Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

North American regulatory agencies can and should make clinical trial data publicly available

Nav Persaud and Peter Doshi
CMAJ February 02, 2016 188 (2) 96-97; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.150679
Nav Persaud
Department of Family and Community Medicine (Persaud) and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Persaud), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family and Community Medicine (Persaud), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research (Doshi), School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nav.persaud@utoronto.ca
Peter Doshi
Department of Family and Community Medicine (Persaud) and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Persaud), St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family and Community Medicine (Persaud), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research (Doshi), School of Pharmacy, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Regulatory agencies such as Health Canada and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have to date treated submissions of clinical trial data as confidential business information. Even for substances for which trials have been published, regulatory agencies possess substantial unpublished data that are not accessible to researchers, clinicians or patients. The recently passed Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act (Vanessa’s Law) allows Canada’s minister of health to disclose confidential business data, but only under certain circumstances and only to certain individuals. We argue that regulatory agencies can and should make all clinical trial data publicly available.

People who participate in clinical trials or other types of studies might reasonably assume that their participation, which involves potential harms, contributes to scientific knowledge. But clinical studies can add to the medical knowledge base only when their methods and findings are publicly available. Making clinical trial data publicly available helps to protect participants in future studies, as well as people who might receive approved treatments as part of their care. Conversely, suppressing clinical trial data is wasteful and may expose patients to unnecessary risk or to ineffective treatments.1

The Declaration of Helsinki states that researchers have a “duty” to make study results publicly available.2 The evidence-based medicine movement has long advocated this position.3 The potential of data-sharing to improve patient care and advance medical science has been endorsed by the World Health Organization, the US Institute of Medicine, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.

Yet, although regulatory agencies possess vast amounts of clinical trial data, they frequently decline requests for these data. The most common reason for refusal by Health Canada is that the request is for a third party’s “confidential business information” (the third party often being a pharmaceutical company when clinical trial data are requested).4 Canadian law, however, allows Health Canada to disclose clinical trial data, and disclosure is also consistent with international treaties, including the North American Free Trade Agreement.4 Court rulings in the United States have favoured disclosure in the public interest and have also supported nondisclosure where a public benefit of disclosure was not clearly demonstrated (e.g., information about a medication that was abandoned before being marketed).5

Not all regulatory data need be released. Pharmaceutical companies should be able to submit technical manufacturing information to regulators without worrying about it falling into the hands of competitors. The public may benefit indirectly from the protection of such secrets if it promotes innovation. However, the public would benefit from the disclosure of clinical trial information that routinely exists in regulators’ holdings, including clinical study reports, case report forms, electronic data related to individual participants, study protocols, statistical analysis plans, manuals of procedures, investigators’ brochures and correspondence.

There is evidence that disclosure of previously submitted clinical trial data can change practice. Agomelatine appeared to be an effective treatment for depression until publication of a systematic review that included previously unpublished studies submitted to the European Medicines Agency.6 Similarly, systematic reviews had overstated oseltamivir’s favourable risk–benefit ratio before a four-year campaign that brought to light data from clinical study reports and regulatory comments that are now in the public domain.7 The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality now recommends routine searches of the European Medicines Agency for clinical study reports and other regulatory agency databases for information on medicine approval.8

One regulator has already made important progress in the area of data disclosure and can serve as a model for others. After a campaign by researchers to obtain clinical trial data for antiobesity medications, the European Medicines Agency changed its approach to disclosure.9 The policy now recognizes the importance of transparency: “Access to clinical data will allow third parties to verify the original analysis and conclusions, to conduct further analyses, and to examine the regulatory authority’s positions and challenge them where appropriate.”10

The new European Medicines Agency policy also recognizes some potential challenges with disclosure. Regulators can possess millions of pages of information about a single medication. Finding and de-identifying useful data can be resource intensive. Furthermore, disclosure to a third party such as a researcher or clinician does not guarantee that the information will become publicly available. Individuals or organizations (including competing pharmaceutical companies) that are granted access to data by regulatory agencies on an exclusive basis may intentionally or unintentionally misreport the information they receive, which may in turn compromise patient care. Companies that submit information to regulators may take additional steps to prevent it from being disclosed, including litigation. The costs of these manoeuvres will ultimately be borne by the public, through higher drug costs. If regulatory agencies publicly post all freedom-of-information requests they receive, as several already do, the information will be more easily accessible to others. Once clinical trial data are made available, all parties will have easy access to the same information, and original findings can be independently verified or challenged.

