IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

NIH to go open access?

blades blades49456 at sbcglobal.net
Fri Oct 29 19:33:07 EST 2004


Clinical Trial Listings and Results Go Public

http://www.actmagazine.com/appliedclinicaltrials/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=125525

<snip>

Next step: Open access Efforts to list all clinical trials and study 
results in a national database mesh with the related initiative to 
increase public access to government-funded research results. In July, 
the House Appropriations committee added language to the 2005 HHS 
funding bill calling for NIH to develop a system for public posting of 
articles about NIH-funded research. Such articles usually are published 
in expensive professional journals and may take months to appear.

Last month NIH responded by proposing to require researchers to submit 
to a new NIH database all papers based on NIH research that have been 
accepted for journal publication. NIH will post articles six months 
after publication, so publishers and medical societies have the 
opportunity to profit from their vetting and publishing activities.

Medical journal editors protest that the NIH plan will reduce 
subscriptions and income, and researchers are concerned that open access 
would translate into an "author-pays" business model. NIH is accepting 
comments on the open access plan through November.

Observers remain skeptical that industry's voluntary efforts will be 
enough. PhRMA intends to use an independent third party to manage and 
oversee its database, and says that it has "extremely strong commitment" 
to the program from top company executives, said Caroline Loew, vice 
president for scientific and regulatory affairs.

PhRMA's main message to legislators is that its initiative will provide 
access to data immediately, while a legislative route could take years. 
It remains to be seen if industry will continue to make public 
previously private information after the spotlight shifts to another 
medical research issue.

SIDEBAR: FDA Finds Poor Compliance with Trial Registration Program

To implement FDAMA, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) established 
the ClinicalTrials.gov database in February 2000, by incorporating 
cancer and AIDS databases established by the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH). The site now lists about 10,600 trials and attracts 16,000 
visitors daily. But less than 10% of protocols come from sponsors of 
commercial studies.

To encourage industry to post trials on the Web site, FDA issued 
guidance in 2002 that clarifies which studies should be listed and 
procedures for doing so. FDA's Office of Special Health Issues (OSHI) 
launched an educational program and sent letters to some 3000 sponsors 
of INDs (investigational new drug applications) for drugs and biologics 
to determine which studies involved treatments for life-threatening 
diseases and thus should be listed.

As of June 2004, though, 246 pharmaceutical companies had listed only 
about 1200 protocols. Moreover, many of the listings are incomplete, 
often missing critical information on study sites or drug or company 
name. An OSHI review of all cancer protocols submitted to FDA's Center 
for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) during nine months in 2002 shows 
industry's poor compliance record: of 366 cancer protocols submitted to 
FDA, 127 were sponsored by drug companies and met the criteria for 
listing on ClinicalTrials.gov. However, less than half (48%) of the 
eligible industry studies were listed, compared to 91% of eligible NIH 
trials. And OSHI's analysis indicates that cancer and AIDS trials are 
the best-reported of all disease areas.

Pharma companies have claimed that trial registration could reveal 
proprietary information, such as inclusion/exclusion criteria and site 
locations. But FDA staffers maintain that such facts usually are well 
known by market analysts by the time a drug moves into Phase II or III 
studies. Conversely, regulators believe that registration provides an 
invaluable way for sponsors to accelerate patient enrollment in trials 
and to avoid duplicative research. OSHI is finalizing its report on 
registry compliance, which may lead to revisions in eligibility criteria 
and posting procedures.-J.W.
--
BIM (Michigan)



More information about the Jrnlnote mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net