Availability of Clinical Trial Data From Industry-Sponsored Cardiovascular Trials

A 10-year update to the principles for clinical trial data sharing by pharmaceutical companies: perspectives based on a decade of literature and policies

Data sharing is essential for promoting scientific discoveries and informed decision-making in clinical practice. In 2013, PhRMA/EFPIA recognised the importance of data sharing and supported initiatives to enhance clinical trial data transparency and promote scientific advancements. However, despite these commitments, recent investigations indicate significant scope for improvements in data sharing by the pharmaceutical industry. Drawing on a decade of literature and policy developments, this article presents perspectives from a multidisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, and consumers. The focus is on policy and process updates to the PhRMA/EFPIA 2013 data sharing commitments, aiming to enhance the sharing and accessibility of participant-level data, clinical study reports, protocols, statistical analysis plans, lay summaries, and result publications from pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials. The proposed updates provide clear recommendations regarding which data should be shared, when it should be shared, and under what conditions. The suggested improvements aim to develop a data sharing ecosystem that supports science and patient-centred care. Good data sharing principles require resources, time, and commitment. Notwithstanding these challenges, enhancing data sharing is necessary for efficient resource utilization, increased scientific collaboration, and better decision-making for patients and healthcare professionals.

Audit of Data Sharing by Pharmaceutical Companies for Anticancer Medicines Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration

Question

What proportion of clinical trials that underpin registration of contemporary anticancer medicines are eligible for individual participant data (IPD) sharing with qualified researchers?

Findings

In this quality improvement study of the 304 trials that underpinned the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration of 115 anticancer medicines over the past 10 years, 136 (45%) were eligible for IPD sharing.

Meaning

Although inroads have been made toward improving IPD transparency over the past 5 years, these findings suggest that a substantial portion of pivotal oncology trials that support the FDA registration of modern anticancer medicines remain unavailable to qualified researchers.

Importance

Emerging policies drafted by the pharmaceutical industry indicate that they will transparently share clinical trial data. These data offer an unparalleled opportunity to advance evidence-based medicine and support decision-making.

Objective

To evaluate the eligibility of independent, qualified researchers to access individual participant data (IPD) from oncology trials that supported US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new anticancer medicines within the past 10 years.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this quality improvement study, a cross-sectional analysis was performed of pivotal clinical trials whose results supported FDA-approved anticancer medicines between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2021. These trials’ results were identified from product labels.

Exposures

Eligibility for IPD sharing was confirmed by identification of a public listing of the trial as eligible for sharing or by receipt of a positive response from the sponsor to a standardized inquiry.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was frequency of IPD sharing eligibility. Reasons for data sharing ineligibility were requested and collated, and company-, drug-, and trial-level subgroups were evaluated and presented using χ² tests and forest plots.

Results

During the 10-year period examined, 115 anticancer medicines were approved by the FDA on the basis of evidence from 304 pharmaceutical industry–sponsored trials. Of these trials, 136 (45%) were eligible for IPD sharing and 168 (55%) were not. Data sharing rates differed substantially among industry sponsors, with the most common reason for not sharing trial IPD being that the collection of long-term follow-up data was still ongoing (89 of 168 trials [53%]). Of the top 10 anticancer medicines by global sales, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and pomalidomide had the lowest eligibility rates for data sharing (<10% of trials).

Conclusions and Relevance

There has been a substantial increase in IPD sharing for industry-sponsored oncology trials over the past 5 years. However, this quality improvement study found that more than 50% of queried trials for FDA-approved anticancer medicines were ineligible for IPD sharing. Data accessibility would be substantially improved if, at the time of FDA registration of a medicine, all data that support the registration were made available.

Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To explore the impact of data-sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output and impact of shared data.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All studies investigating data-sharing practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

We searched the Medline database, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, and preprints and proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In addition, we inspected major clinical trial data-sharing platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial groups and some funders.

