Tag Archives: EFPIA

Reticence Around Unveiling Clinical Trials

Posted on by
Reply

While scanning through various publications, we now get to know, almost at regular intervals, about new clinical trials capturing the newer ways of treating different ailments. Such information instils an invigorating hope in the minds of doctors and the patients alike, to more successfully and predictably fight the battle against diseases in the ongoing pursuit for a better quality of life.

However, for independent and impartial assessment of any new drug before it comes to the market, an ethical and transparent process of unveiling clinical trials, sans any reticence whatsoever, are absolutely essential. Only this process would be able to satisfactorily establish, beyond an iota of doubt, the safety and efficacy levels of, especially, the new drugs. To move in that direction, the fundamental requirements will be diligently recording and publishing all types of data – positive, not so positive, and also negative, arising out of all clinical trials, conducted anywhere in the world, for the same drug.

Thus, there should be a system of open access to all clinical trial data, as each trial is completed. Otherwise, pharma companies’ publication bias, overwhelmingly on positive results, would continue, as alleged by many across the world. It is worth noting that over 60 percent of all clinical trials for new drugs are sponsored by the pharma and biotech companies.

There isn’t any dearth of examples of new drugs’ getting not just the required regulatory approval, riding on the back of robust ‘positive’ clinical trial data on safety and efficacy, but also becoming highly dependable money-spinners for the companies, and in no time, as it were. These cash churning new brands would also get well protected for monopolistic pricing all through their respective patent life, and sometimes even after that, in various different ways.

Nevertheless, at a later date, mostly post patent expiry, not all pre-launch new drug trials could be universally accepted as robust and conclusive, especially on their efficacy and safety claims. On the contrary, a number of detailed and deep-stick independent studies indicate that some new drugs are, in fact, much less effective, if not ineffective, and cause more serious side effects than what were published earlier.

Hence, some critical questions are now being asked by many stakeholders, with greater assertiveness than ever before and backed by solid evidence, in this arena. Although it has now started creating a snowballing effect, still, nothing much seems to have changed on the ground, just yet.

Why aren’t all clinical trial results, and for all new drugs not still published, or otherwise made available for public scrutiny, unveiled, and of course after protecting any reasonable commercial interest? Does business consideration, then continue to prevail over the need for transparency in clinical trial data disclosure for patients’ health and safety? The sneaking fear behind the reasons of this reticence of pharma players, in general, continues to torment many. I shall discuss this point in this article backed by recently published data.

Not a recent trend:

This isn’t a recent trend either, and continuing for decades, without any effective remedial measures by the appropriate authorities. I would give just a couple of examples, one from 1998 and the other from 2014, to drive home this point.

A  British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (BJCP) article, published way back in August 1998 would vindicate this point. This study revealed the following on clinical trial data:

“Substantial evidence of selective reporting was detected, since trials with positive outcome resulted more often in submission of final report to regulatory authorities than those with inconclusive or negative outcomes.”

Another study published on September 10, 2014 in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) states as follows:

“Thirty-five percent of published reanalysis led to changes in the findings that implied conclusions different from those of the original article about the types and number of patients who should be treated.”

That said, I shall now focus on a very recent controversy in this area, related to a blockbuster drug that has now gone off-patent.

A contemporary example:

Statin class of drugs, especially, Atorvastatin is one of many such examples.

Pfizer launched Atorvastatin with the brand name Lipitor in early 1997. At that time, it was the fifth in the statin class of drugs for the treatment of hyperlipidemia.

It was launched on the back of a 1996 clinical study that concluded, Lipitor reduces bad cholesterol significantly more than the other statins, from the very onset of treatment to as long as the treatment continues. After that it’s a history in the pharma industry, Pfizer marketing turned it into the best-selling drug ever, in the history of pharmaceuticals, so far.

Over 14.5 years, Lipitor reportedly made over US$ 125 billion in sales, and provided up to a quarter of Pfizer Inc.’s annual revenue for years.

Product claim – then:

Claiming that in ‘one year alone, statins reduced numerous cases of cardiovascular-related complications and saved thousands of lives’, a Pfizer Paper on “The Value of Statin”, reiterated the drug’s role both in the treatment and prevention of Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD). I am quoting below from this paper to cite just one example each – treatment and prevention:

  • In a study of patients with Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) statin therapy reduced the relative risk of mortality by 50 percent in those > 80-years-old, 44 percent in those 65- to 79-years-old, and 30% in those < 65 years old, compared to CAD patients in the same age group not taking statin therapy (Ref. Chloe, Allen A., et al. ‘Statin Therapy Is Associated With Reduced Mortality Across All Age Groups of Individuals With Significant Coronary Disease, Including Very Elderly Patients’. JACC. 40: 10; 1777-1785)
  • An analysis of 18 trials, including 56,934 patients, primarily without CVD, demonstrated statins conferred a relative risk reduction (RRR) in all-cause mortality by 14 percent and stroke by 22 percent (Ref. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database System Review. 2013 Jan 31; 1:CD004816).

