Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Much chatter about Janet Woodcock’s Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health testimony last week. Much of it ill-informed.
Dr. Woodcock stood firm that separate labeling for generic drugs will advance the public heath by advancing 21st century drug safety. Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts (no relation) didn’t agree. His comment, “The only outcome I see is confusion,” demonstrates his own confusion.
“I’d like to dispel the notion that labels are the same now with respect to safety information,” said Janet. Representative Pitts was not mollified, moving on to suggest the agency’s motives were other than for advancing the public health – specifically that “trial lawyers” were to blame for the agency’s actions.
Trial lawyers? Clearly he’s met with representatives of the GPhA.
Janet made it clear that the decision to move forward on the labeling change rule was CDER and no one other than CDER. “The personnel in the Center for Drugs did not meet with the trial layers.”
Mr. Pitts’ suspicions were not assuaged. Whatever.
(PS/Representative Waxman commented that he found the GPhA’s report that distinct labeling would increase consumer spending on generic drugs by $4 billion annually “highly invalid.”)
Dr. Woodcock also clarified that the discussion about generics labeling did not extend to biosimilars.
Per Janet, “This rule does not apply to that because those would be under the Pubic Health Service Act – and they’re not considered generics, so that’s a separate issue.”
Much consternation over this last remark. Some see it as a nod and a wink that the agency is going to allow biosimilars to have the same name and labeling language as innovators. I disagree for two reasons:
(1) Janet was precisely correct in stating that generic drugs and biosimilars are two distinct things. Biosimilars are not generic drugs.
(2) The fact that the FDA has made distinct generic drug labeling such an important policy initiative certainly does not send a signal that they will view biosimilars in a more laissez faire manner. Au contraire.
So, for people trying to read too much into Janet’s statement that generic drug labeling is different from biosimilar naming and labeling, relax. If anything, the news is good.
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. – Niels Bohr
As a wise man once said, “He who tooteth not his own horn, that horn shall go untooted.
This is a valuable lesson that the FDA has learned to be true. And it couldn’t have happened at a better time. Specifically, I refer to opioids.
The FDA has taken the bit out of its mouth and taken hold of the reins of pain.
While scene-stealing members of Congress, some governors, and a gaggle of state attorneys general are trying to run roughshod over science-based regulation to great attention from the media, the FDA has been quietly doing the right thing without anybody noticing.
But when you do the right thing and don’t tell anyone about it, the assumption is that you’re not doing anything. That began to change with FDA Commissioner Hamburg’s aggressive testimony in front of the Senate HELP Committee defending the agency’s October approval of Zohydro ER.
And it continued yesterday with the agency’s approval of EVZIO™ (naloxone hydrochloride injection) for the emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose. Smartly, the FDA used the approval to speak, more broadly, to the topic. There was a lot to say – and it’s about time the FDA said it.
Peggy’s complete remarks can be found here.
During the stakeholder teleconference the Commissioner laid it all on the table. It turns out that the FDA is doing a lot to mitigate opioid risk after all! Most importantly, they are doing so while understanding the need to ensure appropriate access for the tens of millions of Americans suffering from chronic pain.
She got specific:
Combatting the serious public health problem of misuse, abuse, addiction and overdose from opioid analgesics is a high priority. Since 2001 the FDA has taken a number of actions designed to help address prescription opioid abuse and to encourage the development of new drug treatments for pain. These actions include:
Revising the labeling for opioid medications to foster their safe and appropriate use, including recent changes to the indications and safety warnings of extended-release and long-acting opioids.
Requiring that manufacturers conduct studies of the safety of long-term use of prescription opioids.
Improving appropriate prescribing by physicians and use by patients through educational materials required as a part of a risk mitigation strategy for extended-release and long-acting opioids.
Using the agency’s expedited review programs to advance development of new non-opioid medications to treat pain with the goal of bringing new non- or less-abusable products to market.
Working with other federal agencies and scientists to advance our understanding of the mechanisms for pain and how to treat it, including the search for new non-opioid medications for pain.
Recommending that hydrocodone-containing combination products have additional restrictions on their use by rescheduling them from Schedule III to Schedule II.
Strengthening surveillance efforts to actively monitor the changing nature of prescription opioid abuse and to identify emerging issues.
And, importantly, encouraging the development of medications to treat opioid abuse, such as buprenorphine for use in medication-assisted treatment, and to reverse opioid overdoses, such as naloxone.
I can’t say I agree with all of these things. (Upscheduling impacts appropriate access), but it’s a pretty powerful list.
And, it seems, recalling drugs that are currently on the market isn’t on the agenda.
In the immortal words of Don Draper, “If you don't like what is being said, then change the conversation.
Peggy returned again and again to the role the FDA must play in facilitating physician education, not only through labeling language but physician education. She specifically mentioned CME and working to develop (with a broad constituency) validated tools for physicians to use in determining which patients may be more prone to slide into abuse so they can choose their therapeutic recommendations more precisely.
“It all comes back to provider education,” she said. Amen.
Provider education – the Hamburg Manifesto.
That’s not regulatory mission creep; it’s the appropriate application of the agency’s Safe Use of Drugs initiative. The way you make a drug “safer” is to ensure that it is used by the right patient in the proper manner.
Importantly, the Commissioner regularly referred not to “abuse” but to “misuse and abuse.” That’s more than a rhetorical flourish since it recognizes that misuse is a gateway to abuse.
Joining Dr. Hamburg on the call were Michael Botticelli, Acting Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Douglas Throckmorton, M.D., Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA, Melinda Campopiano, M.D., Senior Medical Officer, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and Wilson Compton, M.D., Deputy Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health.
Oh, and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who never mentioned the word “recall” either. It looks like the specter of Secretarial interference is off the table. Kudos to Secretary Sebelius for making it clear this is a cross-departmental priority.
The take away message was loud and clear –misuse and abuse of opioids is a serious issue that must be addressed in an appropriate manner.
And, per today’s teleconference, “appropriate” means science-based and patient-centric.
Media Inquiries: Sandy Walsh, 301-796-4669, sandy.walsh@fda.hhs.gov
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg Statement on Prescription Opioid Abuse
For more than a decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been working to address the important public health problems associated with the misuse, abuse, addiction and overdose of opioid analgesics, while at the same time working to ensure continued access to effective and appropriate medications for millions of Americans currently suffering from pain. I firmly believe that these goals are compatible, and that actions to address one should not be at the expense of the other.
Tragically, the most recent data shows that more than 16,000 lives are lost each year due to opioid-related overdoses. In fact, drug overdose deaths, driven largely by prescription drug overdose deaths, are now the leading cause of injury death in the United States – surpassing motor vehicle crashes. We know that the illegal diversion, misuse, and abuse of prescription opioids are often fueled by inappropriate prescribing, improper disposal of unused medications, and the illegal activity of a small number of health care providers. This highlights the important role that education of prescribers and patients can play in addressing this epidemic. The FDA has taken steps to address this but more work remains to be done.
Combatting the serious public health problem of misuse, abuse, addiction and overdose from opioid analgesics is a high priority. Since 2001 the FDA has taken a number of actions designed to help address prescription opioid abuse and to encourage the development of new drug treatments for pain. These actions include:
Revising the labeling for opioid medications to foster their safe and appropriate use, including recent changes to the indications and safety warnings of extended-release and long-acting opioids.
Requiring that manufacturers conduct studies of the safety of long-term use of prescription opioids.
Improving appropriate prescribing by physicians and use by patients through educational materials required as a part of a risk mitigation strategy for extended-release and long-acting opioids.
Using the agency’s expedited review programs to advance development of new non-opioid medications to treat pain with the goal of bringing new non- or less-abusable products to market.
Working with other federal agencies and scientists to advance our understanding of the mechanisms for pain and how to treat it, including the search for new non-opioid medications for pain.
Recommending that hydrocodone-containing combination products have additional restrictions on their use by rescheduling them from Schedule III to Schedule II.
Strengthening surveillance efforts to actively monitor the changing nature of prescription opioid abuse and to identify emerging issues.
And, importantly, encouraging the development of medications to treat opioid abuse, such as buprenorphine for use in medication-assisted treatment, and to reverse opioid overdoses, such as naloxone.
Today’s FDA approval of Evzio (naloxone autoinjector) provides an important new tool in our arsenal to more effectively combat the devastating effects of opioid overdose, which is one part of our comprehensive work to support opioid safety. Reflecting the FDA’s commitment to encouraging important new therapies, the FDA’s review of Evzio was granted priority status, and the application was reviewed by the FDA in just 15 weeks.
This product is the first auto-injector designed to rapidly reverse the overdose of either prescription or illicit opioids. While the larger goal is to reduce the need for products like these by preventing opioid addiction and abuse, they are extremely important innovations that will help to save lives.