CHARTING METHODS

Two reviewers independently extracted information on methods and results from resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome domain.

RESULTS

93 studies identified in the literature search (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 from additional information sources were included in the scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused on early phases of the data-sharing process. While the willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely high, actual data-sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data-sharing were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a gap in the evidence base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails uncertainties in the implementation of current data-sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess whether the value of medical research increases with data-sharing practices.

PRIME-IPD SERIES Part 1. The PRIME-IPD tool promoted verification and standardization of study datasets retrieved for IPD meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

We describe a systematic approach to preparing data in the conduct of Individual Participant Data (IPD) analysis.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A guidance paper proposing methods for preparing individual participant data for meta-analysis from multiple study sources, developed by consultation of relevant guidance and experts in IPD. We present an example of how these steps were applied in checking data for our own IPD meta analysis (IPD-MA).

RESULTS

We propose five steps of Processing, Replication, Imputation, Merging, and Evaluation to prepare individual participant data for meta-analysis (PRIME-IPD). Using our own IPD-MA as an exemplar, we found that this approach identified missing variables and potential inconsistencies in the data, facilitated the standardization of indicators across studies, confirmed that the correct data were received from investigators, and resulted in a single, verified dataset for IPD-MA.

CONCLUSION

The PRIME-IPD approach can assist researchers to systematically prepare, manage and conduct important quality checks on IPD from multiple studies for meta-analyses. Further testing of this framework in IPD-MA would be useful to refine these steps.

Clinical trial transparency and data sharing among biopharmaceutical companies and the role of company size, location and product type: a cross-sectional descriptive analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine company characteristics associated with better transparency and to apply a tool used to measure and improve clinical trial transparency among large companies and drugs, to smaller companies and biologics.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional descriptive analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Novel drugs and biologics Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2016 and 2017 and their company sponsors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Using established Good Pharma Scorecard (GPS) measures, companies and products were evaluated on their clinical trial registration, results dissemination and FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) implementation; companies were ranked using these measures and a multicomponent data sharing measure. Associations between company transparency scores with company size (large vs non-large), location (US vs non-US) and sponsored product type (drug vs biologic) were also examined.

RESULTS

26% of products (16/62) had publicly available results for all clinical trials supporting their FDA approval and 67% (39/58) had public results for trials in patients by 6 months after their FDA approval; 58% (32/55) were FDAAA compliant. Large companies were significantly more transparent than non-large companies (overall median transparency score of 95% (IQR 91-100) vs 59% (IQR 41-70), p<0.001), attributable to higher FDAAA compliance (median of 100% (IQR 88-100) vs 57% (0-100), p=0.01) and better data sharing (median of 100% (IQR 80-100) vs 20% (IQR 20-40), p<0.01). No significant differences were observed by company location or product type.

CONCLUSIONS

It was feasible to apply the GPS transparency measures and ranking tool to non-large companies and biologics. Large companies are significantly more transparent than non-large companies, driven by better data sharing procedures and implementation of FDAAA trial reporting requirements. Greater research transparency is needed, particularly among non-large companies, to maximise the benefits of research for patient care and scientific innovation.

Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide

BACKGROUND

Shifts in data sharing policy have increased researchers' access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical studies. Simultaneously the number of IPD meta-analyses (IPDMAs) is increasing. However, rates of data retrieval have not improved. Our goal was to describe the challenges of retrieving IPD for an IPDMA and provide practical guidance on obtaining and managing datasets based on a review of the literature and practical examples and observations.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, until January 2019, to identify publications focused on strategies to obtain IPD. In addition, we searched pharmaceutical websites and contacted industry organizations for supplemental information pertaining to recent advances in industry policy and practice. Finally, we documented setbacks and solutions encountered while completing a comprehensive IPDMA and drew on previous experiences related to seeking and using IPD.