Research findings for the same drug – now:

Among several other publications on statins, a July 26, 2015 article, published in the ‘World Journal of Cardiology’ concludes as follows:

“History has proven otherwise, and the global prevalence of Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), despite worldwide statin usage and cholesterol lowering campaigns, has reached pandemic proportions. Coronary heart disease is an extremely complex malady and the expectation that it could be prevented or eliminated by simply reducing cholesterol appears unfounded. After twenty years we should concede the anomalies of the cholesterol hypothesis and refocus our efforts on the proven benefits of a healthy lifestyle incorporating a Mediterranean diet to prevent CHD.”

To give one more example, let me quote from a contemporary study, published on June 12, 2016 in the ‘BMJ Open’, which also comes to a similar conclusion, as follows:

“High LDL-C (Low-Density Lipoproteins – Cholesterol) is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (i.e., that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.”

Examples of other drugs:

Lipitor should not stand out as a solitary example, in this field. To establish this point, let me now put forth, just as illustrations, a few more examples of similar bias on positive results in clinical trial publications, besides many others.

An October 4, 2016 article titled, “Big Pharma’s Role in Clinical Trials”, published in the ‘Drug Watch’, quotes several other companies sailing in the same boat, as follows:

  • The Cochrane Collaboration, a nonprofit organization based in London that reviews health care information, concluded that unlike its promotional claims, Roche’s Tamiflu only shortened symptoms of influenza by one day, and it did not prevent hospitalizations or complications from influenza.
  • AstraZeneca reportedly paid US$ 647 million in lawsuit settlements for failing to inform the public of Seroquel’s side effects.
  • Takeda Pharmaceuticals reportedly settled lawsuits claiming the company’s anti-diabetic drug Actos caused bladder cancer, for US$ 2.37 billion.
  • In July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline reportedly pleaded guilty and agreed to pay US$ 3 billion to settle charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice for failing to report clinical data on its anti-diabetic drug Avandia.
  • Johnson & Johnson was reportedly accused of hiding some dangerous side effects like, diabetes, substantial weight gain, stroke and gynecomastia – or breast development in boys for its product Risperdal – used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in adults and adolescents and autism spectrum disorders in children and adolescents.  The company reportedly settled claims in Kentucky, Texas and Montana for a total of more than US$ 340 million and settled multiple cases in Pennsylvania for undisclosed amounts.
  • As reported by ‘Financial Times’ on February 03, 2015, Novartis was accused of manipulating trial data in favor of its anti-hypertensive drug – Diovan, and concealing side-effects associated with its Tasigna – for leukemia treatment. As a result, the company reportedly faced a temporary suspension of its business in Japan, as punishment for alleged manipulation of clinical trial data.

Possible reasons:

The above ‘Drug Watch’ article attributed several reasons to positive data bias in publications, as follows:

  • Researchers publish positive findings more often than negative findings as a result of human bias. Scholars want their work to contribute to medical advancement and not deter it.
  • Researchers do not want to put their time and energy into writing studies about negative results.
  • Journals seek positive results, and publish them more quickly to increase publicity.
  • Trial sponsors want to publish positive results to increase profit.

The article emphasized, “Big Pharma funds 60 percent of all clinical trials, and takes advantage of its power to persuade researchers and influence institutions.  The result is an under-informed, and misinformed medical community giving advice to patients with false or incomplete data. The byproducts of industry cover-ups are scores of deaths and millions of dollars in industry profits.”

Indian scenario:

India is also not immune from such alleged wrongdoings. Indian clinical trial organizations have also been accused of trial related scams, and that too on a mega scale, reaching beyond the shores of the country. I am quoting below two such recent examples:

  • In August 2015, the European Union reportedly banned the marketing of around 700 generic medicines for alleged manipulation of clinical trials conducted by the domestic research company GVK Biosciences. This was reported as the largest EU-wide suspension of sales and distribution of generic drugs ordered by the European Commission that was applicable to all its 28 member nations.
  • In July 2016, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) reportedly recommended suspending the sale of dozens of generic medicines over concerns about “flawed” studies that were conducted by the Semler Research Center, located in Bengaluru. Many of these drugs are sold by Novartis and Teva Pharmaceuticals.
  • In September-October 2015, US-FDA also found “significant instances of misconduct and violations of federal regulations by the same research center, which includes substitution and manipulation of study subject samples.”
  • This year, the World Health Organization (WHO) also had issued a notice to Semler for the same reasons. After, examining the company’s computer servers, early and late last year, WHO reportedly found a spreadsheet file containing detailed instructions for manipulating drug samples that were used in clinical trials for its clients. 

