Cargando…

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-sectiona...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Byrne, David, Prendergast, Ciaran, Fahey, Tom, Moriarty, Frank
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10186437/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37188475
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068981
_version_ 1785042557639589888
author Byrne, David
Prendergast, Ciaran
Fahey, Tom
Moriarty, Frank
author_facet Byrne, David
Prendergast, Ciaran
Fahey, Tom
Moriarty, Frank
author_sort Byrne, David
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10186437
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101864372023-05-17 Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis Byrne, David Prendergast, Ciaran Fahey, Tom Moriarty, Frank BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC10186437/ /pubmed/37188475 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068981 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Evidence Based Practice
Byrne, David
Prendergast, Ciaran
Fahey, Tom
Moriarty, Frank
Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis
title Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis
title_full Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis
title_fullStr Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis
title_short Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis
title_sort clinical study reports published by the european medicines agency 2016–2018: a cross-sectional analysis
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10186437/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37188475
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068981
work_keys_str_mv AT byrnedavid clinicalstudyreportspublishedbytheeuropeanmedicinesagency20162018acrosssectionalanalysis
AT prendergastciaran clinicalstudyreportspublishedbytheeuropeanmedicinesagency20162018acrosssectionalanalysis
AT faheytom clinicalstudyreportspublishedbytheeuropeanmedicinesagency20162018acrosssectionalanalysis
AT moriartyfrank clinicalstudyreportspublishedbytheeuropeanmedicinesagency20162018acrosssectionalanalysis