Patient and Public Involvement in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research-A Scoping Review.

Background: Interest in patient and public involvement in research has grown. Medical, health, and social care research has demonstrated several benefits of patient and public engagement, such as empowering user input and reducing attrition rates in clinical trials. To date, no study has reviewed patient engagement in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to describe the benefits, challenges, and best practices of patient engagement in IBD research. Methods: We performed a systematic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane for all clinical IBD research studies in which patients were involved in the research process (1946- 2023). Patient input was considered in: (1) study design, (2) study execution, (3) research dissemination, and/or (4) other domains not specified here. Two authors independently screened and extracted data on type of engaged person(s), format of engagement, author-reported benefits, recommendations, and challenges. For each study, we reported the level of patient engagement and study adherence to standardized reporting guidelines. Results: After screening 9,355 articles, we included 51 for final analysis. IBD patients were most frequently engaged in study design. Patient engagement in IBD research improved recruitment rates and promoted the creation of user-friendly quality-of-life tools. Selection bias and recruitment difficulties were common challenges in the application of patient engagement. Authors recommended continuous patient involvement to address emerging priorities and cognitive interviewing to improve questionnaire clarity. Conclusions: Patient engagement represents an important step in promoting patient-centred care. According to study authors, implementing cognitive interviewing techniques, continuous patient involvement, and standardized reporting guidelines may improve future iterations of engagement in IBD.

Chronic immune-related adverse events in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review.

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are toxicities resulting from use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). These side effects persist in some patients despite withholding therapy and using immunosuppressive and immune-modulating agents. Little is known about chronic irAEs and they are felt to be rare. We performed a systematic review to characterize non-endocrine chronic irAEs reported in the literature and describe their management. Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for reports of adult patients with solid cancers treated with ICIs who experienced chronic (>12 weeks) non-endocrine irAEs. Patient, treatment and toxicity data were collected. Of 6843 articles identified, 229 studies including 323 patients met our inclusion criteria. The median age was 65 (IQR 56-72) and 58% were male. Most patients (75%) had metastatic disease and the primary cancer site was melanoma in 43% and non-small cell lung cancer in 31% of patients. The most common ICIs delivered were pembrolizumab (24%) and nivolumab (37%). The chronic irAEs experienced were rheumatological in 20% of patients, followed by neurological in 19%, gastrointestinal in 16% and dermatological in 14%. The irAE persisted for a median (range) of 180 (84-2370) days and 30% of patients had ongoing symptoms or treatment. More than half (52%) of patients had chronic irAEs that persisted for >6 months. The ICI was permanently discontinued in 60% of patients and 76% required oral and/or intravenous steroids. This is the first systematic review to assess and report on moderate/severe chronic non-endocrine irAEs after treatment with ICI in the literature. These toxicities persisted for months-years and the majority required discontinuation of therapy and initiation of immunosuppression. Further research is needed to better understand chronic irAEs, which hold potential substantial clinical significance considering the expanded use of ICIs and their integration into the (neo)adjuvant settings.

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Propensity Score-Matched Studies Evaluating Biologics and Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Background: Propensity score matching (PSM), a statistical technique that estimates a treatment effect by accounting for predictor covariates, has been used to evaluate biologics for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Financial conflicts of interest are prevalent in the marketing of biologic medications. It is unclear whether this burden of conflicts is present among authors of PSM studies comparing IBD biologics and biosimilars. Objective: This study was aimed to determine the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among authors of PSM studies evaluating IBD biologics and biosimilars. Methods: We conducted a systematic search for PSM studies comparing biologics and biosimilars in IBD treatment. We identified 21 eligible studies. Two independent authors extracted self-declared conflicts from the disclosures section. Each participating author was searched on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments to identify payment amounts and undisclosed conflicts. Primary outcome was the prevalence of author conflicts. Secondary analyses assessed for an association between conflict prevalence and reporting of positive outcomes. Results: Among 283 authors, conflicts were present among 41.0% (116 of 283). Twenty-three per cent (27 of 116) of author conflicts involved undisclosed payments. Studies with positive outcomes were significantly more likely to include conflicted authors than neutral studies (relative risk = 2.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.71 to 3.21, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Overall, we found a high burden of undisclosed conflicts among authors of PSM studies comparing IBD biologics and biosimilars. Given the importance of PSM studies as a means for biologic comparison and the potential for undue industry influence from these payments, authors should ensure greater transparency with reporting of industry relationships.

Do authors of research funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research comply with its open access mandate?: A meta-epidemiologic study.