It is even more unfortunate that such malpractices are continuing, even after the Supreme Court of India’s widely reported observation in early 2013 that ‘Uncontrolled clinical trials are causing havoc to human life.’ The apex court of the country made this remark in response to a petition filed by the human rights group Swasthya Adhikar Manch (SAM).  

The upshot:

Recent scrutiny of all original clinical trial findings of many new drugs by the independent experts, including statins, even if taken just as raising controversies, the question would still remain, why did such controversies not surface much earlier, or during the product patent life? No company would possibly be willing to unveil the fact behind this raging debate.

The good news is, pharma companies operating in Europe and the United States have decided to share trial data with qualified researchers, effective 2014, presumably in response to mounting pressure from clinical trial transparency campaigners, for quite some time.

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) have jointly released a set of principles detailing plans to allow greater access to information from clinical trials. However, it fell short of public availability of all clinical trial data. Let’s wait, watch and hope that this seemingly good intent would be translated into reality by all their member companies.

Some pharma companies and their trade associations continue to raise issues of the various legalities against related to public disclosures of all trial data. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that in April 2014, a legislation was approved in Europe by the European Parliament to increase transparency in clinical trials by making the trial results publicly available. EMA was commissioned by the European Parliament to create a database where all interested parties could view comprehensive data from clinical trials. The transparency rules for the European Clinical Trial Regulation entered into force on January 1, 2015 and apply to clinical trial reports contained in all marketing authorization applications submitted on or after this date. On March 3, 2016, EMA announced the detailed guidance on the requirements for pharmaceutical companies to comply with the agency’s policy on publication of clinical trials data for all medicines. Chapter Three of this publication gives guidance to companies on how to anonymize clinical reports for the purpose of publication.

The EMA initiative of transparency of clinical trial data  aims at ensuring that drug companies are aware of what is expected of them, and that they are ready for the publication of these critical data.

Besides Europe, in the United States too, though there is a clear mandate of the federal government that all clinical trial results related to serious or life-threatening diseases require to be published and uploaded on ClinicalTrials.gov – the database of the Government covering all clinical trials in America. However, this government mandate also seems to be hardly followed, both in its letter and spirit, according to reports. Similar scenario, reportedly, still prevails in most other developed countries, as well. India does not seem to be any different in this matter, either.

Intriguingly, the whole issue continues to remain polemical, with more number of initial clinical trial conclusions reportedly turning out to be not as transparent as these ought to be, carrying a significant bias towards positive treatment outcomes.

As a result, prevailing reticence around unveiling all clinical trials, including those of blockbuster drugs, is eventually pushing many patients to the brink of much avoidable and unforeseen serious health risk.

By: Tapan J. Ray  

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion. 

The Curious Conundrum of New Drugs Approval Process

Posted on by
Reply

Fathoming the details of just a short span of time, not going beyond the last 10 years, I find from the published data that many new drugs, such as, Alatrofloxacin, Aprotinin, Drotrecogin alfa, Lumiracoxib, Propoxyphene, Rofecoxib, Rosiglitazone, Sibutramine, Tegaserod, Tetrazepam, were withdrawn from a number of important global markets. Quite a few of those were withdrawn also from the world market.

The key reason for almost all these withdrawals was serious safety concerns for the patients while using these medicines. Interestingly, some of these new molecules were withdrawn even after attaining the blockbuster status, such as Rofecoxib.

Tens of thousands of patients have died only because of this reason, according to reports.

It is widely believed by the experts in this area, if full public disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials was made, most of these new drugs would not have seen the light of the day and without putting many patients’ health safety in jeopardy.

All this is a part of a curious conundrum in the new drug approval process, across the world, for various reasons. In this article, I would try to dwell on this issue.

Voices against this ‘unethical practice’ getting louder:                                             

On December 22, 2015, ‘CBC News’ published an interesting article, titled “Researcher issues ‘call to action’ to force release of hidden drug safety data: Bringing drug industry data into the light of public scrutiny.”

