Background The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves new drugs based on sponsor-submitted clinical trials. The publication status of these trials in the medical literature and factors associated with publication have not been evaluated. We sought to determine the proportion of trials submitted to the FDA in support of newly approved drugs that are published in biomedical journals that a typical clinician, consumer, or policy maker living in the US would reasonably search. Methods and Findings We conducted a cohort study of trials supporting new drugs approved between 1998 and 2000, as described in FDA medical and statistical review documents and the FDA approved drug label. We determined publication status and time from approval to full publication in the medical literature at 2 and 5 y by searching PubMed and other databases through 01 August 2006. We then evaluated trial characteristics associated with publication. We identified 909 trials supporting 90 approved drugs in the FDA reviews, of which 43% (394/909) were published. Among the subset of trials described in the FDA-approved drug label and classified as “pivotal trials” for our analysis, 76% (257/340) were published. In multivariable logistic regression for all trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78–5.17); larger sample sizes (OR 1.33 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.17–1.52); and pivotal status (OR 5.31, 95% CI 3.30–8.55). In multivariable logistic regression for only the pivotal trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.24–7.06) and larger sample sizes (OR 1.47 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.15–1.88). Statistically significant results and larger sample sizes were also predictive of publication at 2 y postapproval and in multivariable Cox proportional models for all trials and the subset of pivotal trials. Conclusions Over half of all supporting trials for FDA-approved drugs remained unpublished ≥ 5 y after approval. Pivotal trials and trials with statistically significant results and larger sample sizes are more likely to be published. Selective reporting of trial results exists for commonly marketed drugs. Our data provide a baseline for evaluating publication bias as the new FDA Amendments Act comes into force mandating basic results reporting of clinical trials.
References
[1]
[No author listed] (2006) Content and format of an application. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 21, Pt. 314.50.
[2]
[No author listed] (2006) Availability for public disclosure of data and information in an application or abbreviated application. CFR Title 21, Pt. 314.430.
[3]
[No author listed] (2006) Freedom of Information Act. Title 5 US Code 552(b)(4).
[4]
Simes RJ (1986) Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 4: 1529–1541.
[5]
Chalmers I (1990) Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 263: 1405–1408.
[6]
Nissen SE, Wolski K (2007) Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 356: 2457–2471.
[7]
New York State CourtJun. 2004) Spitzer v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC. New York Superior Court. No. 04/401707.
[8]
Topol EJ (2004) Failing the public health—Rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med 351: 1707–1709.
[9]
Mathews A, Martinez BNov. 2004) E-mails suggest Merck knew Vioxx's dangers at early stage. Wall Street Journal. (01.
[10]
Benjamin DK Jr., Smith PB, Murphy MD, Roberts R, Mathis L, et al. (2006) Peer-reviewed publication of clinical trials completed for pediatric exclusivity. JAMA 296: 1266–1273.
[11]
Sim I, Chan AW, Gülmezoglu AM, Evans T, Pang T (2006) Clinical Trial Registration: Transparency is the Watchword. The Lancet 367: 1631–1633.
[12]
Laine C, Horton R, Deangelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. (2007) Clinical trial registration: Looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med 356: 2734–2736.
[13]
Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System (2007) The future of drug safety: Promoting and protecting the health of the public. In: Baciu A, Stratton K, Burke SP, editors. Washington (D. C.): National Academies Press.
[14]
Hemminki E (1980) Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing authorities. BMJ 280: 833–836.
[15]
Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B (2003) Evidence b(i)ased medicine—Selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 326: 1171–1173.
[16]
Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R (2008) Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 358: 252–260.
[17]
MedAdNews (2005) Top 50 companies. Available: http://www.pharmalive.com/magazines/meda？d/view.cfm?articleID=3799&f=3797. Accessed 3 August 2007.
[18]
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 134: 657–662.
[19]
Khan A, Khan SR, Leventhal RM, Krishnan KR, Gorman JM (2002) An application of the revised CONSORT standards to FDA summary reports of recently approved antidepressants and antipsychotics. Biol Psychiatry 52: 62–67.
[20]
[No authors listed] (2007) PhRMA clinical study results database. Available: http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org/home？/. Accessed 14 July 2008.
[21]
Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. (1987) Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 8: 343–353.
[22]
Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF (2003) Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 290: 495–501.
[23]
Smith R (2005) Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies. PLoS Med 2: e138. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138.
[24]
Lee KP, Boyd EA, Holroyd-Leduc JM, Bacchetti P, Bero LA (2006) Predictors of publication: Characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals. Med J Aust 184: 621–626.
[25]
Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, Dickersin K, Flanagin A, et al. (2002) Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 287: 2825–2828.
[26]
Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L (2001) Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: A comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 285: 1992–1995.
[27]
Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291: 2457–2465.
[28]
Groves T (2008) Mandatory disclosure of trial results for drugs and devices. BMJ 336: 170.
