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

Dan Skovronsky, Eli Lilly CSO

UP­DAT­ED: An­a­lysts are quick to pan Eli Lil­ly's puz­zling first cut of pos­i­tive clin­i­cal da­ta for its Covid-19 an­ti­body

Eli Lilly spotlighted a success for one of 3 doses of their closely-watched Covid-19 antibody drug Wednesday morning. But analysts quickly highlighted some obvious anomalies that could come back to haunt the pharma giant as it looks for an emergency use authorization to launch marketing efforts.

The pharma giant reported that LY-CoV555, developed in collaboration with AbCellera, significantly reduced the rate of hospitalization among patients who were treated with the antibody. The drug arm of the study had a 1.7% hospitalization rate, compared to 6% in the control group, marking a 72% drop in risk.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED #ES­MO20: Trodelvy da­ta show that Gilead­'s $21B buy­out may have been worth the big pre­mi­um

Gilead CEO Dan O’Day has been on a shopping spree. And while some analysts gawked at the biotech’s recent $21 billion Immunomedics buyout, new data released at virtual ESMO 2020 suggest the acquisition may have been worth the hefty price.

The deal, announced last weekend, will give California-based Gilead $GILD Trodelvy, which was recently approved for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

#ES­MO20: As­traZeneca bur­nish­es Tagris­so's ad­ju­vant NSCLC pro­file with 'un­prece­dent­ed' re­duc­tion in brain mets. Can they win over skep­tics?

When AstraZeneca trumpeted “momentous” and “transformative” results for Tagrisso earlier this year at ASCO, some practitioners threw cold water on the ADAURA fervor. Sure, the disease-free survival data look good, but overall survival is the endpoint that matters when it comes to choosing adjuvant therapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients, the experts said.

The OS data still aren’t here, but AstraZeneca is back at ESMO to bolster their case with a look at brain metastasis data.

Exelixis CEO Michael Morrissey (file photo)

#ES­MO20: Look out Mer­ck. Bris­tol My­ers and Ex­elix­is stake out their com­bo’s claim to best-in-class sta­tus for front­line kid­ney can­cer

Now that the PD-(L)1 checkpoints are deeply entrenched in the oncology market, it’s time to welcome a wave of combination therapies — beyond chemo — looking to extend their benefit to larger numbers of patients. Bristol Myers Squibb ($BMY} and Exelixis {EXEL} are close to the front of that line.

Today at ESMO the collaborators pulled the curtain back on some stellar data for their combination of Opdivo (the PD-1) and Cabometyx (the TKI), marking a significant advance for the blockbuster Bristol Myers franchise while offering a big leg up for the team at Exelixis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Donald Trump and White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, before boarding Marine One (Getty Images)

Pric­ing deal col­laps­es over Big Phar­ma's re­fusal to is­sue $100 'cash card­s' be­fore the elec­tion — re­port

Late in August, as negotiations on a pricing deal with President Trump reached a boiling point, PhRMA president Stephen Ubl sent an email update to the 34 biopharma chiefs that sit on his board. He wrote that if the industry did not agree to pay for a $100 “cash card” sent to seniors before November, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows was going to tell the news media Big Pharma was refusing to “share the savings” with the elderly — and that all of the blame for failed drug pricing negotiations would lie squarely on the industry.

#ES­MO20: Alk­er­mes of­fers their first snap­shot of a ben­e­fit for their next-gen IL-2 drug. But why did 1 pa­tient starve to death?

Everyone in the cancer R&D arena is looking to build new franchises around better drugs and combos. And one busy pocket of that space is centered entirely on creating an IL-2 drug that can be as effective as the original without the toxicity that damned it to the sidelines.

Alkermes $ALKS formally tossed its hat into the ring of contenders at virtual ESMO today, highlighting the first glimpse of efficacy for their candidate, ALKS 4230, as both a monotherapy as well as in combination with Merck’s Keytruda.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Albert Bourla (Photo by Steven Ferdman/Getty Images)

Pfiz­er match­es Mod­er­na with their full Covid-19 tri­al blue­print — As­traZeneca says it will un­veil its pro­to­col 'short­ly'

Yesterday, after sustained public pressure as Moderna released its Phase III Covid-19 trial blueprint, Pfizer released its own full trial design for their vaccine trials. The move was designed to boost transparency and shore up public trust in the vaccines, but it also revealed differences in how the two companies are approaching the much-watched studies while failing to satisfy the demands of the fiercest advocates for transparency.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

#ES­MO20: Re­gen­eron, Sanofi eye an­oth­er first for their PD-1 con­tender Lib­tayo with promis­ing da­ta for on­col­o­gy niche

Regeneron and Sanofi took another step forward in the long march towards a greatly expanded market for their late-bloomer PD-1 checkpoint Libtayo.

The two occasional allies posted an objective response rate of 31% for Libtayo among 84 patients suffering from advanced cases of basal cell carcinoma at virtual ESMO. That spotlights progress for 26 patients, 5 of whom had a complete response. The data also reflect a boost in the number of responses seen from the last cut of the numbers.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO (Steven Ferdman/Getty Images)

Pfiz­er ex­ecs con­fi­dent­ly tap their top 10 block­busters-to-be. But what are the chances of sur­viv­ing PhI­II, let alone hit­ting these big peak sales es­ti­mates?

Pfizer’s top executive team doesn’t lack for confidence.

Where many Big Pharmas would be reluctant to put a peak sales figure on their late-stage drugs, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has shrugged off the usual diffidence to outline where the pharma giant expects to get $15 billion-plus.

The list, outlined this week during their investor presentations, is topped by 3 drugs in the $3 billion-plus peak sales category. They are:

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 90,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.