­en that many tri­als list­ed as “on­go­ing” on the Eu­ro­pean tri­al reg­istry were in fact com­plet­ed long ago, re­searchers un­der­scored. As it stands, EU uni­ver­si­ties are em­pow­ered to up­load their sum­ma­ry re­sults on­to the EU reg­istry as tri­al spon­sors, but they can­not di­rect­ly up­date the sta­tus (on­go­ing/com­plet­ed) of the tri­als. In­stead, uni­ver­si­ties are sup­posed to no­ti­fy their na­tion­al med­i­cines reg­u­la­tor when a tri­al is com­plet­ed, and the reg­u­la­tor is then meant to re­vise the tri­al’s sta­tus on the reg­istry. “For ex­am­ple, uni­ver­si­ties in the Nether­lands have run 967 tri­als in to­tal, but on­ly 23 of those (2.4%) are marked as “com­plet­ed”. This num­ber is com­plete­ly im­plau­si­ble, as reg­istry records show that many of those tri­als start­ed over five years ago. (In the UK, where a reg­istry up­date is on­go­ing, the pro­por­tion of “com­plet­ed” tri­als in the co­hort is 27.4%.),” the re­port not­ed.

A po­ten­tial rea­son why EU re­searchers  — who are not fac­ing the same lev­el of scruti­ny as their UK coun­ter­parts — have not both­ered with com­ply­ing with their trans­paren­cy oblig­a­tions could be the lack of in­cen­tive, Test Aankoop’s Van Hecke Mar­tine told End­points News. “The fo­cus of re­searchers is pub­li­ca­tion of their study re­sults in sci­en­tif­ic jour­nals, as this is re­ward­ed in their pro­fes­sion­al eval­u­a­tion and so it’s im­por­tant for their ca­reer.”

The on­ly bright spark in the re­port were UK uni­ver­si­ties — some of which have re­port­ing rates of over 90%, large­ly due to en­dur­ing pres­sure from par­lia­ment, the pub­lic and re­search fund­ing bod­ies. Out­side of the UK, 730 out of 785 ver­i­fi­ably due tri­als (93%) are cur­rent­ly miss­ing re­sults, da­ta in­di­cat­ed.

“There is no good rea­son why, if UK uni­ver­si­ties can do it, their coun­ter­parts across Eu­rope can’t. This should be the stim­u­lus oth­ers need to get their act to­geth­er and meet their trans­paren­cy oblig­a­tions. The ap­par­ent con­tempt shown by many Uni­ver­si­ties must not be al­lowed to stand.” HAI se­nior pol­i­cy ad­vi­sor An­cel.la San­tos told End­points News.

Once up­on a time, UK uni­ver­si­ties were sim­i­lar­ly lax about their re­port­ing oblig­a­tions. But con­cert­ed pres­sure has yield­ed im­pres­sive re­turns. For ex­am­ple, King’s Col­lege Lon­don en­hanced its re­port­ing rate from a woe­ful 18% to a re­spectable 93% with­in six months. The Uni­ver­si­ty of Not­ting­ham — spot­light­ed by the UK par­lia­ment’s sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy com­mit­tee for its weak per­for­mance last year — has now post­ed the sum­ma­ry re­sults of over 95% of its tri­als, the re­port not­ed.

But da­ta com­piled by Ben Goldacre, 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, out of his lab at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ox­ford sug­gests that UK uni­ver­si­ties are less re­li­able than drug de­vel­op­ers at ful­fill­ing their clin­i­cal tri­al re­port­ing oblig­a­tions.

Across the At­lantic things aren’t much bet­ter. An analy­sis pub­lished last month by Uni­ver­si­ties Al­lied for Es­sen­tial Med­i­cines (UAEM) and non-prof­it re­search ad­vo­ca­cy group TranspariMED showed that 40 lead­ing US uni­ver­si­ties should have post­ed the re­sults of 450 clin­i­cal tri­als — but over a third (31%) of those re­sults are miss­ing.

Im­age: Shut­ter­stock

Nick Leschly via Getty

UP­DAT­ED: Blue­bird shares sink as an­a­lysts puz­zle out $1.8M stick­er shock and an un­ex­pect­ed de­lay

Blue­bird bio $BLUE has un­veiled its price for the new­ly ap­proved gene ther­a­py Zyn­te­glo (Lenti­Glo­bin), which came as a big sur­prise. And it wasn’t the on­ly un­ex­pect­ed twist in to­day’s sto­ry.

With some an­a­lysts bet­ting on a $900,000 price for the β-tha­lassemia treat­ment in Eu­rope, where reg­u­la­tors pro­vid­ed a con­di­tion­al ear­ly OK, blue­bird CEO Nick Leschly said Fri­day morn­ing that the pa­tients who are suc­cess­ful­ly treat­ed with their drug over 5 years will be charged twice that — $1.8 mil­lion — on the con­ti­nent. That makes this drug the sec­ond most ex­pen­sive ther­a­py on the plan­et, just be­hind No­var­tis’ new­ly ap­proved Zol­gens­ma at $2.1 mil­lion, with an­a­lysts still wait­ing to see what kind of pre­mi­um can be had in the US.