The article echoed the same belief of other global experts and, in fact, went a step forward. It categorically reiterated, if full disclosure of the entire data of drug clinical trials is made public, medical practice might have been quite different.

To drive home this point, the article cited the example of the arthritis drug rofecoxib (Vioxx), which has been linked to tens of thousands of deaths related to heart attacks.

It highlighted, although this risk was very much known to the regulatory authority of the United States, the relevant data was not released to the public for an impartial scrutiny.

Quoting different sources, the paper observed, almost half of the drug trials remain secret and the studies that are published, overwhelmingly report results that make the drug in question look good.

Independent experts’ views differed from the innovator companies:

In some cases, when researchers were able to see what is hiding in the filing cabinets of the drug innovator companies, a different picture altogether emerged on the overall profile of those drugs.

One group looked at 12 antidepressants, comparing the published studies with the internal US FDA assessments. They found that 94 per cent of the published studies were positive, as compared to 51 per cent, when they included all of the studies assessed by the drug regulator.

Based on a detailed study, the authors concluded, without considering all the data, drug effectiveness can often be exaggerated, leading doctors and patients to assume that the medications work better than what they actually do. The ongoing practice of the drug players may help them to significantly diminish the risks, related to the benefits offered by these medicines.

A few months ago, another group analyzed the data from an unpublished drug company study about the effect of Paxil on teen depression and found that the drug did not work and was not safe for the patients. This result completely contradicted the original, unpublished study on this drug.

A crusader emerged in Canada:

Interestingly, the same article, as above, states that Mathew Herder , the health law associate professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada is now taking up the fight. He is now “calling on other doctors, researchers and journalists to bombard Ottawa with their own demands for drug industry data, using the new legislative lever called the ‘Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act,’, which was passed late last year in Canada. 

He has also created a template to help doctors, researchers and journalists access drug safety data at Health Canada. Herder reportedly could even include biomedical researchers, doctors who prescribe medicine, investigative journalists pursuing questions about drug safety, and other activists and patient groups.

This example is worth imbibing elsewhere.

The ‘Rule Books’ are in place, though with loopholes:

To curb such alleged patient unfriendly practices of the innovative drug manufacturers, while obtaining the marketing approval of new drugs, various rules and procedure were put in place, by various authorities.

I shall deliberate below a few of these rules, and enough loopholes therein, enabling the interested parties to hoodwink the external experts, at the cost of patients.

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform:

Much before Herder, following a ministerial summit on Health Research in 2004, a World Health Assembly Resolution passed in 2005 called for unambiguous identification of all interventional clinical trials. This resolution led to the establishment of the ‘World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform’. It collates information on trials that have been notified in a network of clinical trial registries.

According to W.H.O, “The registration of all interventional trials is a scientific, ethical and moral responsibility”.

In the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, it reiterates, “Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject.”

It unambiguously states, “Researchers have a duty to make publicly available the results of their research …. Negative and inconclusive as well as positive results must be published or otherwise made publicly available”.

Understandably, W.H.O statement underscores, “There is an ethical imperative to report the results of all clinical trials, including those of unreported trials conducted in the past.”

It is worth mentioning here that on January 1, 2015, by a new policy on publication of clinical data, ‘European Medicines Agency (EMA)’ also decided to proactively publish all clinical reports submitted as part of marketing-authorization applications for human medicines, by the by pharmaceutical companies.

Big Pharma's serious apprehensions on greater Public transparency:  

Before finalization of the above policy, EMA sought comments on its draft from various state holders. On September 5, 2013, in its remarks on the draft, ‘The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, EFPIA’ expressed its apprehension about the public health safety oriented proactive move by the EMA as follows:

“We are worried by a move towards greater transparency of clinical trials data that appears to be putting transparency – at whatever cost – ahead of public health interests. Our detailed response to the EMA draft policy speaks to this concern. While EFPIA values other voices and opinion in the conversation surrounding clinical trials data, we believe there are better alternatives than what the EMA is presenting.” 

This is of course understandable. That said, it also gives satisfaction to note that EMA did not wilt under any pressure on this score, whatever the anecdotal might of the external force be. 

Gross non-compliance, endangering patients’ health safety:

Although, the standards and requirements of “Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Results” have been well specified now, and even in most of the Big Pharma websites one can find disclosure norms of clinical trial data, their overall compliance on the ground, is still grossly inadequate, endangering patients’ health safety.

An article published in the BMJ Open on November 12, 2015 titled, “Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012”, well captured the magnitude of this issue. 

Nevertheless, the study analyzed just a subset of drugs approved in a single year, 2012. The researchers only examined whether clinical trials were registered and reported, not what that data suggested about how the drugs worked.

