Heterogeneity and Utility of Pharmaceutical Company Sharing of Individual-Participant Data Packages
Files
(Published version)
Date
2023
Authors
Hopkins, A.M.
Modi, N.D.
Abuhelwa, A.Y.
Kichenadasse, G.
Kuderer, N.M.
Lyman, G.H.
Wiese, M.D.
McKinnon, R.A.
Rockhold, F.W.
Mann, A.
Editors
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Journal article
Citation
JAMA Oncology, 2023; 9(12):1621-1626
Statement of Responsibility
Conference Name
Abstract
<h4>Importance</h4>The pharmaceutical industry has made substantial investments in developing processes for sharing individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical trials. However, the utility and completeness of shared IPD and supporting documents must be evaluated to ensure the potential for scientific advancements from the data sharing ecosystem can be realized.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the utility and completeness of IPD and supporting documents provided from industry-sponsored clinical trials.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>From February 9, 2022, to February 9, 2023, 91 of 203 clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration registrations of anticancer medicines for the treatment of solid tumors from the past decade were confirmed as eligible for IPD request. This quality improvement study performed a retrospective audit of the utility and completeness of the IPD and supporting documents provided from the 91 clinical trials for a planned meta-analysis.<h4>Exposures</h4>Request for IPD from 91 clinical oncology trials indicated as eligible for the request.<h4>Main outcomes and measures</h4>The utility and completeness of the IPD and supporting documents provided.<h4>Results</h4>The IPD packages were obtained from 70 of 91 requested clinical trials (77%). The median time to data provision was 123 (range, 117-352) days. Redactions were observed in 18 of the acquired IPD packages (26%) for outcome data, 11 (16%) for assessment variables, and 19 (27%) for adjustment data. Additionally, 20 IPD packages (29%) lacked a clinical study report, 4 (6%) had incomplete or missing data dictionaries, and 20 (29%) were missing anonymization or redaction description files. Access to IPD from 21 eligible trials (23%) was not granted.<h4>Conclusions and relevance</h4>In this quality improvement study, there was substantial variability within the provided IPD packages regarding the completeness of key data variables and supporting documents. To improve the data sharing ecosystem, key areas for enhancement include (1) ensuring that clinical trials are eligible for IPD sharing, (2) making eligible IPD transparently accessible, and (3) ensuring that IPD packages meet a standard of utility and completeness.
School/Discipline
Dissertation Note
Provenance
Description
Access Status
Rights
Copyright 2022 American Medical Association
Access Condition Notes: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium. You are not required to obtain permission to reuse this article content, provided that you credit the author and journal.