Ted Love. HAVERFORD COLLEGE

Glob­al Blood Ther­a­peu­tics poised to sub­mit ap­pli­ca­tion for ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval, with new piv­otal da­ta on its sick­le cell dis­ease drug

Global Blood Therapeutics is set to submit an application for accelerated approval in the second-half of this year, after unveiling fresh data from a late-stage trial that showed just over half the patients given the highest dose of its experimental sickle cell disease drug experienced a statistically significant improvement in oxygen-wielding hemoglobin, meeting the study's main goal.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

News­mak­ers at #EHA19: Re­gen­eron, Ar­Qule track progress on re­sponse rates

Re­gen­eron’s close­ly-watched bis­pe­cif­ic con­tin­ues to ring up high re­sponse rates

Re­gen­eron’s high-pro­file bis­pe­cif­ic REGN1979 is back in the spot­light at the Eu­ro­pean Hema­tol­ogy As­so­ci­a­tion sci­en­tif­ic con­fab. And while the stel­lar num­bers we saw at ASH have erod­ed some­what as more blood can­cer pa­tients are eval­u­at­ed, the re­sponse rates for this CD3/CD20 drug re­main high.

A to­tal of 13 out of 14 fol­lic­u­lar lym­phomas re­spond­ed to the drug, a 93% ORR, down from 100% at the last read­out. In 10 out of 14, there was a com­plete re­sponse. In dif­fuse large B-cell lym­phoma the re­sponse rate was 57% among pa­tients treat­ed at the 80 mg to 160 mg dose range. They were all com­plete re­spons­es. And 2 of these Cars were for pa­tients who had failed CAR-T ther­a­py.

Search­ing for the next block­buster to fol­low Darza­lex, J&J finds a $150M an­ti-CD38 drug from part­ner Gen­mab

Now that J&J and Genmab have thrust Darzalex onto the regulatory orbit for first-line use in multiple myeloma, the partners are lining up a deal for a next-gen follow-on to the leading CD38 drug.


Janssen — J&J’s biotech unit — has its eyes on HexaBody-CD38, a preclinical compound generated on Genmab’s tech platform designed to make drugs more potent via hexamerization.


Genmab is footing the bill on studies in multiple myeloma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; once it completes clinical proof of concept, Janssen has the option to license the drug for a $150 million exercise fee. There’s also $125 million worth of milestones in play.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Gene ther­a­pies seize the top of the list of the most ex­pen­sive drugs on the plan­et — and that trend has just be­gun

Anyone looking for a few simple reasons why the gene therapy field has caught fire with the pharma giants need only look at the new list of the 10 most expensive therapies from GoodRx.

Two recently approved gene therapies sit atop this list, with Novartis’ Zolgensma crowned the king of the priciest drugs at $2.1 million. Right below is Luxturna, the $850,000 pioneer from Spark, which Roche is pushing hard to acquire as it adds a gene therapy group to the global mix.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Savara shares are crushed as PhI­II tri­al flunks pri­ma­ry, key sec­on­daries — but they can’t stop be­liev­ing

In­vestors are in no mood to hear biotechs tout the suc­cess of a “key” sec­ondary end­point when the piv­otal Phase III flunks the pri­ma­ry goal. Just ask Savara. 

The Texas biotech $SVRA went look­ing for a sil­ver lin­ing as com­pa­ny ex­ecs blunt­ly con­ced­ed that Mol­gradex, an in­haled for­mu­la­tion of re­com­bi­nant hu­man gran­u­lo­cyte-macrophage colony-stim­u­lat­ing fac­tor (GM-CSF), failed to spur sig­nif­i­cant­ly im­proved treat­ment out­comes for pa­tients with a rare res­pi­ra­to­ry dis­ease called au­toim­mune pul­monary alve­o­lar pro­teinosis, or aPAP.

As an­oth­er an­tibi­otics biotech sinks in­to a cri­sis, warn­ings of a sec­tor ‘col­lapse’

Another antibiotics company is scrambling to survive today, forcing the company’s founding CEO to exit in a reorganization that eliminates its research capabilities as the survivors look to improve on minuscule sales of their newly approved treatment. And the news — on top of an alarming series of failures — spurred at least one figure in the field to warn of a looming collapse of the antimicrobial resistance research field.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

'We kept at it': Jef­frey Blue­stone plots late-stage come­back af­ter teplizum­ab shown to de­lay type 1 di­a­betes

Late-stage da­ta pre­sent­ed at the Amer­i­can Di­a­betes As­so­ci­a­tion an­nu­al meet­ing in 2010 pushed Eli Lil­ly to put a crimp on teplizum­ab as the phar­ma gi­ant found it un­able to re­set the clock on new­ly di­ag­nosed type 1 di­a­betes. At the same con­fer­ence but in dif­fer­ent hands nine years lat­er, the drug is mak­ing a crit­i­cal come­back by scor­ing suc­cess in an­oth­er niche: de­lay­ing the on­set of the dis­ease.

In a Phase II tri­al with 76 high-risk in­di­vid­u­als — rel­a­tives of pa­tients with type 1 di­a­betes who have di­a­betes-re­lat­ed au­toan­ti­bod­ies in their bod­ies — teplizum­ab al­most dou­bled the me­di­an time of di­ag­no­sis com­pared to place­bo (48.4 months ver­sus 24.4 months). The haz­ard ra­tio for di­ag­no­sis was 0.41 (p=0.006).

Bain’s biotech team has cre­at­ed a $1B-plus fund — with an eye to more Big Phar­ma spin­outs

One of the biggest investors to burst onto the biotech scene in recent years has re-upped with more than a billion dollars flowing into its second fund. And this next wave of bets will likely include more of the Big Pharma spinouts that highlighted their first 3 years in action.

Adam Koppel and Jeff Schwartz got the new life sciences fund at Bain Capital into gear in the spring of 2016, as they were putting together a $720 million fund with $600 million flowing in from external investors and the rest drawn from the Bain side of the equation. This time the external investors chipped in $900 million, with Bain coming in for roughly $180 million more.

They’re not done with Fund I, with plans to add a couple more deals to the 15 they’ve already posted. And once again, they’re estimating another 15 to 20 investments over a 3- to 5-year time horizon for Fund II.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 53,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.