Trust of medical volunteers 'betrayed'

 
pills Research suggests half of all clinical trials have never been published

If you signed up to a medical trial you might assume that the results of the research would eventually be published. But that is far from certain. Pharmaceutical companies are under no legal obligation to publish all the available data about drugs.

A group of 53 clinical trial participants has written an open letter to the European Medicines Agency - the body which licenses drugs. Some of the individuals are healthy volunteers and other have conditions like cancer.

Start Quote

This is medicine's dirty secret, so it's great to see patients speaking out”

End Quote Ben Goldacre Doctor and columnist

They say that many participants in trials have been misled because thousands of clinical trials have not been published. They point out that important data from trials may not be available to doctors, researchers or regulators who work on particular diseases.

The letter is part of a growing campaign to force the industry to be more open and has support from the British Medical Journal and Sense About Science.

Ben Goldacre, doctor and Bad Science columnist in the Guardian been a driving force behind this issue. Author of 'Bad Pharma' he said: "This is medicine's dirty secret, so it's great to see patients speaking out, and so many eminent organisations joining up, to finally fix this problem.

A petition calling for all results to be registered has so far attracted 8,000 signatures. Among those who have signed are the Cochrane Collaboration - which analyses clinical data, and the Medical Research Council, which now makes publication a condition of all studies it funds.

Just what proportion of trials are kept under wraps is unclear - one of Donald Rumsfeld's known unknowns - but a 2010 study from the National Institute of Health Research suggests that half are never published, and those with positive results twice as likely to get into print.

Earlier this week the Commons Health Select Committee said drug companies should be legally obliged to share data so that they cannot deliberately withhold adverse results.

Anti-virals

Carl Heneghan, Director, Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford is part of a Cochrane team reviewing the effectiveness of the anti-viral drugs Tamiflu and Relenza. The government spent £500 m stockpiling Tamiflu for use in the H1N1 influenza pandemic.

The review is clearly important if policymakers and governments are to decide whether the money spent on anti-virals was worth it and whether they should do so again in the event of another pandemic.

He told me that he was 'getting nowhere' with Roche, makers of Tamiflu who had refused to hand over much of its clinical trial data. For its part Roche cites issues of patient confidentiality and says it disputes the methods being used by Cochrane.

Dr Heneghan has also spent 'four to five months' negotiating access to data from GSK, makers of Relenza but has yet to receive the clinical study reports. GSK told me it was committed to release the material provided - again the issue of patient confidentiality was raised. Last year GSK said it was committed to provide researchers with the detailed data that underpin its trial results.

I have taken part in a number of trials including one of an avian flu vaccine at Oxford University. I did receive a detailed summary of trial results.

Prof Andrew Pollard, Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group said it was a condition of all contracts with industry that the results would be released and editorial control rested with the researchers.

From January 2014 the European Medicines Agency will publish all clinical study reports - the data behind medical trials, which often run into hundreds of pages. This is already done in the US by the Food and Drug Administration.

But that still leaves all the trial data which is never submitted to the regulators.

This issue makes the pharma industry an easy target for critics and it seems surprising that bona fide researchers are still encountering resistance.

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) says increasing amounts of data are being published but there must be recognition that 'release of commercially confidential information could undermine investment in research and development of future medicines'.

Doctors and patients will not want to damage the millions that are spent by drug companies developing new medicines. Equally, drugs firms that demonstrate they have nothing to hide by giving full access to data could receive a massive boost in support from patients, medical staff and those all-important trial volunteers.

 
Fergus Walsh Article written by Fergus Walsh Fergus Walsh Medical correspondent

Ebola trial volunteer immunised

A trial of an experimental vaccine against the Ebola virus has begun in Oxford.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 4.

    People who bet on horse races always tell you how much they've won, never what they lose. That drug companies report their research in a similar manner is tantamount to fraud, and we're the losers.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 43.

    @38 "The public seem interested in bashing the drug industry. No other industry is expected to provide products which are 100% effective & 100% safe for no profit while magically covering all the costs of failed projects itself."

    You’ve just described the plight of Britiains Not for Profit Sector.
    Somehow I don’t think most ppl would put Big Pharma in the same category.

  • rate this
    +4

    Comment number 56.

    There is a lot of misinformation in these comments that negative data is not useful and it is ok not publish it. If a drugs company conducts 6 trials on a drug but only publishes the 3 that gives positive results this is massive bias. Every science & engineering discipline would benefit from more publishing of negative results: it can save time & money (and sometime lives) in future studies.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 23.

    #19- it takes about a year to set up a trial. Visit the MRHA website. It'll list the dozen or so UK & EU laws governing trials. The idea that you can just grab some volunteers and have them drink a "potion" again and again without monitoring is so far from the truth its ridiculous.

    Start reading here:
    http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/Medicines/Licensingofmedicines/Clinicaltrials/index.htm

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 24.

    I can understand not publishing full trials as this would just hand over information to competitors in China/wherever free & they can leap ahead with tiny cost.

    If competitors do NOT know problems etc, then they have to PAY for their own research.

    You wouldnt just give away industrial secrets to competitors after spending £m/£b, why should pharmacuticals do it, theyd go out of business.

 

Comments 5 of 69

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.