Which major pharmaceutical companies have published full individual participant datasets for recent blockbuster drugs?

1. Industry promises vs. demonstrated practice

The pharmaceutical trade associations PhRMA and EFPIA formalized an industry pledge to share de‑identified IPD for approved medicines upon request, and that pledge underpins many corporate policies cited in audits — yet an audit of contemporary trials published two years after main results concluded that it remained unclear whether those policy shifts actually enabled independent access to participant‑level data for prominent industry‑sponsored trials ^[1]. The same pattern appears in a BMJ audit: companies often issue broad or legally framed commitments (for example, pledges to post results “in accordance with local regulations”), but those statements are difficult to interpret and do not amount to demonstrable, public posting of full IPD ^[2].

2. What the audits actually found about blockbuster datasets

Detailed reviews of corporate policies and a targeted audit of trials published in top journals report that many firms promise transparency in principle, but audits could not document systematic, publicly accessible release of full IPD for the high‑profile trials evaluated — the studies assessed were industry‑sponsored, recent at the time, and authors specifically could not confirm IPD availability two years after publication ^[1]. In short, the evidence in these peer‑reviewed audits supports the conclusion that policy rhetoric has outpaced observable data sharing for recent major trials ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Where data can and cannot be found: platforms and intermediaries

Some data are available via third‑party vendors and research service firms that aggregate and resell patient‑level commercial and real‑world datasets — companies such as IQVIA are explicit about providing patient‑level and prescription datasets to researchers and partners — but these offerings are proprietary commercial products, not the same as open publication of de‑identified IPD from specific randomized controlled trials of blockbuster drugs ^{[3] [4]}. Public linked datasets (DrugBank, ClinicalTrials.gov and others) increase discoverability of trial metadata, but they do not substitute for full participant‑level trial datasets released by sponsoring firms ^[5].

4. Competing perspectives and incentives

Pharmaceutical companies and trade bodies argue that controlled access — data shared “upon request” to qualified researchers — balances patient privacy, regulatory obligations, and scientific verification; auditors counter that such conditional access often leaves independent verification impractical and non‑transparent ^{[1] [2]}. Hidden incentives are unavoidable: maintaining commercial advantage, legal risk management, and reputational control all push firms toward selective disclosure rather than blanket public releases, a dynamic underscored by audits finding ambiguous or limited commitments in company policies ^[2].

5. Bottom line and limits of available reporting

Based on the provided audits and industry reporting, there is no clear, documented list in these sources showing major pharmaceutical companies that have publicly published full individual participant datasets for recent blockbuster drugs; instead, the record shows policy pledges, selective or conditional access arrangements, and proprietary commercial data services — but not routine public posting of complete IPD for blockbuster trials ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This analysis is constrained by the scope of the cited audits and industry summaries; these sources document the gap between promise and practice but do not catalog every company’s actions beyond the samples they examined ^{[1] [2]}.