- Posted
- Categories
-
- OpenPrescribing
OpenPrescribing Newsletter: April 2018
New research on homeopathy and gluten-free prescribing, plus tips for using the Analyse page to investigate prescribing variation and trends.
Latest news and views from around the Bennett Institute
New research on homeopathy and gluten-free prescribing, plus tips for using the Analyse page to investigate prescribing variation and trends.
In February, we posted our first Unreported Trial of the Week here in the Bennett Institute blog highlighting a trial from Columbia University. Since then, that trial has submitted results to ClinicalTrials.gov and Unreported Trial of the Week has moved to the BMJ!
Each week we profile a new unreported clinical trial that has not reported results in accordance with their legal requirements. You can see all four trials we have profiled thus far as well as the introductory post at the BMJ. A short summary and a link to each of the first four trials is provided below.
An update on medicine price concessions, preparations for CCG mergers, and early work on OpenPathology to explore NHS blood test use.
Our FDAAA TrialsTracker provides a public list of all trials required to report under the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). We update every weekday with live data showing who has, and has not, reported their results in accordance with the law. You can read our full methods in our preprint paper.
One unreported trial last week stood out: this trial was sponsored by the FDA, the agency in charge of enforcing the reporting requirements of the FDAAA. We raised this in public; journalist Ed Silverman, from Pharmalot at STAT, picked up the story and contacted the FDA. He wrote about the trial in STAT, where a spokesperson for the FDA provided the following statement:
The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC) have released 3 sets of price concession price lists for February 2018. Once again, the total amount for England for the month has reduced: we’ve estimated the impact as £9.37 million for February 2018, although this is based on December 2017 data (the latest we have), and is therefore likely to reduce slightly (as February has fewer days).
The total for 2017-18 so far is £308.7 million, although the further impact is probably greater as some formerly low-cost generics are not considerably more expensive. For example levetiracetam 1g tablets, used in epilepsy, were £5.49/60 in July 2017, and in January 2018, following a spell as a price concession, increased to £36.07/tablets.
Here at the Bennett Institute we are a truly multidisciplinary team: clinicians, academics and software engineers, working together to produce tools, as well as papers.
This is glorious fun, and productive. From our time working together as a team we now have software engineers who know about clinical trials, prescribing data, and more; and we have researchers and clinicians who know a bit about building websites.
This may or may not thrill you, but I will share it: our academics write code that runs live on our websites! In addition, our team can be creative, because we all know a little about each others’ work: about what is possible with software and data, and what kinds of problem need solving in medicine.
When we launched our FDAAA TrialsTracker we wanted to produce a tool that would improve clinical trial reporting, rather than another repetitive academic journal paper that simply documents the extent of the problem. This reflects our ethos in the Bennett Institute: clinicians, academics and software engineers, working together to produce tools, as well as papers.
Two weeks after launch we have had extensive media coverage, and a lot of great user feedback. Here are two emails we’ve had from users who are employed to improve clinical trial reporting in major US institutions.
“If you’re a huge company trying to develop a new drug or treatment, the temptation to hide ‘bad’ results might be a strong one. Until now, you would be able to hide those results with few consequences.”
In this Wired article, Abigail Beall, discusses the Alltrials campaign and the FDAAA TrialsTracker
A new opioid measure using oral morphine equivalents, improvements to the Long Term Trends tool, and the launch of the FDAAA TrialsTracker.
With the launch of our FDAAA TrialsTracker, applicable trials that have failed to report their results on ClinicalTrials.gov are starting to appear. If you go here on our Tracker (the “All Trials” view, and toggle the “due” filter) you can see all the trials that have not yet reported.
Non-reporting of clinical trial results in an ongoing, global public health issue. We are going to start highlighting some of these unreported trials in blog posts to shine a light on what information is being withheld from the public as a result of non-reporting.
When you produce online tools from data, you often get useful feedback that helps you improve the outputs. (Send us feedback any time!). Additionally, when you use data, you learn about interesting glitches in it, some of which can be entirely undocumented. Here we share one example of helpful feedback, and how we used it to improve our tool.
First some background. Trial reporting is a huge problem in medicine: the results of clinical trials are routinely withheld from doctors, researchers, and patients. We think all trials should be reported. The WHO agrees. A US law called the FDA Amendments Act requires some trials to report their results on ClinicalTrials.gov: this law has many loopholes, but it’s an important start. Since the results reporting requirements of FDAAA came into full force, our FDAAA TrialsTracker has been identifying the individual trials that have breached it. You can read our paper on how the tool works: we also blogged about our methods for identifying overdue trials. Staff in universities who manage trial reporting are already telling us that they find our tool useful.
Now that we’ve launched our FDAAA TrialsTracker, we plan on occasionally taking a closer look at some of the trials that go unreported. Our first blog was about a trial examining 2 drug combinations for managing pain during labor (NCT01846221).
So why do we think this specific trial is due to report? While we go through how we established our criteria and set up our database in detail in our preprint paper on Biorxiv, we wanted to walk you through exactly what fields matter on ClinicalTrials.gov and how we used them to build our tracker. We think we were able to do this well, but are open to feedback and will amend our paper and methods as necessary.
“Institutions that fail to report the results of their drug and medical trials will be named on a new website.”
In this BBC article, Chris Foxx, highlights the FDAAA TrialsTracker. Quoting Bennett Institute Director, Ben Goldacre, “I’m not interested in naming and shaming people in order to criticise them. This project is being done to nudge institutions to prioritise trial reporting.”
This week, we launched our FDAAA TrialsTracker which gives you a live look at whether individual sponsors and trialists are meeting their responsibility to report the results of clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. A lot of work went into the tracker and making sure we got it right. You can read all about our methods, in detail, here but the short version goes like this…
Certain trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, the US trial registry run by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are required to report their results. This requirement began with the passing of the FDA Amendment Act of 2007 (FDAAA) but different interpretations of the broad requirements laid down under FDAAA led to some confusion over who was required to report and when. In September of 2016, a “Final Rule” was published by the NIH that clarified and expanded how the reporting requirement under FDAAA would operate moving forward. The Final Rule came into effect on January 18, 2017.
The latest price concession information for January has been released by the PSNC (in fact, two sets of data in quick succession). The PSNC have also stated that they are “still in discussion with the DHSC regarding further January 2018 price concessions”. Therefore we have made some calculations based on what we know at the moment - as soon as there are changes we will update this blog. UPDATE: We’ve now updated the data, both with the final concessions list for January 2018, and the actual cost data for December 2017.
We’ve been thinking in the Bennett Institute about doing stories, using our prescribing data, to go with landmark clinical trials and systematic reviews. Here’s an example.
A new systematic review published this week in JAMA shows that Omega-3 “fish oil” pills don’t really help improve cardiovascular health. As a systematic review, it’s a very useful overview of previous existing research. Perhaps reassuringly, as that evidence accumulated over time, clinicians were already changing their prescribing behaviour. Here’s the long-term NHS prescribing data from our database: NHS doctors gradually began to reduce prescribing of omega-3 a long time ago. Peak omega-3 was 2011!
The continuing cost of generic medicine price concessions, variation in gluten-free food prescribing, and a guide to OpenPrescribing’s features.
Everyone at the Bennett Institute wishes you a very Happy New Year!
Unfortunately, the NHS is still having the same problems in sourcing generics. The PSNC have just announced the latest list of price concessions for December 2017. The list was slightly smaller than November’s, with 86 lines,but we are still estimating an monthly impact for the NHS in December of £27 million. This brings the total excess cost for the nine months to December to £285 million: