Is The EU's New Directive On Clinical Trials Moving In The Wrong Direction?

from the something-not-right-here dept

It's a cliché that we live in a world increasingly awash with digital data. Even though it all comes down to 1s and 0s, not all data is equally important or valuable. Data about clinical trials, for example, is literally a matter of life and death, since it is used to determine whether new drugs should be approved and how they should be used. That gives clinical data a critical role in the approval process: results that support the use of a new drug can lead to big profits, while negative results can mean years of expensive research and development have to be discarded.

Unfortunately, things aren't always clear cut, as an article in PLoS Medicine about Tamiflu makes clear:

Prior to the global outbreak of H1N1 influenza in 2009, the United States alone had stockpiled nearly US$1.5 billion dollars worth of the antiviral. As the only drug in its class (neuraminidase inhibitors) available in oral form, Tamiflu was heralded as the key pharmacologic intervention for use during the early days of an influenza pandemic when a vaccine was yet to be produced. It would cut hospitalizations and save lives, said the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
If it could save lives and reduce complications, spending billions on stockpiling Tamiflu was a reasonable thing to do. But could it do either? Opinion seemed divided:
In contrast, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which approved Tamiflu in 1999 and was aware of these same clinical trials [used to support this large-scale stockpiling], concluded that Tamiflu had not been shown to reduce complications, and required an explicit statement in the drug's label to that effect. FDA even cited Roche, Tamiflu's manufacturer, for violation of the law for claims made to the contrary.
That is, even using the same figures from the same set of clinical trials, equally reputable organizations could come to different conclusions. Against that background, it's perhaps no surprise that the question of how much data must be released by drug companies during the approvals process, and in what form, is becoming an area of contention, because even small differences can tip the balance between a drug being approved and widely used -- and hugely profitable -- or barely used at all, and turning into a costly flop.

One battleground is Europe, where clinical trials data is covered by the Clinical trials Directive from 2001. It's currently being revised, not least because compliance costs have increased greatly in recent years:

Compared to the situation prior to the application of the Directive 2001/20/EC, the staff needs for industry sponsors to handle the clinical trial authorisation process have doubled (107 %); with small companies facing an even sharper increase. For non-commercial sponsors, the increase in administrative requirements due to the Directive 2001/20/EC has led to a 98% increase in administrative costs. In addition, since implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC, insurance fees have increased by 800 % for industry sponsors.
That comes from the opening section of the proposed update to the regulations (pdf). Reducing costs in order to increase the number of drugs that are submitted for authorization is perfectly reasonable: everybody wants additional medicines to be approved that can both help people and support jobs in the pharmaceutical industry. But concerns are being raised that the new EU regulations would cut too many corners in doing so.

David Hammerstein, of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) forum of US and EU consumer organizations, has the following concerns about the new Directive:

1. Lowers requirements and insurance for so-called "low risk" and "on market" drugs.

2. Easier industry manipulation of methodology to get results they want.

3. Ambiguous on Transparency: no clarity on what databases should be accessible.

4. Little transparency: Allows pharmaceutical industry to present only a summary of their data for EU database.

5. Destruction of valuable clinical data: Allows industry to destroy master files of clinical trial data after five years.

6. Tricky wording to avoid reporting negative results.

7. Whose benefit? Whose risk?
His blog post has more detailed explanations, which is just as well, as the proposed Directive runs to over 100 pages of fairly impenetrable bureaucrat-speak. But assuming his fears are well founded, it certainly seems that the European Commission is going in precisely the wrong direction by providing "Less dependable data, fewer safety requirements and little transparency," as Hammerstein puts it. That would be bad news for any domain, but is especially worrisome when the health of 500 million Europeans is at stake.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or, and on Google+

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: clinical trials, eu, healthcare

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2012 @ 3:31am

    Who pays

    The best answer to clinical trials would be for the governments to fund hospitals to carry them out independently of the drug manufacturers. This would reduce the vested interest that the drug manufacturers have in getting a drug approved. Also, universities would be the best organizations to carry out drug research, again to reduce the pressure to get a drug approved. It would also eliminate the need for drug patents, as universities are funded as teaching and research institutes, and should not need to commercialize their research.
    Commercial entities are not the best organizations to carry out drug research and development as they have a strong interest in selling the results at high price to cover the research. As society benefits from drug and other medical research, and relies on it being carried out honestly, public funding is a reasonable way to achieve this.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.