The FDA will continue to work to reduce the risks of abuse and misuse of prescription opioids, but we cannot solve this complex problem alone. A comprehensive and coordinated approach is needed; one that includes the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Enforcement Administration and many of our sister agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state and local governments, public health experts, health care professionals, addiction experts, researchers, industry, and patient organizations.
I am confident that this can be accomplished, but we will all need to work together to invest in strategies and responsible approaches that deter or mitigate the effects of abuse while preserving access to pain medicines for the patients that need them the most.
On Tuesday I appeared on Al Jazeera America program, “The Stream.” The episode was titled “Inside the medicine cabinet,” and here’s how it was described:
Nearly 70% of Americans are on at least one medication. But for millions, combining too many of them could lead to dangerous consequences – even with safeguards in place to protect patients. We’ll explore what you need to know about your medicine cabinet.
Hosted by Lisa Fletcher, my fellow panelists were
Michael Carome
Director, Health Research Group at Public Citizen
Dr. Natalie Boulware
Naturopathic Physician, Tulsi Holistic Living
Dr. Caleb Alexander
Co-Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness
David S.H. Lee
Assistant Professor, Oregon State University College of Pharmacy
Good topic. Good panelists.
Click here for the full video.
According to a new study from Adherent Health, a mobile health engagement advisory focused on medication safe-use, adherence, and health outcomes attainment, nearly three-quarters of prescription-takers use mobile apps, including most older adults and seniors.
Mobile app adoption rates are high across all medication-taking adult age groups: 93% (age 18-24), 90% (age 25-34), 88% (age 35-44), 80% (age 45-54), 66% (age 55-64), and 50% (age 65+).
Among other study findings, prescription-taking patients using mobile apps were similar to their non-app using counterparts in terms of annual income, education level, and geographic region.
Conducted in the first quarter of 2014, the 2014 Patient Preference Study surveyed the mobile app behaviors and medication support preferences of 2,216 prescription-taking patients aged 18-65+.
"This is a high rate of mobile app use among prescription-taking patients of all ages, including those 65+" remarked Michael A. Weber, MD, Professor of Medicine at the SUNY Downstate College of Medicine in Brooklyn, and Editor-In Chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension. "Apps represent an attractive communications medium to better support patient understanding, medication adherence, and medication safe-use."
Approximately half of America's 187 million prescription-takers are non-adherent, meaning they do not take their medications as prescribed.
App-using patients prefer a privacy-protected single app (such as Adherent’s Mobile Health Library system) by a factor of 11 to 1 over email programs often offered by medication manufacturers. This high preference for a privacy-protected single app, customized to a user's needs for medication education and support services, was observed across all adult age groups.
"I'm not surprised that most patients would prefer a single privacy-protected app that supports medication dosing reminders, ongoing education, and co-pay and affordability needs" said Amy C. Sidorski, MS, CRNP, BSN, RN of Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, and member of the ONS:Edge Oncology Nurse Experts Panel. "Especially one they receive from their physician or nurse."
A very important series of stories in this week’s issue of BioCentury (authored by Steve Usdin) addressing the thorny, urgent (and too frequently ignored) topic of expanded access to experimental medicines. The articles generally refer to “compassionate use” and “compassionate access.” That’s the wrong terminology – and a good place to begin the conversation.
In January 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, opted not to accept an appeal of Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach. In other words, the federal appeals court ruling that patients do not have a constitutional right to experimental drugs stands.
This is a tough, emotional issue and, with such heated rhetoric on both sides, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that everyone wants the same thing -- expanded access to drugs under clinical investigation.
For me this issue began (when I was Associate Commissioner for External Affairs at the FDA) during a meeting with Theresa Toigo (then the Director of the agency’s Office of Special Health Issues) and Frank Burroughs (founder of the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs). The meeting centered on Frank’s assertion that the FDA could do more to expand its parameters for patient access. We all agreed more could be done. Frank left. Terry stayed – and I asked her why we (the FDA) used the term “compassionate use.” Her answer was simple – “It’s what we’ve always called it.”
I said, “Let’s change what we call it." Allowing desperately ill patients into clinical trial programs shouldn't be an act of noblesse oblige it should be an act of civil society. We decided to work towards changing the term to “expanded access.” And we did. It’s one of the things I am most proud of accomplishing during my time at the FDA.
But it has to be more than rhetoric. The words have to mean something – and what they have to mean is that more patients get more access to more experimental medicines more expeditiously. In many cases it is, literally, a life-or-death situation.
