BMJ Investigation Increases Concerns About Ticagrelor Trials
Peter Doshi, PhD, a senior editor at The BMJ , previously reported inconsistencies and omissions in data reporting from the 2009 PLATO study, published in The New England Journal of Medicine , which showed ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in treating acute coronary syndrome.
Now a follow-up investigation of two supporting studies published in Circulation , ONSET/OFFSET and RESPOND, has revealed primary endpoints were reported inaccurately, data were missing from the submission to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and study centers may not have received adequate training.
Doshi said the results of his investigations call into question the drug's approval and suggested that it should be revisited.
'The FDA's approval in 2011 went against the evidence according to its reviewers, and now, my investigations into PLATO, ONSET/OFFSET, and RESPOND, suggest that even the data presented to the FDA and reported in The New England Journal of Medicine and Circulation , is not trustworthy,' he told Medscape Medical News.
The investigation identified several problems with data integrity in the two trials. The original primary endpoint results for RESPOND, which aimed to test whether ticagrelor could convert nonresponders to clopidogrel into responders, were statistically nonsignificant ( P = .157) but were subsequently reported in Circulation as significant ( P = .005) because of an undeclared change in its primary endpoint definition.
For ONSET/OFFSET, which reported ticagrelor provided faster and greater inhibition of platelets than clopidogrel, the investigators now claim several patients were excluded from the analysis. However, those who remained were identified as the 'intention-to-treat' population, implying all patients were included. Implausible data points were also included in the analysis of the primary endpoint but were first transformed through an unpublished data analysis, Doshi claimed.
Doshi also gained access to readouts from some of the platelet function test machines used in the trial. He found more than 60 of 282 readings were not present in the datasets submitted to the FDA, and the levels of platelet activity in those readings were significantly higher than those reported in Circulation .
Victor Serebruany, MD, from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and one of the more high-profile critics of ticagrelor, told The BMJ the missing readings show 'there are episodes of skyrocketing rebound and profound platelet inhibition after ticagrelor, making patients prone to thrombosis or bleeding. If doctors had known what happened in these trials, they would never have started using ticagrelor.'
The investigation also revealed oddities around the authorship of the publications. One active trial investigator was never identified as a study author, while one author told The BMJ he was not involved in the trial.
The BMJ states that AstraZeneca, the journal Circulation , and many of the original investigators either declined to comment on the new claims or were unreachable.
Ticagrelor has been under fire since the beginning. The drug failed in its first bid for FDA approval and was the subject of an investigation by the US Department of Justice in 2013 at the urging of Serebruany. That investigation was closed in 2014 with no further action.
A review of several major trials of ticagrelor by Eric Bates, MD, professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a co-author of the US guidelines that recommend ticagrelor, concluded 'the clinical conventional wisdom and clinical trial guideline support for…ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel may be overemphasized.' Bates is now calling for a review of ticagrelor's recommendation in guidelines, according to the earlier The BMJ report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
THL Partners to acquire clinical trial site company Headlands Research
Private equity company THL Partners has announced its agreement to purchase Headlands Research, a multinational clinical trial sites network, from funds managed by investment company KKR. The transaction is valued at approximately $600m, as per sources who requested anonymity, as reported by Reuters. The alliance is expected to propel Headlands Research's ongoing expansion, with a focus on enhancing its centralised infrastructure and technology. This strategic move is aimed at bolstering Headlands Research's delivery of trial data to biotech and pharma sponsors, supporting the company's aim of progressing medical therapies. Operating across North America, Headlands Research carries out clinical studies in various key therapeutic fields, including vaccines, central nervous system disorders, and metabolic diseases. The company is said to use physician connections and a data-driven operating model, which broadens trial access to traditionally underrepresented subject groups. Headlands was established in 2018 by KKR through its Health Care Strategic Growth Fund to revolutionise the trial site sector and enhance study inclusivity. The investment in Headlands Research will be made through THL's Fund IX, with the transaction's closure anticipated this year, contingent on customary closing conditions. Advising THL on legal matters for the transaction were McDermott Will & Schulte and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, with Jefferies serving as the lead financial advisor. Edgemont Partners also provided financial advisory services to THL. KKR and Headlands Research received exclusive financial advice from Houlihan Lokey and legal counsel from Kirkland & Ellis. Headlands Research CEO Kyle Burtnett said: 'I'd like to thank KKR for their tremendous support since our founding. Together, we've built an outstanding business with a highly dedicated team working every day to advance medical research. 