The paper reported the results as follows:

“In 2012, the US FDA approved 39 novel new medicines, known as NMEs, and 35 novel drugs. Combining these lists, the FDA approved a total of 48 new drug entities, 15 of which were sponsored by 10 large pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies with market capitalizations valued over US$19 billion. A total of 342 trials were conducted to gain regulatory approval of the 15 drugs, 24 of which were excluded from our analysis, leaving 318 trials involving 99 599 participants relevant to our study, a median of 17 trials per drug.”

Based on the findings, the authors concluded asunder:

“Trial disclosures for new drugs remain below legal and ethical standards, with wide variation in practices among drugs and their sponsors. Best practices are emerging. 2 of our 10 reviewed companies disclosed all trials and complied with legal disclosure requirements for their 2012 approved drugs. Ranking new drugs on transparency criteria may improve compliance with legal and ethical standards and the quality of medical knowledge.”

Simultaneously, The Washington Post in an article of November 12, 2015, titled, “How pharma keeps a trove of drug trials out of public view”, summarized this report by highlighting to the general public that one third of the clinical trial results that US FDA reviewed to approve drugs made by large pharmaceutical companies in 2012, were never publicly reported. 

Unethical practices skewing medical science:

On July 25, 2015, ‘The Economist’ published an article titled, “Spilling the beans’. It highlighted again that the failure to publish the results of all clinical trials is skewing medical science. 

This article also brought to the public attention that half of the clinical trial results are never published over several decades. It broadened the discourse with the observation that this specific unwanted practice, distorts perceptions of the efficacy of not just drugs, but devices and even surgical procedures too, in a well planned and a systematic manner. What is most important to note is, it has seriously compromised with patients’ health interest, across the world. 

It keeps on happening, as there are no firm obligations on the part of drug companies for making public disclosure of all such data, both for and against, though all these data are required to be filed with the regulatory authorities. Hence, the overall assessment of the drugs, weighing all pros and cons, is just not possible for any outside expert agency.

For granting necessary marketing approval, the designated authorities, at least theoretically, ensure that the drugs are reasonably safe, and have, at least, ‘some beneficial effects’. However, the prescribing doctors would continue to remain ignorant of the untold facts, the article states. 

According to ‘The Economist’, although in the United States the relevant laws were modified, way back in 2007, to address this issue, it still remains as a theory, the actual practices in this regard are mostly not so.

Despite vindication no tangible outcome yet:

As I said earlier, this fact got vindicated through extensive research by the ‘BMJ Online’ article and many other contemporary medical publications. 

For example, the evidence released earlier on  April 10,  2014 by the Cochrane Collaboration of London, UK, also shows that a large part of negative data generated from the clinical trials of various drugs were not disclosed to the public. 

Again, like Vioxx, though the US FDA was aware of all such data, for a well known drug Tamiflu, unfortunately the prescribing doctors were not. As a result, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which doesn’t have the same access to unpublished data as the regulators, recommended this medicine not being able to evaluate it holistically. 

However, as the findings from the unpublished clinical trials eventually surfaced, CDC expressed serious apprehension on the overall efficacy of Tamiflu, quite contrary to the assessment of the concerned big pharma player.

Hence, despite quite a large number of vindications by the experts, no tangible outcome has been noticed on this pressing issue, just yet.                                                                

Conclusion:

Based on all this discussion, the moot question that springs up: Why do the doctors still prescribe such drugs, even after being aware of the full facts?

In this regard, an article titled, “Big Pharma Plays Hide-The-Ball with Data”, published in the Newsweek on November 13, 2014 raised a very valid question. 

It commented, even if Tamiflu does nothing, and there is just a slight chance of life-threatening side effects, why was it approved by the US FDA, in the first place?

Even more intriguing is: Why do the doctors continue prescribing these, especially after the Cochrane Collaboration took the Tamiflu’s maker, Roche, to task about many of its claims, in April 2014.

Incidentally, the Cochrane Collaboration is widely regarded as one of the most rigorous reviewers of health science data. It takes results of multiple trials, looks for faults and draws conclusions. It doesn’t accept funding from businesses with a stake in its findings.

The answer to this question may perhaps be too obvious to merit any elaborate discussion here. 

Be that as it may, this curious conundrum of ‘New Drug Approval’ with ‘Partial Public Disclosure of Clinical Trial Data’ needs to effectively addressed, without further delay. If not, patients’ health interest would continue to get seriously compromised with the continuation of prevailing laxity in its implementation process by the drug regulators.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.