Inaccuracies hurt clinical data: study

Share this article:
Kay Dickersin
Kay Dickersin

A witness in the 2008 case Pfizer lost for making false presentations about epilepsy drug Neurontin, Kay Dickersin, published a piece in open-access journal PLOS that highlights problems with the current state of published clinical trial data.

At issue are clinical trial documents Dickersin reviewed with  colleagues that cross-referenced clinical trial data for off-label use of the drug against internal documents about these same trials. They found a lot of daylight between the corporate and public versions, leaving researchers “unable to compare the internal research report with the main publication”—for variables such as the number of participants or even a consistent form of analysis. On the in-house communications side, Dickersin's team also found that Pfizer's documentation showed that the published trials “did not always accurately reflect what was actually done in the trial.” Dickersin had access to the internal documents—which she noted are not generally available—because of the lawsuit.

Among the points of contention: internal and published documents used different definitions for the term “premature discontinuation” among three of 11 trials examined. They also found that in six out of 10 trials researchers couldn't match up company data with published data regarding how many patients were used to assess efficacy because the type of analysis wasn't defined or a primary outcome wasn't established.

Dickersin told MM&M that the experience shows “we have to get some standardization of terminology so that people know what we're talking about.” This includes the initial endpoints, patient criteria and definitions. She said that will mean documents and published information can be compared “and we can see that there hasn't been any changing of the goal posts.” She said that GSK's recent clinical trial transparency effort is in line with the EMA's rules, and that it's FDA's turn to put standards in place.
Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.
close

Next Article in Features

Email Newsletters

More in Features

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Click the above link to access the complete Digital Edition of the August 2014 issue of MM&M, with all text, charts and pictures.

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Agencies must generate emotional resonance with the target audience, not unlike Apple, Pepsi or Nike

Are discounts cutting out co-pays?

GSK's decision to cut Advair's price spurred some PBMs to put it back on formulary. Will drugmaker discounts diminish the need for loyalty programs? How can these programs stay relevant beyond giving co-pay assistance?