What was once fair under the law may become unfair when science changes. The law must react to uphold due process

On May 24, Governor Tim Walz signed into law Minnesota’s new comprehensive data privacy law, the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (HF 4757 referenced as the MCDPA). The MCDPA goes into effect on July 31, 2025, with some exceptions for colleges and universities (who have until 2029). The MCDPA is similar to other state privacy laws, […]

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has expressed its sadness at the death of Joy Wingfield, honorary professor of Pharmacy Law and Ethics at the University of Nottingham.

New research has shown that the majority of clinical trials which should be following the US law on reporting results aren’t. Less than half (41%) of clinical trial results were reported on time and 1 in 3 trials (36%) remain unreported. The research also found that clinical trials sponsored by companies are the most likely […]

A judge in New York has ruled that hundreds of clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov are breaking the law by not reporting results. The ruling came in a court case launched against the US Department of Health and Human Services by two plaintiffs, a family doctor and a professor of journalism. The case focused on […]

Results reporting requirements are pretty clear. Maybe critics should re-check their methods?

Ben Goldacre has rather famously described the clinical trial reporting requirements in the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 as a “fake fix” that was being thoroughly “ignored” by the pharmaceutical industry.

Pharma: breaking the law in broad daylight?

He makes this sweeping, unconditional proclamation about the industry and its regulators on the basis of  a single study in the BMJ, blithely ignoring the fact that a) the authors of the study admitted that they could not adequately determine the number of studies that were meeting FDAAA requirements and b) a subsequent FDA review that identified only 15 trials potentially out of compliance, out of a pool of thousands.


Despite the fact that the FDA, which has access to more data, says that only a tiny fraction of studies are potentially noncompliant, Goldacre's frequently repeated claims that the law is being ignored seems to have caught on in the general run of journalistic and academic discussions about FDAAA.

And now there appears to be additional support for the idea that a large percentage of studies are noncompliant with FDAAA results reporting requirements, in the form of a new study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology: "Public Availability of Results of Trials Assessing Cancer Drugs in the United States" by Thi-Anh-Hoa Nguyen, et al.. In it, the authors report even lower levels of FDAAA compliance – a mere 20% of randomized clinical trials met requirements of posting results on clinicaltrials.gov within one year.

Unsurprisingly, the JCO results were immediately picked up and circulated uncritically by the usual suspects.

I have to admit not knowing much about pure academic and cooperative group trial operations, but I do know a lot about industry-run trials – simply put, I find the data as presented in the JCO study impossible to believe. Everyone I work with in pharma trials is painfully aware of the regulatory environment they work in. FDAAA compliance is a given, a no-brainer: large internal legal and compliance teams are everywhere, ensuring that the letter of the law is followed in clinical trial conduct. If anything, pharma sponsors are twitchily over-compliant with these kinds of regulations (for example, most still adhere to 100% verification of source documentation – sending monitors to physically examine every single record of every single enrolled patient - even after the FDA explicitly told them they didn't have to).

I realize that’s anecdotal evidence, but when such behavior is so pervasive, it’s difficult to buy into data that says it’s not happening at all. The idea that all pharmaceutical companies are ignoring a highly visible law that’s been on the books for 6 years is extraordinary. Are they really so brazenly breaking the rules? And is FDA abetting them by disseminating incorrect information?

Those are extraordinary claims, and would seem to require extraordinary evidence. The BMJ study had clear limitations that make its implications entirely unclear. Is the JCO article any better?

Some Issues

In fact, there appear to be at least two major issues that may have seriously compromised the JCO findings:

1. Studies that were certified as being eligible for delayed reporting requirements, but do not have their certification date listed.

The study authors make what I believe to be a completely unwarranted assumption:

In trials for approval of new drugs or approval for a new indication, a certification [permitting delayed results reporting] should be posted within 1 year and should be publicly available.

It’s unclear to me why the authors think the certifications “should be” publicly available. In re-reading FDAAA section 801, I don’t see any reference to that being a requirement. I suppose I could have missed it, but the authors provide a citation to a page that clearly does not list any such requirement.

But their methodology assumes that all trials that have a certification will have it posted:

If no results were posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we determined whether the responsible party submitted a certification. In this case, we recorded the date of submission of the certification to ClinicalTrials.gov.

If a sponsor gets approval from FDA to delay reporting (as is routine for all drugs that are either not approved for any indication, or being studied for a new indication – i.e., the overwhelming majority of pharma drug trials), but doesn't post that approval on the registry, the JCO authors deem that trial “noncompliant”. This is not warranted: the company may have simply chosen not to post the certification despite being entirely FDAAA compliant.

2. Studies that were previously certified for delayed reporting and subsequently reported results

It is hard to tell how the authors treated this rather-substantial category of trials. If a trial was certified for delayed results reporting, but then subsequently published results, the certification date becomes difficult to find. Indeed, it appears in the case where there were results, the authors simply looked at the time from study completion to results posting. In effect, this would re-classify almost every single one of these trials from compliant to non-compliant. Consider this example trial:

• Phase 3 trial completes January 2010
• Certification of delayed results obtained December 2010 (compliant)
• FDA approval June 2013
• Results posted July 2013 (compliant)

In looking at the JCO paper's methods section, it really appears that this trial would be classified as reporting results 3.5 years after completion, and therefore be considered noncompliant with FDAAA. In fact, this trial is entirely kosher, and would be extremely typical for many phase 2 and 3 trials in industry.