However, concerns over nonpublication are neither new nor unique to the sharing of detailed clinical trial data. These problems are common to all forms of research, including the original reporting of clinical trials.

Adoption of a new approach by Health Canada and the FDA to the disclosure of clinical trial data would be consistent with the advertised shift of both these agencies toward greater openness. The Government of Canada says it “is working with the national and international open government community to create greater transparency and accountability, increase citizen engagement, and drive innovation and economic opportunities through Open Data, Open Information, and Open Dialogue.”11 The FDA launched its own “Transparency Initiative” in 2009 as an “agency-wide effort to open the doors of the agency and promote innovation, in a manner compatible with the agency goal of appropriately protecting confidential information.”12

Despite these public endorsements of transparency, Health Canada and the FDA are out of step with the global movement advocating transparency of clinical trial data. Failing to disclose clinical trial data publicly supports unethical research conduct.3 Any legal hurdles to disclosure that might exist — if any truly do exist — are outdated and must be removed or bypassed. The onus is now on Health Canada and the FDA to either justify their ongoing secrecy with regard to clinical trial data or join the transparency movement by supporting maximal public access to clinical trial data.

Key points
  • North American regulatory agencies possess vast amounts of clinical trial data but treat them as confidential business information.

  • Adoption by Health Canada and the US Food and Drug Administration of a new approach to the disclosure of clinical trial data would be consistent with these agencies’ advertised shift toward greater openness.

  • Clinical trial data should be fully disclosed in the interest of public health and safety, as called for by international bodies and movements.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank An-Wen Chan, Tom Jefferson, Andreas Laupacis and Joel Lexchin for helpful comments.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Nav Persaud is an Associate Editor for CMAJ; he played no part in the selection of or peer review process for this article. Peter Doshi has received travel funds from the European Respiratory Society and grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. He is also an editor with the BMJ.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Both authors contributed to drafting and revising the article and to approval of the final version of the manuscript, and both are accountable for its accuracy and integrity.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Chan AW,
    2. Song F,
    3. Vickers A,
    4. et al
    . Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 2014;383:257–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Chalmers I
    . Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990;263:1405–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Herder M
    . Unlocking Health Canada’s cache of trade secrets: mandatory disclosure of clinical trial results. CMAJ 2012;184:194–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Kesselheim AS,
    2. Mello MM
    . Confidentiality laws and secrecy in medical research: improving public access to data on drug safety. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:483–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Koesters M,
    2. Guaiana G,
    3. Cipriani A,
    4. et al
    . Agomelatine efficacy and acceptability revisited: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomised trials. Br J Psychiatry 2013;203:179–87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Jefferson T,
    2. Jones M,
    3. Doshi P,
    4. et al
    . Oseltamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments. BMJ 2014;348:g2545.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness review. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. Available: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/60/318/CER-Methods-Guide-140109.pdf (accessed 2015 Sept. 22).
  9. ↵
    1. Gotzsche PC,
    2. Jorgensen AW
    . Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency. BMJ 2011;342:1184–6.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    European Medicines Agency policy on publication of clinical data for medicinal products for human use. Policy/0070. London: European Medicines Agency; 2015. Available: www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2014/10/WC500174796.pdf (accessed 2015 Sept. 22).
  11. ↵
    Open government [homepage]. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2013. Available: http://open.canada.ca/en (accessed 2015 June 12).
  12. ↵
    About FDA: transparency [web page]. Silver Spring (MD): US Food and Drug Administration; 2015. Available: www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/ (accessed 2015 Apr. 28).
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (2)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 2
2 Feb 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
North American regulatory agencies can and should make clinical trial data publicly available
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
North American regulatory agencies can and should make clinical trial data publicly available
Nav Persaud, Peter Doshi
CMAJ Feb 2016, 188 (2) 96-97; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150679

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
North American regulatory agencies can and should make clinical trial data publicly available
Nav Persaud, Peter Doshi
CMAJ Feb 2016, 188 (2) 96-97; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.150679
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • FDA to begin releasing clinical study reports in pilot programme
  • Increasing the transparency of clinical data
  • Secrecy or transparency? The future of regulatory trial data
  • Considering benefits and harms of duloxetine for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a meta-analysis of clinical study reports
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Antiracism as a foundational competency: reimagining CanMEDS through an antiracist lens
  • Keeping the front door open: ensuring access to primary care for all in Canada
  • Improving post-tuberculosis care in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drug regulation
    • Medical ethics

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire