Contemporary Clinical Trials
Volume 30, Issue 4 , Pages 293-299, July 2009

An analysis of current pharmaceutical industry practices for making clinical trial results publicly accessible

  • Christopher Viereck

      Affiliations

    • Founder and Principal, Quadratum Consulting Services, LLC in Basking Ridge, NJ, United States
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Quadratum Consulting Services, LLC 330 Grist Mill Drive, Basking Ridge, NJ 07920, United States. Tel.: +1 908 229 6713; fax: +1 908 204 1493.
  • ,
  • Pol Boudes

      Affiliations

    • 10 Setting Sun Drive, Hackettstown, NJ 07840, United States

Received 16 December 2008; accepted 29 March 2009. published online 13 April 2009.

Abstract 

We compared the clinical trial transparency practices of US/European pharma by analyzing the publicly-accessible clinical trial results databases of major drugs (doripenem, varenicline, lapatinib, zoledronic acid, adalimumab, insulin glargine, raltegravir, gefitinib). We evaluated their accessibility and utility from the perspective of the lay public. We included databases on company websites, http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov and http://clinicaltrials.ifpma.org. Only 2 of 8 company homepages provide a direct link to the results. While the use of common terms on company search engines led to results for 5 of the 8 drugs following 2–4 clicks, no logical pathway was identified. The number of clinical trials in the databases was inconsistent: 0 for doripenem to 45 for insulin glargine. Results from all phases of clinical development were provided for 2 (insulin glargine and gefitinib) of the 8 drugs. Analyses of phase III reports revealed that most critical elements of the International Conference of Harmonization E3 Structure and Content of Synopses for Clinical Trial Reports were provided for 2 (varenicline, lapatinib) of the 8 drugs. For adalimumab and zoledronic acid, only citations were provided, which the lay public would be unable to access. None of the clinical trial reports was written in lay language. User-friendly support, when provided, was of marginal benefit. Only 1 of the databases (gefitinib) permitted the user to find the most recently updated reports. None of the glossaries included explanations for adverse events or statistical methodology. In conclusion, our study indicates that the public faces significant hurdles in finding and understanding clinical trial results databases.

Keywords: Clinical trial transparency, Clinical trial, Clinical trial results, Clinical trial reports, Clinical trial results databases, FDA Amendments Act, 2007, Public accessibility, Pharmaceutical company practices

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1551-7144(09)00048-2

doi:10.1016/j.cct.2009.03.010

Contemporary Clinical Trials
Volume 30, Issue 4 , Pages 293-299, July 2009