Mapping evolving treatment effects for overall and progression-free survival shows patterns across 2109 randomized oncology trials

Pharmaceutical company funding of cancer patient advocacy organizations in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) of medical professionals and associated organizations with pharmaceutical companies (pharma) might contribute to the use of low value oncological treatments. Value criteria for oncological drug approvals in the Netherlands have recently become more stringent leading to objections by cancer patient advocacy organizations (cPAOs). Considering the importance of cPAOs input in cancer patient care we analyzed whether pharma funding of cPAOs occurs in the Netherlands.

METHODS

The cPAO websites and available annual reports were evaluated for disclosure of pharma funding for the years 2021 and 2022. Also, data from the Dutch Healthcare Transparency Registry (DHTR) were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty-one of 34 (61.8 %) cPAOs received pharma funding (with 20 registered in the DHTR), and for 13 (29.4 %) cPAOs no reporting of pharma funding could be found. Three of the cPAOs disclosed pharma funding directly on their main website. Online educational material was available from 22 cPAOs on their websites with pharma funding disclosed on the educational material in 5. The total registered amount of pharmaceutical funding was €667,232.00 in 2021 and €536,098.00 in 2022. The median (and interquartile ranges) DHTR registered amount of support per cPAO that received funding in the studied period was €23,799.50 (14,823.75-84,663.30). The most common funding category as defined in the DHTR was project sponsorship.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial support by the pharmaceutical industry is common for Dutch cPAOs. Given the importance of cPAOs and their objective input in the societal debate on the availability of cancer drugs, the potential influence of pharma sponsoring should be critically evaluated.

Composite event-free-survival as an endpoint in oncology drug evaluation: Review and guidance perspectives from the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS)

BACKGROUND

The use of right-censored composite endpoints, such as progression-free survival, has been questioned in haemato-oncology trials due to potential bias in estimated treatment effect. This may impact the accuracy of health technology evaluations. We hypothesized that there is heterogeneity and potential sources of bias in the reporting of composite endpoints to health technology assessment (HTA) bodies.

METHODS

We reviewed the submissions for reimbursement of oncology drugs in 2021 and 2022 that used a composite endpoint in the pivotal trial, after appraisal by the French HTA body. The retrieved information included the clinical study report, protocol, and statistical analysis plan submitted by the industry. All events of the composite endpoint and all causes of censored observations were measured. The design characteristics and treatment effect estimates were recorded.

FINDINGS

Seventy-six submissions were selected, including seven without a right-censored endpoint and four evaluating associations, resulting in 65 analysed records: 17 for haematological and 48 for solid tumours. Out these 65 submissions, 47 (72·3%) used a randomized controlled design, and 18 (27·7%) a non-comparative design. The most frequently used composite endpoint was progression-free survival, used in 54 (83·1%) of the submissions. Censoring was possibly informative in 51 (92·7%) cases, mostly due to the onset of new treatment (44/51, 86·3%) and/or discontinuation of follow-up (33/51, 64·7%). In contrast, 38 (58·5%) trials reported a quantification of censored observations, with only 12/51 (23·5%) quantifying the informative ones. The estimated treatment effect on the composite outcome increased with the amount of censoring, suggesting a higher benefit of the drug, but remained below that on survival with poor evidence of surrogacy (R-squared=0·23).

INTERPRETATION

Clinical study reports should be improved in terms of reporting censoring, while stakeholders should be aware of this potential source of bias. At a minimum, sensitivity analysis that ignores intercurrent events should be requested.

Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Medical Oncologists in the Netherlands: Trends and Patterns Provided by an Open-Access Transparency Data Set

PURPOSE

Health care expenditure related to oncologic treatments is skyrocketing although many treatments offer marginal, if any, clinical benefit. Financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) resulting from pharmaceutical industry (pharma) payments to physicians is increasingly recognized as a predictive factor for regulatory board approval and guideline incorporation of low-value treatments. We sought to study the extent to which pharma payments to medical oncologists occur in the Netherlands, the amount of money involved, and whether these occur more frequently and are higher for key opinion leaders (KOLs).

METHODS

In our cross-sectional retrospective database study, we used several Dutch open-access databases and extracted data registered between 2019 and 2021.

RESULTS

A cumulative amount of €899,863 was paid to 48.8% of the 408 registered medical oncologists. Over time, there was a marked decline in both the proportion of medical oncologists receiving payments (from 40.4% in 2019 to 19.1% in 2021) and the mean annual value of payments (from €2,962 in 2019 to €2,188 in 2021) with the latter mainly resulting from a decline in hospitality-related transactions. KOLs were more likely to receive industry payments and received a higher median payment value.

DISCUSSION

Our findings should contribute to the increasing awareness in the Netherlands of the potential effects of fCOI.

Published correlational effect sizes in social and developmental psychology

The distribution of effect sizes may offer insights about the research done and reported in a scientific field. We have evaluated 12 412 manually collected correlation effect sizes (Sample 1) and 31 157 computer-extracted correlation effect sizes (Sample 2) published in journals focused on social or developmental psychology. Sample 1 consisted of 243 studies from six journals published in 2010 and 2019. Sample 2 consisted of 5012 papers published in 10 journals between 2010 and 2019. The 25th, 50th and 75th effect size percentiles were 0.08, 0.17 and 0.33, and 0.17, 0.31 and 0.52 in Samples 1 and 2, respectively. Sample 2 percentiles were probably larger because Sample 2 only included effect sizes from the text but not from tables. In text authors may have emphasized larger correlations. Large sample sizes were associated with smaller reported correlations. In Sample 1 about 70% of studies specified a directional hypothesis. In 2010 no papers had power calculations, while in 2019 14% of papers had power calculations. These data offer empirical insights into the distribution of reported correlations and may inform the interpretation of effect sizes. They also demonstrate the importance of computation of statistical power and highlight potential reporting bias.