Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39410781›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2025

The state of individual participant data sharing for the highest-revenue medicines.

Natansh D Modi, Lee X Li, Jessica M Logan, Michael D Wiese, Ahmad Y Abuhelwa, Ross A McKinnon, Andrew Rowland, Michael J Sorich, Ashley M Hopkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Natansh D ModiCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3262-5374
Lee X LiCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Jessica M LoganClinical & Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4046-6908
Michael D WieseClinical & Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Ahmad Y AbuhelwaDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Pharmacotherapeutics, College of Pharmacy, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
Ross A McKinnonCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Andrew RowlandCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Michael J SorichCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Ashley M HopkinsCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundAmid growing emphasis from pharmaceutical companies, advocacy groups, and regulatory bodies for sharing of individual participant data, recent audits reveal limited sharing, particularly for high-revenue medicines. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the individual participant data-sharing eligibility of clinical trials supporting the Food and Drug Administration approval of the top 30 highest-revenue medicines for 2021.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 316 clinical trials supporting approval of the top 30 revenue-generating medicines of 2021. The study assessed whether these trials were eligible for individual participant data sharing, defined as being publicly listed on a data-sharing platform or confirmed by the trial sponsors as in scope for independent researcher individual participant data investigations. Information was gathered from various sources including ClinicalTrials.gov, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, and PubMed. Key factors such as the trial phase, completion dates, and the nature of the data-sharing process were also examined.ResultsOf the 316 trials, 201 (64%) were confirmed eligible for sharing, meaning they were either publicly listed on a data-sharing platform or confirmed by the trial sponsors as in scope for independent researcher individual participant data investigations. A total of 102 (32%) were confirmed ineligible, and for 13 (4%), the sponsor indicated that a full research proposal would be required to determine eligibility. The analysis also revealed a higher rate of individual participant data sharing among companies that utilized independent platforms, such as Vivli, for managing their individual participant data-sharing process. Trials not marked as completed had significantly lower eligibility for individual participant data sharing.ConclusionThis study highlights that a substantial portion of trials for top revenue-generating medicines are eligible for individual participant data sharing. However, challenges persist, particularly for trials that are marked as ongoing and for trials where the sharing processes are managed internally by pharmaceutical companies. Data-sharing rates could be improved by adopting open-access individual participant data-sharing models or using independent platforms. Standardizing policies to facilitate immediate individual participant data availability for approved medicines is necessary.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicInformation DisseminationCross-Sectional StudiesDrug ApprovalDrug IndustryHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administrationclinical trialsdata-sharing policiesIndividual participant datatransparency

Identifiers

PMID39410781
PMCPMC11986077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.