'THL shares our vision and excitement for the opportunity to accelerate clinical trial innovation, and we couldn't be more excited to work with their team as we seek to build on the strong foundation that we have in place.' More than 5,000 clinical studies have so far been completed by Headlands Research. Last month, Headlands Research acquired Puerto Rico's clinical research site, CMRCenter, for an undisclosed sum. "THL Partners to acquire clinical trial site company Headlands Research" was originally created and published by Clinical Trials Arena, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Validation of FDA-Regulated Systems Used in Drug Development & Submissions Using AI, Machine Learning & Large Language Models such as ChatGPT - Online Training Course, August 28, 2025
AI, ML, and LLMs present opportunities in the life sciences for improved efficiency and efficacy in drug development and software lifecycle. Key market opportunities include streamlining operations, enhancing compliance with FDA regulations, and fostering innovation through advanced technologies. Dublin, Aug. 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "Validation of FDA-Regulated Systems Used in Drug Development & Submissions Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML) & Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (ONLINE EVENT: August 28, 2025)" training has been added to safe and effective drugs and other FDA-regulated products is in the best interests of all those involved in the development, manufacturing, testing, and distribution of these products. In training course, you will learn about projects going on in industry and at FDA that take advantage of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML) and Large Language Models (LLMs), such as newer technologies such as AI, ML and LLMs in the mix, it means opportunity for greater efficiency and efficacy, but also poses more challenges for companies that develop, test, and support software applications in the life science this webinar, you will learn just how AI, ML and LLMs like ChatGPT can increase efficiency and effectiveness of software development life cycle (SDLC) activities, enabling the delivery and support of computer solutions and new innovative drugs that will drive industry over the coming years. Course Agenda: How AI is being increasingly used in the life sciences industry to enhance drug safety and effectiveness Potential risks and challenges related to AI, ML, and LLMs such as ChatGPT Challenges facing the industry today and how AI technologies can help FDA's adaptation for reviewing AI-enabled software used in drug manufacture and quality testing Understanding how drug products relying on AI are regulated by the FDA Impacts and risks to data, processes, products, and patients Strategies to ensure the benefits of drugs outweigh the risks How FDA, Congress, and industry are collaborating for AI adoption Best practices to improve compliance of AI-enabled drugs Validation, FDA Part 11, and data integrity for AI/ML systems Insights into FDA's CSA guidance and GAMP5, 2nd Edition Software validation and maintenance requirements for AI integration You should attend this webinar if you are responsible for planning, executing or managing the development or implementation of any system governed by FDA regulations, or if you are maintaining or supporting such a system. Learn by reviewing industry best practices and knowing where to gather key information to help you move forward with these technologies quickly and in compliance with Should Attend: Information Technology Analysts Information Technology Developers and Testers QC/QA Managers and Analysts Analytical Chemists Compliance and Audit Managers Laboratory Managers Automation Analysts and Managers Manufacturing Specialists and Managers Supply Chain Specialists and Managers Regulatory Affairs and Submissions Specialists Clinical Data Analysts and Managers Clinical Trial Sponsors Computer System Validation Specialists GMP Training Specialists Business Stakeholders/Subject Matter Experts Business System/Application Testers Vendors and consultants involved in life sciences software validation and compliance For more information about this training visit About is the world's leading source for international market research reports and market data. We provide you with the latest data on international and regional markets, key industries, the top companies, new products and the latest trends. CONTACT: CONTACT: Laura Wood,Senior Press Manager press@ For E.S.T Office Hours Call 1-917-300-0470 For U.S./ CAN Toll Free Call 1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
3 minutes ago
- New York Times
America Is Abandoning One of the Greatest Medical Breakthroughs
