The relation between publication rate and financial conflict of interest among physician authors of high-impact oncology publications: an observational study

Frequency and Characteristics of Trials Using Medical Writer Support in High-Impact Oncology Journals

IMPORTANCE

The practice of using medical writers to communicate scientific information has gained popularity, but it may affect how and what information is communicated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess characteristics of oncology trials that use medical writers and whether there is an association between the use of medical writers and trial success or the primary outcome evaluated.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study included oncology trials testing a tumor-targeting intervention that were published in The Lancet, The Lancet Oncology, JAMA, JAMA Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and The New England Journal of Medicine between May 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.

EXPOSURES

Assistance of medical writers or no assistance.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were the percentage of studies with medical writers, the percentage of trial successes reported with medical writers, the association between trial success and medical writer use, and the association between a primary end point and medical writer use.

RESULTS

Among 270 studies, 141 (52.2%) included a medical writer and 129 (47.8%) did not include a medical writer. Of the studies that included a medical writer, 83 (58.9%) were successful. Of the studies that did not include a medical writer, 64 (49.6%) were successful (P = .16 for difference). Studies with medical writers were less likely than studies without medical writers to have the end point of overall survival (15 [10.6%] vs 17 [13.2%]) and disease-free or event-free survival (16 [11.3%] vs 29 [22.5%]), whereas studies with a medical writer were more likely to have the end point of progression-free survival (32 [22.7%] vs 17 [13.2%]). Use of medical writer was associated with the conclusions being presented favorably in all studies (113 [80.1%] vs 89 [69.0%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.81 [95% CI, 1.04-3.19]), but when adjusted for other variables, there was no association (OR, 1.84 [95% CI, 0.92-3.72]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, trials using medical writers were more likely to report surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival, and favorable conclusions, but when adjusted for trial phase, randomization, and study funding, there was no association with favorable conclusions. These findings suggest that journals need heightened scrutiny for studies with medical writers and that authorship should be properly acknowledged.

Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by neurosurgical journals on Twitter

BACKGROUND

Social media, particularly Twitter, has played an increasing role in networking and the dissemination of neurosurgical research. Despite extensive study on financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) influencing medical research, little is known about the function of conflicts of interest on social media and the influence they may have. In this study, we sought to evaluate the FCOI of physicians followed on Twitter by the top three neurosurgical journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed the FCOI of United States (US) physicians followed by the top three neurosurgical journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, World Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery) on Twitter. We determined the FCOIs of each physician using the Open Payments Search Tool located at https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov and summed the data between 2014 and 2021.

RESULTS

We examined 2651 Twitter accounts followed by the top three neurosurgical journals on Twitter and determined 705 (26.6%) belonged to US physicians. Of the 705 US physicians, 577 (81.8%) received general payments between 2014 and 2021. After excluding US physicians currently in residency or fellowship (n = 157), this percentage increased to 93.2% (n = 511/548). In total, nearly $70 million in general payments were made between 2014 and 2021.

CONCLUSION

These findings raise questions regarding the interaction between neurosurgical journals and the medical community on Twitter. This study may serve as the basis for future work on best practices for medical journals navigating their affiliations on Twitter.

Watching the watchers: A report on the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by editors and editorial board members of dental journals

Reporting potential conflicts of interest (COIs) by all parties involved in the publication process is of pivotal importance to increase trust in research. The present study assessed the disclosure of potential COIs of editors and editorial board members of high-ranked dental journals. From 28 April 2021 to 05 May 2021, the websites of 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) were scrutinized to obtain information on the reporting of COI forms of editors and board members, and whether these individuals reported their detailed curriculum vitae (CV). The COI forms were assessed to understand the potential financial and non-financial COIs of editors and board members. Only 11 (12.1%) journals reported COI forms of editors-in-chief (EICs) and associate editors (AEs). No journal reported a COI form of the editorial board members. Of the 100 editors (EICs plus AEs), 25 (25.%) declared connections to for-profit organisations, and seven (7%) to not-for-profit organisations. Five (5%) editors (all AEs) reported non-financial COIs, and 35 (35%) editors reported nothing to declare. Nine (9.9%) journals reported a short CV of editors, which were not informative regarding potential COIs. Editors and editorial board members of high-ranked dental journals should report in more detail their potential COIs.

