Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis

Objectives To describe the characteristics of clinical study report (CSR) documents published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and for included pivotal trials, to quantify the timeliness of access to trial results from CSRs compared with conventional published sources. Design Cross-sectional analysis of CSR documents published by the EMA from 2016 to 2018. Methods CSR files and medication summary information were downloaded from the EMA. Individual trials in each submission were identified using document filenames. Number and length of documents and trials were determined. For pivotal trials, trial phase, dates of EMA document publication and matched journal and registry publications were obtained. Results The EMA published documents on 142 medications that were submitted for regulatory drug approval. Submissions were for initial marketing authorisations in 64.1%. There was a median of 15 (IQR 5–46) documents, 5 (IQR 2–14) trials and 9629 (IQR 2711–26,673) pages per submission, and a median of 1 (IQR 1–4) document and 336 (IQR 21–1192) pages per trial. Of all identified pivotal trials, 60.9% were phase 3 and 18.5% were phase 1. Of 119 unique submissions to the EMA, 46.2% were supported by a single pivotal trial, with 13.4% based on a single pivotal phase 1 trial. No trial registry results were identified for 26.1% trials, no journal publications for 16.7% and 13.5% of trials had neither. EMA publication was the earliest information source for 5.8% of pivotal trials, available a median 523 days (IQR 363–882 days) before the earliest publication. Conclusions The EMA Clinical Data website contains lengthy clinical trial documents. Almost half of submissions to the EMA were based on single pivotal trials, many of which were phase 1 trials. CSRs were the only source and a timelier source of information for many trials. Access to unpublished trial information should be open and timely to support decision-making for patients.

[1]  T. Fahey,et al.  151 Clinical study reports published by the European medicines agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis , 2022, Abstracts.

[2]  B. Gyawali,et al.  Cancer Therapy Approval Timings, Review Speed, and Publication of Pivotal Registration Trials in the US and Europe, 2010-2019 , 2022, JAMA network open.

[3]  K. Munkholm,et al.  Substantial delays in clinical data published by the European Medicines Agency - a cross sectional study. , 2022, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  J. Ross,et al.  Characteristics of Clinical Studies Used for US Food and Drug Administration Supplemental Indication Approvals of Drugs and Biologics, 2017 to 2019 , 2021, JAMA network open.

[5]  I. Boutron,et al.  Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review , 2021, BMC Medicine.

[6]  J. Lexchin,et al.  Regulators, Pivotal Clinical Trials, and Drug Regulation in the Age of COVID-19 , 2020, International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation.

[7]  B. Wieseler,et al.  From publication bias to lost in information: why we need a central public portal for clinical trial data , 2020, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

[8]  I. Sim,et al.  Timely access to trial data in the context of a pandemic: the time is now , 2020, BMJ Open.

[9]  S. Nevitt,et al.  European Medicines Agency Policy 0070: an exploratory review of data utility in clinical study reports for academic research , 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[10]  J. Sterne,et al.  Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis , 2019, BMJ.

[11]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents Over Three Decades, 1995-2017: Cross-Sectional Analysis , 2019 .

[12]  D. Altman,et al.  Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[13]  A. V. Morant,et al.  European Marketing Authorizations Granted Based on a Single Pivotal Clinical Trial: The Rule or the Exception? , 2018, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[14]  Frank Rockhold,et al.  Data Sharing at a Crossroads. , 2016, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Assessment of Adverse Events in Protocols, Clinical Study Reports, and Published Papers of Trials of Orlistat: A Document Analysis , 2016, PLoS medicine.

[16]  Gianluca Baio,et al.  Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999–2014 , 2016, BMJ Open.

[17]  D. Nunan,et al.  Neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: a systematic review and meta-analysis of regulatory and mortality data. , 2016, Health technology assessment.

[18]  T. Jefferson,et al.  Open data 5 years on: a case series of 12 freedom of information requests for regulatory data to the European Medicines Agency , 2016, Trials.

[19]  Matthew J. Thompson,et al.  Zanamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  Harlan M. Krumholz,et al.  Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012. , 2014, JAMA.

[21]  Tom Jefferson,et al.  Clinical study reports of randomised controlled trials: an exploratory review of previously confidential industry reports , 2013, BMJ Open.

[22]  Tom Jefferson,et al.  The Imperative to Share Clinical Study Reports: Recommendations from the Tamiflu Experience , 2012, PLoS medicine.

[23]  Thomas Kaiser,et al.  Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  D. Eyding,et al.  Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  H. Kölsch,et al.  Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review , 2010, Trials.

[26]  S. Ramsey,et al.  Commentary: practicing on the tip of an information iceberg? Evidence of underpublication of registered clinical trials in oncology. , 2008, The oncologist.

[27]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[28]  Robert A. Lionberger,et al.  FDA Critical Path Initiatives: Opportunities for Generic Drug Development , 2008, The AAPS Journal.

[29]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  V. Alfaro,et al.  Abbreviated clinical study reports with investigational medicinal products for human use: current guidelines and recommendations. , 2007, Croatian medical journal.

[31]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[32]  A. Bardy.  Bias in reporting clinical trials. , 1998, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[33]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .