Conflict of interest in academic oncology: moving beyond the blame game and forging a path forward

Prasad, Vinay; Rajkumar, S. Vincent

doi:10.1038/bcj.2016.101

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study represents the first large‐scale modern analysis of PMW use and funding among cancer clinical trials, particularly relevant with the growing role of industry sponsorship among clinical oncology studies. Although prior data suggest that the use of PMWs may improve quality [1], others have raised concerns that PMWs may have a disproportionate effect in shaping the conclusions of industry‐sponsored trials [8], and therefore sway acceptance of data. We demonstrate high rates of PMW use among industry‐sponsored trials; this highlights the need for continued and increased transparency in reporting the funding, use, and role of professional writing assistance [2, 6].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior data have demonstrated that PMW usage is associated with a higher rate of adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria for reporting [2]. Although manuscript quality and readability might therefore be enhanced because of PMWs, the issue of potential conflicts of interest, while understudied, remains of potential concern [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Professional Medical Writer Assistance in Oncology Clinical Trials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The use of professional medical writers (PMWs) has been historically low, but contemporary data regarding PMW usage are scarce. In this study, we sought to quantify PMW use in oncologic phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We performed a database query through http://ClinicalTrials.gov to identify cancer‐specific phase III RCTs; we then identified whether a PMW was involved in writing the associated trial manuscript reporting primary endpoint results. Results Two‐hundred sixty trials of 600 (43.3%) used a PMW. Industry‐funded trials used PMWs more often than nonindustry trials (54.9% vs. 3.0%, p < .001). Increased PMW usage was further noted among trials meeting their primary endpoint (53.4% vs. 32.9%, p < .001) and trials that led to subsequent Food and Drug Administration approval (63.1% vs. 36.3%, p < .001). By treatment interventions, PMW use was highest among systemic therapy trials (50.2%). Lastly, the use of PMWs increased significantly over time (odds ratio: 1.11/year, p = .001). Conclusion PMW use rates are high among industry‐funded trials. We urge continued and increased transparency in reporting the funding and use of PMWs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional Medical Writer Assistance in Oncology Clinical Trials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9,10 To assess the frequency of financial conflicts of interest, I collected the declarations made by the members of the pCODR guidance panels (69 members) and the expert review committee (16 members) from the CADTH website. It is arguable whether conflicts of interest bias decisions in favor of a drug with questionable value or whether mere declaration of a conflict can reverse any bias, but it certainly improves transparency.…”

Section: Minimize the Conflicts Of Interest Among Membersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is arguable whether conflicts of interest bias decisions in favor of a drug with questionable value or whether mere declaration of a conflict can reverse any bias, but it certainly improves transparency. 9,10 To assess the frequency of financial conflicts of interest, I collected the declarations made by the members of the pCODR guidance panels (69 members) and the expert review committee (16 members) from the CADTH website. 3 I found that approximately 61% of the members had declared at least 1 personal financial conflict of interest (median, 5 conflicts; range 1-19 conflicts), excluding involvement in research studies.…”

Section: Minimize the Conflicts Of Interest Among Membersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategizing health technology assessment for containment of cancer drug costs in a universal health care system: Case of the pan‐Canadian Oncology Drug Review

Niraula

2019

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A universal health care system has been a source of both identity and pride for Canadians for the last 6 decades. Currently, Canada actively negotiates the prices of cancer drugs but is not immune to their overwhelming financial toxicities. Prices of cancer drugs are set to ensure maximal profit based on what the market will bear rather than by the value they offer or solely because of the cost of research and development, as often is claimed by the manufacturers. The pan‐Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) is mandated to provide funding recommendations to Canada's provinces and territories. For the most part, the pCODR has been crucial in assessing the cost‐effectiveness and feasibility of new drugs in the Canadian context but it could assist more in safeguarding payers against extreme drug costs. Herein, the author suggests a few strategies by which national efforts such as the pCODR and its partners can help Canada to become a leader in facilitating value‐based sustainable cancer care.

show abstract

“…We focused on hematologist oncologists because of the unique concern of conflict in this field. 27 Authors had to be based in the US, as the Affordable Care Act's sunshine clause mandates disclosure only for these people. Authors had to be clinicians (MD or DO [Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine]), as the disclosure clause applies only to practising doctors.…”

Section: Samplementioning

confidence: 99%