BACKGROUND: Since 2008, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has mandated that studies it funds either in whole or in part are required to publish their results as open access (OA) within 12 months of publication using either online repositories and/or OA journals. Yet, there is evidence that authors are poorly compliant with this mandate. Specifically, there has been an apparent decrease in OA publication after 2015, which coincides with a change in the OA policy during the same year. One particular policy change that may have contributed to this decline was lifting the requirement that authors deposit their article in an OA repository immediately upon publication. We investigated the proportion of OA compliance of CIHR-funded studies in the period before and after the policy change of 2015 with manual confirmation of both CIHR funding and OA status. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We identified CIHR-funded studies published between the years 2014 to 2017 using a comprehensive search in the Web of Science (WoS). We took a stratified random sample from all four years (i.e. 2014 to 2017), with 250 studies from each year. Two authors independently reviewed the final full-text publications retrieved from the journal web page to determine to confirm CIHR funding, as indicated in the acknowledgements or elsewhere in the paper. For each study, we also collected bibliometric data that included citation count and Altmetric attention score Statistical analyses were conducted using two-tailed Fisher's exact test with relative risk (RR). Among the 851 receiving CIHR funding published from 2014 to 2017, the percentage of CIHR-funded studies published as OA significantly decreased from 79.6% in 2014 to 70.3% in 2017 (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99, P = 0.028). When considering all four years, there was no significant difference in the percentage of CIHR-funded studies published as OA in both 2014 and 2015 compared to both 2016 and 2017 (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.90-1.05, P = 0.493). Additionally, OA publications had significantly higher citation count (both in year of publication and in total) and higher attention scores (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found that there was a significant decrease in the proportion of CIHR funded studies published as OA from 2014 compared to 2017, though this difference did not persist when comparing both 2014-2015 to 2016-2017. The primary limitation was the reliance of self-reported data from authors on CIHR funding status. We posit that this decrease may be attributable to CIHR's OA policy change in 2015. Further exploration is warranted to both validate these studies using a larger dataset and, if valid, investigate the effects of potential interventions to improve the OA compliance, such as use of a CIHR publication database, and reinstatement of a policy for authors to immediately submit their findings to OA repositories upon publication.

Characteristics and conflicts of interest at Food and Drug Administration Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee meetings.

INTRODUCTION: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee (GIDAC) is involved in gastrointestinal drug application reviews. Characteristics and conflicts of interest (COI) in GIDAC meetings are not well described. This study analyzed FDA GIDAC meetings and characteristics that predict recommendations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, all publicly available GIDAC meetings where proposed medications were voted on were included. Data were collected regarding indications, medication sponsor, primary efficacy studies, and voting member characteristics (e.g. committee membership, COI). Univariate analyses were conducted at per-meeting and per-vote levels to assess for predictors of committee recommendation and individual votes respectively. RESULTS: Thirty-four meetings with 476 individual votes from 1998-2018 were included. Twenty-three (68%) proposals were recommended for approval and 25 (74%) received FDA approval. Most proposals involved >1 primary study (n = 27, 79%). At least one voting member had a COI in 24 (71%) of 34 meetings. Twelve (35%) meetings had at least one sponsor COI. Among 476 individual votes, 74 (15.5%) involved a COI, with 33 (6.9%) sponsor COI. COI decreased significantly over time, with fewer COI in 2006-2010, 2011-2015, and 2016-2020 compared to 1996-2000 and 2001-2005 (p<0.01). There were no significant associations between pre-defined predictors, including COI, and committee level recommendations or individual votes (p>0.05 for all univariate analyses). CONCLUSIONS: The GIDAC reviewed 34 proposals from 1998-2018. The majority were recommended for approval and later approved by the FDA, highlighting the GIDAC's prominence in the regulatory process. COI are present among GIDAC panelists but decreasing over time and not associated with recommendations.

Completeness of reporting for COVID-19 case reports, January to April 2020: a meta-epidemiologic study.

BACKGROUND: The quality of case reports, which are often the first reported evidence for a disease, may be negatively affected by a rush to publication early in a pandemic. We aimed to determine the completeness of reporting (COR) for case reports published on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database for all single-patient case reports of confirmed COVID-19 published from Jan. 1 to Apr. 24, 2020. All included case reports were assessed for adherence to the CARE (Case Report) 31-item checklist, which was used to create a composite COR score. The primary outcome was the mean COR score assessed by 2 independent raters. Secondary outcomes included whether there was a change in overall COR score with certain publication factors (e.g., publication date) and whether there was a linear relation between COR and citation count and between COR scores and social media attention. RESULTS: Our search identified 196 studies that were published in 114 unique journals. We found that the overall mean COR score was 54.4%. No one case report included all of the 31 CARE checklist items. There was no significant correlation between COR with either citation count or social media attention. INTERPRETATION: We found that the overall COR for case reports on COVID-19 was poor. We suggest that journals adopt common case-reporting standards to improve reporting quality.