Clinical trial transparency: a reassessment of industry compliance with clinical trial registration and reporting requirements in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of a 2015 cross-sectional analysis published in the BMJ Open which reported that pharmaceutical industry compliance with clinical trial registration and results reporting requirements under US law was suboptimal and varied widely among companies. DESIGN: We performed a reassessment of the data reported in Miller et al to evaluate whether statutory compliance analyses and conclusions were valid. DATA SOURCES: Information from the Dryad Digital Repository, ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA and direct communications with sponsors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Compliance with the clinical trial registration and results reporting requirements under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA). RESULTS: Industry compliance with FDAAA disclosure requirements was notably higher than reported by Miller et al. Among trials subject to FDAAA, Miller et al reported that, per drug, a median of 67% (middle 50% range: 0%-100%) of trials fully complied with registration and results reporting requirements. On reanalysis of the data, we found that a median of 100% (middle 50% range: 93%-100%) of clinical trials for a particular drug fully complied with the law. When looking at overall compliance at the trial level, our reassessment yields 94% timely registration and 90% timely results reporting among the 49 eligible trials, and an overall FDAAA compliance rate of 86%. CONCLUSIONS: The claim by Miller et al that industry compliance is below legal standards is based on an analysis that relies on an incomplete dataset and an interpretation of FDAAA that requires disclosure of study results for drugs that have not yet been approved for any indication. On reanalysis using a different interpretation of FDAAA that focuses on whether results were disclosed within 30 days of drug approval, we found that industry compliance with US statutory disclosure requirements for the 15 reviewed drugs was consistently high.

Embracing 21st Century Information Sharing: Defining a New Paradigm for the Food and Drug Administration's Regulation of Biopharmaceutical Company Communications with Healthcare Professionals.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plays a unique role in protecting the public health and minimizing the risk of the distribution of unsafe or ineffective medicines in the United States. Perhaps equally as important for public health, however, is the need for healthcare professionals to be well informed about the benefits and risks of the medicines they prescribe. In this way, information sharing is critical to healthcare delivery. FDA's current interpretation of laws and regulations governing healthcare communications prohibits biopharmaceutical companies from sharing certain accurate, data-driven information about FDA-approved uses and medically accepted alternative uses of FDA-approved drugs with healthcare professionals. Often, these uses are the standard of care for good medical practice and are, accordingly, reimbursed under the federal healthcare programs. FDA has failed to describe adequately how manufacturers can share truthful and non-misleading information about such uses with healthcare professionals and formulary decision makers. This failure could impede medical innovation, negatively impact patient care, and increase healthcare costs. To improve public health, FDA should reform its current approach and provide manufacturers with a clear safe harbor on how to share data and information on both approved uses and medically accepted alternative uses of FDA-approved drugs with healthcare professionals. This Article describes key principles for a new regulatory paradigm.

Ethical pharmaceutical promotion and communications worldwide: codes and regulations.

The international pharmaceutical industry has made significant efforts towards ensuring compliant and ethical communication and interaction with physicians and patients. This article presents the current status of the worldwide governance of communication practices by pharmaceutical companies, concentrating on prescription-only medicines. It analyzes legislative, regulatory, and code-based compliance control mechanisms and highlights significant developments, including the 2006 and 2012 revisions of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) Code of Practice.Developments in international controls, largely built upon long-established rules relating to the quality of advertising material, have contributed to clarifying the scope of acceptable company interactions with healthcare professionals. This article aims to provide policy makers, particularly in developing countries, with an overview of the evolution of mechanisms governing the communication practices, such as the distribution of promotional or scientific material and interactions with healthcare stakeholders, relating to prescription-only medicines.