In early 2020, when the first genetic sequence of the new coronavirus was posted online, scientists were ready. Within hours, they began designing a vaccine. Within weeks, clinical trials were underway. That unprecedented speed, which saved millions of lives, was possible only because years earlier, the United States had invested in a vaccine technology called mRNA. Today, that work is being sidelined, and with it, our best chance to quickly respond when the next threat emerges. The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced it would wind down 22 mRNA vaccine development projects under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, halting nearly $500 million in investments. This decision undercuts one of the most significant medical advances in decades, technology that could protect millions more from the threats ahead. I know the stakes because I was BARDA's director when the United States made the decision to invest heavily in mRNA. That investment did not begin with Covid-19. It began in 2016, when we faced the Zika virus outbreak. We needed a way to design a vaccine in days, not years, to protect pregnant women and their babies from devastating birth defects. Older vaccine approaches were too slow. The solution was mRNA: a flexible, rapid-response technology that could be reprogrammed for any pathogen once its genetic sequence was known. That early investment laid the groundwork for the lightning-fast Covid-19 response four years later. BARDA wasn't the only government agency making early investments in mRNA research. The Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency had already recognized mRNA's potential for swift action against emerging biological threats, including those that might be weaponized. Globally, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation committed substantial resources to advance the technology for viruses with pandemic potential. These combined efforts created a scientific and manufacturing foundation that allowed the world to move at warp speed when Covid-19 emerged. During the pandemic, mRNA vaccines went from the genetic sequence of the virus to human trials in under 70 days. They were evaluated in large, rigorous trials, meeting the same safety and effectiveness standards as other vaccines. By the end of 2021, they had saved an estimated 20 million lives globally, including more than one million in the United States. They reduced hospitalization and death rates, lowered the risk of long Covid and helped economies and communities reopen sooner. The mRNA technology is not a single vaccine. It is what scientists describe as a platform, which can be adapted quickly for new or mutating viruses, combined to target multiple variants and manufactured through a streamlined process that reduces reliance on fragile global supply chains. It is now being tested for personalized cancer vaccines, autoimmune therapies and treatments for rare diseases. It is under study to protect against pathogens like Nipah, Lassa fever and Chikungunya, threats that could cause the next global emergency. Like every technology, mRNA has limitations. Vaccines meant to protect against respiratory infections, whether mRNA or older technologies, are generally better at preventing severe disease than preventing you from getting infected. It is a scientific challenge we can address with next-generation vaccines. The answer to limitations is improvement, not abandonment. Political narratives about mRNA have fueled confusion, which leads to mistrust, yet the scientific evidence consistently shows that this technology is safe and effective, and holds enormous potential for future vaccines and treatments. Some have claimed mRNA encourages viral mutations or prolongs pandemics. Research says otherwise. Mutations arise when viruses replicate. Vaccination can help reduce the chances of virus replication, which would reduce opportunities for mutation. Other critics point to safety concerns. With more than 13 billion Covid‑19 vaccine doses administered globally, including hundreds of millions of mRNA doses, the evidence shows that serious complications are very rare and occur at rates comparable with those of other vaccines. Most side effects are mild and short‑lived. If the United States abandons mRNA, it will not simply be forfeiting a public health advantage. It will be ceding a strategic asset. In national security terms, mRNA is the equivalent of a missile defense system for biology. The ability to rapidly design, produce and deploy medical countermeasures is as vital to our defense as any military capability. Adversaries who invest in this technology will be able to respond faster to outbreaks, protecting their populations sooner than we can. Right now, the United States has a decisive advantage in mRNA science, manufacturing capacity and regulatory expertise. But in an era where biological threats can be engineered, losing this competitive edge would leave the United States vulnerable and dependent on others for lifesaving tools. The consequences of canceling mRNA contracts will affect more nations than just the United States. Many countries have been building regional mRNA manufacturing capacity. For a leader like the United States to pull back now undermines that effort and weakens our collective ability to respond to the next outbreak. It means choosing to face the next biological threat with fewer defenses and slower tools while others build speed and strength. There is a better path forward. The department of Health and Human Services can work with scientists, public health experts and security leaders to refine and improve mRNA technology while preserving critical programs and production capacity. By recalibrating rather than severing support, we can keep this powerful tool ready for the time it is needed most. The next crisis will not wait for us to rebuild what we have thrown away. Rick Bright (@RickABright) is the chief executive of Bright Global Health, a global strategic advisory organization focused on improving responses to public health emergencies. He advises the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the World Health Organization African Regional Office and the global 100 Days Mission. The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@ Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