Time for Some Data Transparency

The above two concerns may, in fact, be non-issues. They certainly appear to be implied in the JCO paper, but the wording isn't terribly detailed and could easily be giving me the wrong impression.

However, if either or both of these issues are real, they may affect the vast majority of "noncompliant" trials in this study. Given the fact that most clinical trials are either looking at new drugs, or looking at new indications for new drugs, these two issues may entirely explain the gap between the JCO study and the unequivocal FDA statements that contradict it.

I hope that, given the importance of transparency in research, the authors will be willing to post their data set publicly so that others can review their assumptions and independently verify their conclusions. It would be more than a bit ironic otherwise.
Thi-Anh-Hoa Nguyen, Agnes Dechartres, Soraya Belgherbi, and Philippe Ravaud (2013). Public Availability of Results of Trials Assessing Cancer Drugs in the United States JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.9577

The Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals (CDRT) will be able to mandate mental health treatment for those who cause unreasonable interferences in the community if a bill to amend the Community Disputes Resolution Act (CDRA) goes through.  The bill was proposed in Parliament by Minister for Community, Culture and Youth Edwin Tong on Tuesday (Nov 12). The CDRT currently hears disputes under CDRA between neighbours involving acts of unreasonable interference with the enjoyment or use of places of residence. Under the bill, the tribunal will be able to issue Mandatory Treatment Orders (MTO) should there be a belief that the acts of disturbance stem from an underlying psychiatric condition. "In those cases, the issue therefore is not just a disamenity one," Minister Tong said. "Hence, the MTO is intended to address the root cause of certain acts that a resident may engage in." Tong added that their priority remains in persuading the resident to go for treatment voluntarily, and that the CDRT-issued MTO is a measure of last resort. There are also criteria that must be met for the MTO to be issued.

Fugitive lawyer Charles Yeo, who is in custody in the UK, is currently awaiting an extradition hearing, reported CNA on Tuesday (Nov 12).  A court date for the extradition hearing has not been determined, but Yeo is set to attend a bail hearing on Friday, according to the report. In an Instagram post on Nov 1, the former chairman of the Reform Party said the Singapore government had made a formal request for his extradition. In his post, Yeo also said that he will be presenting himself, together with his legal team, at Westminster Magistrates Court on Nov 11. Yeo left Singapore in July 2022 after being charged earlier that year with multiple offences relating to harassment and wounding the religious feelings of Christians in several social media posts. In August 2022, a warrant of arrest was issued against him for breaching the conditions for overseas travel while on bail.  He was allowed to travel to Vietnam for work, but failed to return to Singapore and claimed he was seeking political asylum in the UK. 

Jun 18, 2024

The rise of political populism and economic protectionism are serious barriers impeding efforts to combat global climate change. Robert Lawrence, the Albert Williams Professor of International Trade and Investment at Harvard Kennedy School, expressed those concerns in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.”

Apr 1, 2024

Harvard Kennedy School hosted Sarah Ladislaw, Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Climate and Energy of the U.S. National Security Council, for an Energy Policy Seminar on the U.S. approach to energy and climate issues in its foreign policy.

Inspiring Leadership

An aerial view of your mowing path helps you remember to switch up your pattern for optimum turf health.

Download CA Inter Corporate and Other Laws New Course Question Papers Sep 2024 in PDF. For other question papers of CA IPC May 2023, Nov 2023, May 2023, Nov 2022, May 2022, Dec 2021, July 2021, Nov 2020, Nov 2019, May 2019, Nov 18, May 18, Nov 2017, May 17, Nov 2016, may 2016, CA IPC Nov 2015, CA IPC may 2015, CA IPC Nov 2014 check similar section. Previous years business law, Ethics and Communication CA Inter IPC question papers can also be downloaded using Search. You can also search and download may 2015 Final question papers here. We are providing ca final question papers of may 2016 for Financial Reporting FR, Advanced Financial Management AFM, Advanced Auditing and Professional Ethics, Corporate & Allied business laws, Advanced & Management Accounting AMA, Information Systems Control & Audit ISCA, Direct Tax business laws DT, Indirect Tax business laws IDT and Inter/IPC may 2015 question papers for Advanced Accounting, Taxation, Advanced Accounting , Auditing & Assurance, Information Technology & Strategic Management ITSM

Download Direct Tax Laws & International Taxation (DT) Question Papers New Course Nov 2024 in PDF. For older question papers of CA final May 2024, Nov 2023, May 2023, Nov 2022, May 2022, Dec 2021, July 2021, Nov 2020, Nov 2019, May 2019, Nov 2018,CA final May 2018, Nov 2017, May 2017, CA final may 2016, CA final Nov 2016 check similar section. Previous years CA final Financial Reporting FR question papers can also be downloaded using Search. You can also search and download may 2015 IPCC & IPC question papers here. We are providing ca final question papers of may 2016 for Financial Reporting FR, Advanced Financial Management AFM, Advanced Auditing, Assurance And Professional Ethics, Direct Tax Laws DT, Indirect Tax Laws IDT,Integrated Business Solutions (Multidisciplinary Case Study with Strategic Management) and IPCC/IPC Nov 2023 question papers for Accounting, Business, Law, Ethics & Communications , Cost Accounting & Financial Management CAFM, Taxation, Advanced Accounting , Auditing & Assurance, Information Technology & Strategic Management ITSM.

Full Article