When it comes to pharmaceutical safety, pure libertarianism isn't in the best interests of the public health. Expanded access to experimental drugs simply can't and shouldn't morph into total, unfettered access.
That doesn't mean the status quo is working. What it means is that the FDA needs to figure out a way to dramatically broaden and facilitate expanded access to experimental drugs under its review. And the Abigail Alliance and its supporters need to keep up the pressure to improve the current system.
This is best done in a spirit of collegiality rather than a confrontational courtroom or in Congress. Should expanded access design and development planning discussions be binary conversations between a sponsor and the FDA? What about the patient community? Perhaps, as part of the FDA’s current initiatives to enhance both the timeliness and weight of the patient voice, expanded access plan development and execution should involve patient organizations.
In the BioCentury articles, Usdin speaks to the phenomenon of social media and the pressures it can (and does) bring to bear on sponsors. Maybe it’s time to harness that power to make the process both more inclusive and better.
It’s time.
A new analysis by the Alliance for Integrity and Reform of 340B indicates that a substantial portion of hospitals enrolled in the 340B program provide only a minimal amount of charity care; as such, they may not be fulfilling Congress’ expectations.
The study, compiled from newly available public data analyzed by Avalere Health, noted that the 340B drug discount program was designed by Congress to help safety net providers improve access to prescription medicines for uninsured, vulnerable patients in the outpatient hospital setting. Yet, the analysis shows, most hospitals that benefit from the program provide less charity care than the national average for all hospitals, and charity care in about a quarter of all 340B hospitals represents 1% or less of total patient costs. A small number of 340B hospitals provide the lion’s share of all charity care delivered by 340B hospitals.
The analysis raises questions about whether the current 340B eligibility criteria specifically used for DSH hospitals are serving the spirit and intent of the law in that they may be overly broad and not just target those entities that serve high numbers of vulnerable, uninsured patients. Specifically, the new research shows:
• More than two-thirds of hospitals that receive 340B drug discounts provide less charity care as a percent of patient costs than the national average for all hospitals, including for-profit hospitals which do not qualify for 340B under current eligibility criteria.
• For approximately a quarter (24%) of 340B hospitals, charity care represents 1% or less of the hospitals’ total patient costs.
• Approximately one-fifth (22%) of 340B hospitals provide 80% of all charity care delivered by 340B DSH hospitals.
Currently, hospitals that qualify for the program claim 340B discounts for most outpatient prescription drugs, for both insured and uninsured patients. And while the 340B program lowers outpatient drug costs for qualifying hospitals on the presumption that it will help significant numbers of vulnerable, uninsured patients, participating hospitals currently see no restrictions on the way they spend the revenue generated if they charge both insured and uninsured patients higher prices than the 340B-discounted price.
This stands in contrast to many other covered entities that participate in the 340B program as a result of a specific grant (often referred to as “grantees”) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The grant-approval process typically requires these providers to demonstrate that they provide services to certain specified vulnerable populations, at times based upon the patients’ “ability to pay”, and that the entities reinvest resources into services for those populations.
340B's broad eligibility criteria for hospitals have led to an explosion in the number of hospitals that have come into the 340B program. Today, one-third of all hospitals in the country participate in the 340B program and get 340B discounts; that number is expected to grow, particularly absent an effort to tighten eligibility requirements. Drug purchases through the 340B program will almost double, from $6 billion in 2010 to $13.4 billion by 2016, though little of the billions of dollars in discounts has been directly tracked to or linked with charity care for vulnerable indigent patients.
The complete report, “Unfulfilled Expectations,” can be found here.
BioCentury reports that NICE is seeking input on proposed changes to its health technology assessment methodology that the agency said would more explicitly take into account the burden of a person's illness and the wider impact of a disease on people's ability to be part of society. NICE is proposing to measure burden of illness as the proportional shortfall in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for those with a disease compared with the expected QALYs for those of the same age and gender without the disease. NICE said evaluating burden of illness as a proportional difference "recognizes the position of those patients who stand to lose the greatest proportion of their remaining health expectancy." The agency noted that the measure "is not particularly sensitive to the age at which people are diagnosed."
What NICE calls "societal impact" would be measured as the absolute difference between the expected QALY in a patient with a disease and the expected QALY in people of the same age and gender without the disease. The agency noted that for an absolute shortfall, "the larger the shortfall, the larger the effect" on society. Comments on the proposed methodology changes are due June 20, with NICE planning to introduce the changes this fall.