RESULTS

Our scoping review identified 16 articles directly relevant for the conduct of IPDMAs. We present short descriptions of these articles alongside overviews of IPD sharing policies and procedures of pharmaceutical companies which display certification of Principles for Responsible Clinical Trial Data Sharing via Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America or European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations websites. Advances in data sharing policy and practice affected the way in which data is requested, obtained, stored and analyzed. For our IPDMA it took 6.5 years to collect and analyze relevant IPD and navigate additional administrative barriers. Delays in obtaining data were largely due to challenges in communication with study sponsors, frequent changes in data sharing policies of study sponsors, and the requirement for a diverse skillset related to research, administrative, statistical and legal issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of current data sharing practices and platforms as well as anticipation of necessary tasks and potential obstacles may reduce time and resources required for obtaining and managing data for an IPDMA. Sufficient project funding and timeline flexibility are pre-requisites for successful collection and analysis of IPD. IPDMA researchers must acknowledge the additional and unexpected responsibility they are placing on corresponding study authors or data sharing administrators and should offer assistance in readying data for sharing.

Sharing of clinical trial data and results reporting practices among large pharmaceutical companies: cross sectional descriptive study and pilot of a tool to improve company practices

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.

Enhancing patient-level clinical data access to promote evidence-based practice and incentivize therapeutic innovation

Clinical trials are crucial to determining the human safety and efficacy of new therapeutic innovations. Extraordinary amounts of human experiential data are generated over the course of any clinical trial, however, much of these data is never made publicly accessible. Improved, reliable data sharing is essential to inform clinical decisions and incentivize further therapeutic improvements; this need, and the call and concept to enhance patient-level clinical trial data accessibility is not new. Several recent public and private shifts in clinical data sharing policies and procedures promise to improve access and data utility to reduce waste in research and increase efficiency of evidence synthesis. Nonetheless, pharmaceutical industry remain reluctant to share full clinical data sets at some level to protect their commercial interests and avoid misuse of their data. Here, we review the landscape of emerging regulations related to the sharing of patient level data and current clinical data access models of major pharmaceutical companies. We also summarize the different measures that could satisfy both clinical data producers and users in achieving the benefits of accessing patient-level data while mitigating any associated risks.

Data sharing from pharmaceutical industry sponsored clinical studies: audit of data availability

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial transparency is important to participants, trialists, publishers, and regulators, and there have been recent major policy changes by the pharmaceutical industry regarding clinical study data sharing. However, it is unknown if these changes are enabling independent researchers to access participant-level data from prominent contemporary clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry 2 years after publication of the primary results.

MAIN TEXT

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify clinical trials of medicines sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry and first published between 1 July 2015 and 31 December 2015 in the top 10 general and internal medical journals by impact factor. For each clinical trial, the eligibility of independent researchers to request participant-level data was identified via the sponsor having a data sharing policy/process and a positive response to an enquiry. Fifty-six publications reporting on 61 industry-sponsored clinical trials were identified, of which 32 (52%) had a public data sharing policy/process and 9 (15%) were confirmed eligible for data sharing. Industry sponsors within the top 25 by global sales were more likely to have a data sharing policy (93% vs 10%), and there was a trend towards increased data sharing eligibility (23% vs 4%). Twenty-six studies were explicitly confirmed as ineligible for data sharing. The two most common data sharing policy conditions that prevented sharing of data for published results were the exclusion of studies that had ongoing follow-up of the published results and the exclusion of studies of medicines that have not yet achieved regulatory approval in the USA and the European Union.

CONCLUSIONS

Fifteen percent of the sampled clinical trials were available for data sharing 2 years after publication of primary results of the trial. Key issues limiting data sharing include a large proportion of industry sponsors who do not have a data sharing policy/process, and data sharing policy conditions that exclude access on the basis of ongoing follow-up and regulatory activity.

