Skip to main content
Dryad logo

Clinical Trial Transparency and Data-Sharing Among Bio-Pharmaceutical Companies and the Role of Company Size, Location, and Product Type: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Analysis

Citation

Axson, Sydney et al. (2021), Clinical Trial Transparency and Data-Sharing Among Bio-Pharmaceutical Companies and the Role of Company Size, Location, and Product Type: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Analysis, Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.r2280gbdb

Abstract

Objective: To examine company characteristics associated with better transparency and to apply a tool used to measure and improve clinical trial transparency among large companies and drugs, to smaller companies and biologics.

Design: Cross-sectional descriptive analysis.

Setting and participants. Novel drugs and biologics FDA approved in 2016 and 2017, and their company sponsors.

Using established Good Pharma Scorecard (GPS) measures, companies and products were evaluated on their clinical trial registration, results dissemination, and FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) implementation; Companies were ranked using these measures and a multi-component data sharing measure. Associations between company transparency scores with company size (large vs non-large), location (US vs non-US), and sponsored product type (drug vs biologic) were also examined. 26% of products (16/62) had publicly available results for all clinical trials supporting their FDA approval and 67% (39/58) had public results for trials in patients by 6 months after their FDA approval; 58% (32/55) were FDAAA compliant. Large companies were significantly more transparent than non-large companies (overall median transparency score of 95% [IQR 91-100] vs 59% [IQR 41-70], p<0.001), attributable to higher FDAAA compliance (median of 100% [IQR 88-100] vs 57% [0-100], p=0.01) and better data sharing (median of 100% [IQR 80-100] vs 20% [IQR 20-40], p<0.01). No significant differences were observed by company location or product type. It was feasible to apply the GPS transparency measures and ranking tool to non-large companies and biologics. Large companies are significantly more transparent than non-large companies, driven by better data sharing procedures and implementation of FDAAA trial reporting requirements. Greater research transparency is needed, particularly among non-large companies, to maximize the benefits of research for patient care and scientific innovation.  

Methods

Using established Good Pharma Scorecard (GPS) measures, companies and products were evaluated on their clinical trial registration, results dissemination, and FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) implementation; Companies were ranked using these measures and a multi-component data sharing measure. Associations between company transparency scores with company size (large vs non-large), location (US vs non-US), and sponsored product type (drug vs biologic) were also examined.

Funding

Arnold Ventures