Welcome to our new website! If this is the first time you are logging in on the new site, you will need to reset your password. Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org if you need assistance.
Your membership opens the door to free learning resources on demand. Check out the Member Knowledge Center for free webcasts, publications and online courses.
Our new book is a comprehensive look at a vital part of medicines development and regulatory affairs. Grab your copy today!
Hear from leaders around the globe as they share insights about their experiences and lessons learned throughout their certification journey.
In a landmark decision with wide-ranging implications for drugmakers around the globe, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has announced it will soon require pharmaceutical companies whose products are approved for sale in the European Union to make all clinical data supporting the approval of their medicines freely available to the public.
As Focus explained earlier this year, EMA has for years been seeking a policy by which it could release patient-anonymized clinical trials data used to support drug approvals to the public. The regulator has said the transparency would allow researchers to double-check its findings, and allow industry to avoid duplicating research efforts, thereby saving money on drug development and research.
EMA released a draft of its plan in June 2013, which immediately prompted a lawsuit from pharmaceutical companies AbbVie and Intermune, both of which only recently withdrew those lawsuits, reportedly in return for changes in EMA's transparency policy.
But while the changes to the draft may have placated members of industry, they also set off a firestorm among some of EMA's more ardent supporters, who accused the regulator of watering down the plan almost to the point of making it useless.
The new policy would also result in two versions of a clinical study report being submitted to EMA: a standard one for use by regulators, and a redacted one intended to be released to the public. Sponsors would be charged with the redactions—a point of contention to transparency advocates, who say the scheme could result in improperly redacted information.
But EMA fought back, saying its hands were tied by statute, and that it was making do with the authority that it had while also doing its best to avoid protracted legal battles with members of industry. "A balanced approach was needed taking into account different stakeholders' competing interests, within the limitations of the current legal framework," said Guido Rasi, executive director of EMA, who also noted that the changes made it possible to "overcome many of the objections raised by stakeholders."
But ultimately, one set of voices would matter more than most in the debate: those of EMA's management committee, which has supported the agency's efforts to release additional clinical trials data. In June 2014, the committee voted to approve a draft of EMA's policy along with several amendments meant to ensure that the public would have greater access to the data.
The amendments would make it possible for the public to "download, save and print the trial data for academic and non-commercial research purposes." That compromise will presumably allow for research in the public interest, while minimizing attempts by commercial entities to mine competitors' data for various claims—a key source of worry for innovative pharmaceutical manufacturers, who worried their generic and follow-on competitors could find new uses for their drugs before they had a chance to fully analyze the data.
Now the management committee has given its final approval to the clinical trial data transparency plan.
“The adoption of this policy sets a new standard for transparency in public health and pharmaceutical research and development,” said Rasi, in a statement. “This unprecedented level of access to clinical reports will benefit patients, healthcare professionals, academia and industry.”
The data, Rasi said, would be available to the public, allowing researchers to "understand the Agency's decision-making" and avoid unnecessary duplications of existing clinical trials, thereby safeguarding patients.
EMA noted that, "In general, the clinical reports do not contain commercially confidential information," which would be redacted if it did exist in the reports.
The policy will also be implemented in stages, EMA explained in its statement. Starting on 1 January 2015, EMA will publish clinical reports for newly approved medicines. The policy will not be retroactive, EMA said—a likely consequence of litigation against the agency. Medicines approved as part of a line extention will only have their new data available for public consumption, EMA said. However, only new data—not existing data—will be made available.
EMA also said it plans to make "individual patient data" available in the future, but is still working on a policy to ensure the data cannot be used to identify patients. "It is critically important for EMA that the privacy of patients is adequately protected before their data are released," EMA explained.
For now, EMA said it will publish the following information:
EMA Press Statement
EMA Q&A on Transparency Plan
Tags: Clinical Trials Transparency, Clinical Data Transparency, Data Transparency