A federal court ruling has mandated that clinical trial sponsors must publish a decade's worth of previously missing data, potentially impacting numerous universities, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers. The ruling addresses a misinterpretation of existing laws concerning the collection and posting of clinical trial data, resulting in a significant gap in publicly available information.
The decision, handed down by a federal judge in New York's Southern District, places clinical trial sponsors who failed to post results to ClinicalTrials.Gov between 2007 and 2017 out of compliance with federal regulations. This affects trials conducted for drugs and devices awaiting approval during that period.
Christopher Morten, a supervising attorney at New York University’s Law & Policy Clinic representing the plaintiffs, stated, "This decision brings us one step closer to what federal law requires – providing the American public with complete access to clinical trial results on drugs and medical devices approved by the FDA." He added that the ruling "makes it harder for drug companies, device manufacturers, and other trial sponsors to keep unfavorable trial results secret."
The lawsuit was brought by Peter Lurie, a former associate FDA commissioner, and Charles Seife, a New York University journalism professor. Their action highlights concerns about transparency and access to crucial data impacting public health.
Implications for Data Transparency
While the exact timeline for compliance remains unclear, affected sponsors will be required to post their results. The consequences for non-compliance are also yet to be determined. The Department of Health and Human Services is currently evaluating the court’s decision in conjunction with the Department of Justice to determine the next steps.
Historical Context and Enforcement
A 2015 STAT investigation revealed inconsistencies in clinical trial data reporting by top research universities. Although the NIH indicated that 2017 regulations would provide a "firmer basis for taking enforcement actions," subsequent reports in Science magazine have shown that the FDA has not yet imposed any fines on clinical trial sponsors, and the NIH has not publicly named or withheld grant funding.
Charles Seife has argued that the government's decision to not require data from the 2007-2017 period effectively erased accountability. "The FDA is in charge of making sure that drugs on the market are safe and effective, but without access to data about those drugs, it’s nearly impossible to understand whether the agency is doing its job properly," Seife stated.