In 2010, the U.K. government proposed to establish a system under which NICE would have assessed the value of a new drug and assigned a value-based price. But the 2014 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) agreement essentially marked the end of value-based pricing as it was originally proposed, with NICE instead shifting toward a "value-based" assessment process.
It’s important to consider VBID in the broader conversation of clinical effectiveness and more specifically HTA modeling a la QALY – because that brings you into the direct path of VSLY – the value of a statistical life year. According to Dr. Frank Lichtenberg of Columbia University, for a healthcare technology assessment scheme (such as the NICE model) to yield valid decisions in practice, it is necessary to have reliable estimates of:
ΔCOST
ΔQALY
and VSLY (Value of a Statistical Life Year)
and his main point is that the devil is in the details.
Lichtenberg believes that incorrect estimates of some or all of these key inputs are often used:
ΔCOST is frequently overestimated
ΔQALY and VSLY are frequently underestimated
And due to these estimation biases, health technologies that are truly cost-effective may often be rejected as cost-ineffective.
Per the recent debate over the utility of new cancer treatments, he makes a very interesting point -- that even though, over the past 30 years, the U.S. Mortality Age-Adjusted Rates for cancer have remained relatively constant -- (leading to such mainstream media headlines as Fortune Magazine's "Why have we made so little progress in the War on Cancer?” and NEJM articles like "The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing” -- the often ignored reality is that 5-year relative survival rates, for all cancer sites, have increased from 50.1% in 1975 to 65.9% in 2000.
Lichtenberg cites two crucial studies, pointing out how health care economists must seriously reconsider the outdated estimates of a QALY:
Viscusi and Aldy: The value of a statistical life for prime-aged workers has a median value of about $7 million in the United States
Viscusi, W. Kip and Joseph E. Aldy, “The Value of a Statistical Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World,” The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 27:1; 5–76, 2003.
and
Murphy and Topel: The value of a life year is $373,000.
Murphy, Kevin M., and Robert H. Topel, “The value of health and longevity,” Journal of Political Economy, 2006.
If the devil is in the details (and it is) -- it's time for a deep dive beyond simplistic and self-serving "comparative effectiveness."
Pharma and the First Amendment: A Proposal From the FDA
By Ed SilvermanOn one hand, the agency is being praised for trying to move the ball forward, given ongoing uncertainty over disseminating material that contains off-label uses. Although physicians may prescribe a drug as they see fit, many drug makers have been fined for promoting their medicines for uses not approved by the FDA.
Yet at the same time, the FDA is being criticized for being overly restrictive concerning some materials and for also failing to specifically address First Amendment issues that have figured prominently in some recent court rulings about drug marketing.
“The fact that they’re starting to pay attention and open up off-label communications indicates they know they have to do a better job of defending the limits they have, and specifying what can and can’t be used and how that’s done,” says John Kamp, executive director for the Coalition for Healthcare Communication, a trade group for medical publishers and advertising agencies. “There are steps forward here. But in some cases, baby steps.”
One portion that was welcomed by industry representatives pertains to clinical practice guidelines, the official recommendations for patient treatment that are issued by professional medical societies. Until now, the FDA had not addressed these guidelines, which are closely tracked by doctors and may include off-label uses. The guidance says that CPGs must be distributed separately from promotional information and should display a statement that some of the products described might not approved or cleared by the FDA, among other things.
By devoting a portion specifically to clinical practice guidelines, the agency has now carved out a separate road map for distributing these missives to physicians.
“They’ve brought some clarity to this issue, which is very important,” says Alan Bennett, an attorney who represents more than a dozen drug makers that last fall filed a citizen’s petition (PDF) with the FDA in hopes of gaining clarity on distributing materials that contain references to off-label uses. The drug makers include Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Genentech, Purdue Pharma, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson.
But the FDA raised some hackles with its other dictums. For one, the agency did not add much understanding to an earlier guidance from 2009 that was devoted to medical and scientific journal reprints containing off-label information. This time around, though, the FDA noted that it does want companies to limit reprints to “adequate and well-controlled clinical” studies.
The earlier guidance also mentioned pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics and meta-analysis studies.
This would appear to preclude almost anything other than a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, according to Richard Samp, chief counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation, a nonprofit that frequently agitates for commercial free speech rights. “Against the great weight of medical opinion, FDA continues to insist that other types of studies have no scientific validity,” he says.