The Open Translational Science in Schizophrenia (OPTICS) project: an open-science project bringing together Janssen clinical trial and NIMH data

Clinical trial data are the gold standard for evaluating pharmaceutical safety and efficacy. There is an ethical and scientific imperative for transparency and data sharing to confirm published results and generate new knowledge. The Open Translational Science in Schizophrenia (OPTICS) Project was an open-science initiative aggregating Janssen clinical trial and NIH/NIMH data from real-world studies and trials in schizophrenia. The project aims were to show the value of using shared data to examine: therapeutic safety and efficacy; disease etiologies and course; and methods development. The success of project investigators was due to collaboration from project applications through analyses, with support from the Harvard Catalyst. Project work was independent of Janssen; all intellectual property was dedicated to the public. Efforts such as this are necessary to gain deeper insights into the biology of disease, foster collaboration, and to achieve the goal of developing better treatments, reducing the overall public health burden of devastating brain diseases.

Availability and Use of Shared Data From Cardiometabolic Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Sharing of patient-level clinical trial data has been widely endorsed. Little is known about how extensively these data have been used for cardiometabolic diseases. We sought to evaluate the availability and use of shared data from cardiometabolic clinical trials.

METHODS

We extracted data from ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, a large, multisponsor data-sharing platform hosting individual patient-level data from completed studies sponsored by 13 pharmaceutical companies.

RESULTS

From January 2013 to May 2017, the platform had data from 3374 clinical trials, of which 537 (16%) evaluated cardiometabolic therapeutics (phase 1, 36%; phase 2, 17%; phase 2/3, 1%; phase 3, 42%; phase 4, 4%). They covered 74 therapies and 398 925 patients. Diabetes mellitus (60%) and hypertension (15%) were the most common study topics. Median time from study completion to data availability was 79 months. As of May 2017, ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com had received 318 submitted proposals, of which 163 had signed data-sharing agreements. Thirty of these proposals were related to cardiometabolic therapies and requested data from 79 unique studies (15% of all trials, 29% of phase 3/4 trials). Most (96%) data requesters of cardiometabolic clinical trial data were from academic centers in North America and Western Europe, and half the proposals were unfunded. Most proposals were for secondary hypothesis-generating questions, with only 1 proposed reanalysis of the original study primary hypothesis. To date, 3 peer-reviewed articles have been published after a median of 19 months (9-32 months) from the data-sharing agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite availability of data from >500 cardiometabolic trials in a multisponsor data-sharing platform, only 15% of these trials and 29% of phase 3/4 trials have been accessed by investigators thus far, and a negligible minority of analyses have reached publication.

Availability of Clinical Trial Data From Industry-Sponsored Cardiovascular Trials

BACKGROUND

Industry-sponsored clinical trials produce high-quality data sets that can be used by researchers to generate new knowledge. We assessed the availability of individual participant-level data (IPD) from large cardiovascular trials conducted by major pharmaceutical companies and compiled a list of available trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified all randomized cardiovascular interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with >5000 enrollment, sponsored by 1 of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies by 2014 global sales. Availability of IPD for each trial was ascertained by searching each company's website/data-sharing portal. If availability could not be determined, each company was contacted electronically. Of 60 included trials, IPD are available for 15 trials (25%) consisting of 204 452 patients. IPD are unavailable for 15 trials (25%). Reasons for unavailability were: cosponsor did not agree to make IPD available (4 trials) and trials were not conducted within a specific time (5 trials); for the remaining 6 trials, no specific reason was provided. For 30 trials (50%), availability of IPD could not be definitively determined either because of no response or requirements for a full proposal (23 trials).

CONCLUSIONS

IPD from 1 in 4 large cardiovascular trials conducted by major pharmaceutical companies are confirmed available to researchers for secondary research, a valuable opportunity to enhance science. However, IPD from 1 in 4 trials are not available, and data availability could not be definitively determined for half of our sample. For several of these trials, companies require a full proposal to determine availability, making use of the IPD by researchers less certain.