Do Editorialists With Industry-Related Conflicts of Interest Write Unduly Favorable Editorials for Cancer Drugs in Top Journals?

BACKGROUND

Editorials accompanying the publication of trials in major oncology journals can have a substantial influence on clinical practice. We describe the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) of authors writing such editorials and the extent to which FCOIs may shape the interpretation of clinical trials.

METHODS

We examined editorials published in 2018 alongside trial reports in the top 5 journals that publish cancer drug trials (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Lancet Oncology, JAMA Oncology, and Journal of Clinical Oncology). An editorial was considered to have an FCOI if at least one of the editorialists had any disclosed FCOI. An FCOI with the same company whose drug was being discussed in the editorial was classified as a direct FCOI. Editorials were reviewed for their content and classified as being unduly favorable (defined as the presence of a positive spin without discussion of limitations) or not. Association of an FCOI and a direct FCOI with writing an unduly favorable editorial was assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 90 editorials assessed, 74% (n=67) were classified as having an FCOI with the pharmaceutical industry, and 39% (n=35) had an FCOI with the same company whose product was being discussed in the editorial (direct FCOI). Editorials were classified as being unduly favorable toward the study drug in 12% (8 of 67) and 13% (3 of 23) (P=1.0) of those with and without FCOIs, respectively; corresponding rates with and without direct FCOI were 23% (8 of 35) and 5% (3 of 55), respectively (P=.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Editorials in top oncology journals were frequently authored by experts with FCOIs, including direct FCOIs. Authoring an unduly favorable editorial for a new cancer drug was significantly associated with the author having a direct FCOI with the same company. These findings support the call for journals to ensure that authors of editorials have no direct FCOIs.

Economic evaluations on the use of aripiprazole for patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES

Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder and is associated with substantial economic and social burden. Cost-effectiveness analysis is important to assess the costs of different therapeutic options. However, there is a lack of information on the reporting quality of economic evaluations, cost drivers, as well as updated data focused on aripiprazole, an antipsychotic drug commonly prescribed in schizophrenia. This study evaluates and summarizes the evidence of economic evaluations of the use of aripiprazole in schizophrenia. In addition, we aimed to identify cost drivers and critically assess the reporting qualities of these studies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature research was conducted using PubMed, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, CEA Registry and LILACS databases dated until March 2018. Full economic analyses of aripiprazole in schizophrenia that were based on decision analytical models and published in English, Portuguese or Spanish languages were included. Two independent authors identified the studies and performed data extraction and quality assessment using 24 items from the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 79 potential studies were identified, of which 17 studies performing model-based economic evaluations fully met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 15 were industry-funded studies. A trend favouring olanzapine, lurasidone and paliperidone could be observed, whereas aripiprazole was extensively described as a dominated alternative. However, notably, 93% of the industry-funded studies presented results favouring their sponsors, only two of them being the manufacturer of aripiprazole. Cost drivers were usually related to the relapse rates/probabilities regardless of the funding source. The overall quality of reporting of the economic analyses was poor, with most studies scoring around 12-13 points. The most frequent problems were the lack of description of relevance of the outcome measures, characteristics of the base case population and report of precision measures for all the parameters of the model.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

No consistent conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole could be drawn due to the context-specific costs, conflicting parameters of effectiveness and safety, and bias related to industry sponsorship. Cost drivers, though, were usually related to the relapse rates/probabilities. In addition, poor reporting quality of the studies performing full economic analysis requires further improvement to ensure greater transparency of the findings.

Cancer drug development: The missing links

IMPACT STATEMENT

The success rate for cancer drugs which enter into phase 1 clinical trials is utterly less. Why the vast majority of drugs fail is not understood but suggests that pre-clinical studies are not adequate for human diseases. In 1975, as per the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, pharmaceutical industries expended 100 million dollars for research and development of the average FDA approved drug. By 2005, this figure had more than quadrupled, to $1.3 billion. In order to recover their high and risky investment cost, pharmaceutical companies charge more for their products. However, there exists no correlation between drug development cost and actual sale of the drug. This high drug development cost could be due to the reason that all patients might not respond to the drug. Hence, a given drug has to be tested in large number of patients to show drug benefits and obtain significant results.