There was also disappointment that the FDA did not address the simmering debate over distribution of off-label materials that may be protected by the First Amendment. One closely watched case involved the 2008 conviction of a former pharmaceutical sales rep, who was prosecuted for encouraging doctors to prescribe a drug on an off-label basis.
A federal appeals court, however, overturned the conviction in late 2012 after agreeing that his First Amendment rights were violated because the federal government failed to prove his remarks were false or misleading. But the FDA did not discuss free-speech issues in its guidance at all. “They were silent on this and at some point they’re going to have to address it,” says a disappointed Bennett.
For now, the guidance may be sufficiently restrictive to discourage drug makers from taking many chances. “The hurdles for any meaningful dissemination of peer-reviewed information on off-label uses are very high,” says Arnie Friede, a former FDA associate chief counsel and former senior corporate counsel at Pfizer, who is now at Sandler, Tavis & Rosenberg, a law firm based in Miami.
And he notes that many drug makers may already be gun shy due to Corporate Integrity Agreements. These stem from settlements relating to off-label promotion, and many already regulate the dissemination of this material. “In theory,” he says, “a company subject to a CIA will have to run a dual gauntlet – compliance with the CIA and compliance with the draft guidance. So it becomes a fair question to ask: why bother?”
The Wall Street Journal reports that, “Drug companies and researchers will no longer be able to withhold the results of unfavorable clinical trials, if changes to European law are passed as expected next month.”
The new law would require the results of all trials plus a full clinical-study report to be published within a year of the trial ending. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the new legislation April 3, and it would come into force in 2016.
What the Journal did not report was that in May 2013 the General Court of the European Union prohibited the European Medicines Agency from releasing data from two AbbVie and Intermune trials in an interim ruling, part of a challenge by the two drugmakers to the agency’s decision to grant access to information the companies provided as part of their market approval applications. The challenge is the first to be made to the EMA’s three-year old access-to-documents policy.
The Journal, “Around half of all trial results go unpublished, according to current estimates, including a 2009 paper that looked at 677 studies conducted in different countries. A 2012 paper found just 45% of 635 U.S. National Institutes of Health-sponsored trials were published within 30 months of completion.”
Unreported is that in 2000, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched ClinicalTrials.gov to provide public access to information on clinical studies. Although it initially contained information primarily on NIH-funded research, it has been expanded to include both publicly and privately supported clinical research.
Since the launch of the site, it has been enhanced to significantly increase data sharing. The ClinicalTrials.gov database includes information on nearly 140,000 clinical trials in all 50 states and 182 countries.
Is anyone accessing this wealth of information? Yes! The NIH reported last year that ClinicalTrials.gov “receives more than 95 million page views per month and 60,000 unique visitors daily.
At the July 2013 Clinical Trials Disclosure and Transparency Summit, Sir Alasdair Breckenridge, former Chairman of the MHRA and currently the Chair of United Kingdom’s Department of Health Emerging Science and Bioethics Advisory Committee, noted that transparency is “a process without a beginning or an end. It is a continuum.” And, “Transparency is like feeding a hungry dog – you more you give it, the more it wants.”
Sir A. suggested four key questions:
(1) Should the public have access to data on which regulatory decisions are taken?
(2) What are the advantages and disadvantages of increased transparency?
(3) What are the key distinctions between transparency and communication (specifically the issue of public health literacy and numeracy – and the “road testing” of released information)?
(4) Will increased transparency lead to increased trust in regulators and industry?
On that last point, Dr. Breckenridge points out that increased transparency does not lead to increased trust. Trust depends on perceptions of honesty and competence, and transparency may expose inherent inefficiencies in a system. And that’s a good thing – if we really mean to make the most of transparency.
Transparency cannot be “for thee but not for me.”
And he offers five keystones for moving forward:
(1) Agreement on timing of release of information
(2) Agreement on nature of information to be released
(3) Standards of protection of personalized data
(4) Standards for meta-analyses
(5) Rules of engagement for observational studies
Per the European Parliament vote, some policy issues to consider:
* Should transparency be a government dictate or a working collaboration between interested parties both private and public – and what role should patients play.
* Should there be formalized transparency consortia? Should it be global?
* What are the implications for intellectual property and the connected question of incentivizing (or dis-incentivizing) investment in innovation? Is transparency a Trojan horse to attack patents and intellectual property rights?
* Can transparency become a competitive advantage as well as a public health imperative?
After all, good things happen when everybody wins.
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
