National Institutes of Health Funding Among Society of Asian Academic Surgery Members.

INTRODUCTION: External funding is fundamental to surgeon-scientists and many Society of Asian Academic Surgeons (SAAS) members have received funding through National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants. The amount of funding through NIH awards amongst SAAS members has yet to be evaluated. Our objective was to quantify the amount and type of NIH funding among SAAS members. METHODS: A list of all active SAAS members was compiled. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool's Expenditure and Results was queried to identify NIH funding among active members. RESULTS: Among 585 active SAAS members, 165 (28%) received NIH funding during their career. Of these, 110 members (66.6%) were male and 55 members (33.3%) were female. A total of 420 NIH grants have been awarded totaling $518.7 million in funding. There are currently 47 active grants totaling $34.1 million in funding. When analyzing by type, there were 226 R research grants, 63 K career development awards, 53 T and F research training and fellowships awards, and 78 other awards. Of the 63 members who received a K award, 35 members (55%) have subsequently received an R award. CONCLUSIONS: SAAS members are highly funded with 28% of members having received NIH funding totaling $518.7 million. SAAS' mission is to foster the personal and professional development of academic surgeons and we found that many SAAS members have the experience to mentor other surgeon-scientists through the process of obtaining NIH funding. Participation in organizations like SAAS can help nurture the success of future generations of surgeon-scientists.

Cancer research funding in South Asia.

BACKGROUND: The rising burden of cancer significantly influences the global economy and healthcare systems. While local and contextual cancer research is crucial, it is often limited by the availability of funds. In South Asia, with 1.7 million new cancer cases and 1.1 million deaths due to cancer in 2020, understanding cancer research funding trends is pivotal. METHODS: We reviewed funded cancer studies conducted between January 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2022, using ClinicalTrials.gov, International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) Database, NIH World RePORT, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We included funded studies related to all cancer types, conducted in South Asian countries, namely Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. RESULTS: We identified 6561 funded cancer studies from South Asia between 2003 and 2022, increasing from 400 studies in 2003-2007 to 3909 studies in 2018-2022. India had the highest number of funded cancer studies, while Afghanistan, Bhutan, and the Maldives had minimal or no funded cancer research output. Interventional studies (67.3%) were the most common study type funded. The most common cancer sites funded were breast (17.8%), lung (9.9%), oropharyngeal (6.2%), and cervical (5.0%) cancers. On the WHO ICTRP, international funding agencies contributed to a majority of studies (57.5%), except in India where local funding agencies (58.2%) funded more studies. CONCLUSION: This study identified gaps in research funding distribution across cancer types and geographic areas in South Asia. This data can be used to optimize the distribution of cancer research funding in South Asia, fostering equitable advancement in cancer research.

Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

An In-Depth Analysis of Public and Private Research Funding in Orthopaedic Surgery from 2015 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the trends and patterns of research funding can aid in enhancing growth and innovation in orthopaedic research. We sought to analyze financial trends in public orthopaedic surgery funding and characterize trends in private funding distribution among orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals to explore potential disparities across orthopaedic subspecialties. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of private and public orthopaedic research funding from 2015 to 2021 using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER through the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, respectively. Institutions receiving funds from both the NIH and the private sector were classified separately as publicly funded and privately funded. Research payment characteristics were categorized according to their respective orthopaedic fellowship subspecialties. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were employed. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Over the study period, $348,428,969 in private and $701,078,031 in public research payments were reported. There were 2,229 unique surgeons receiving funding at 906 different institutions. The data showed that a total of 2,154 male orthopaedic surgeons received $342,939,782 and 75 female orthopaedic surgeons received $5,489,187 from 198 different private entities. The difference in the median payment size between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was not significant. The top 1% of all practicing orthopaedic surgeons received 99% of all private funding in 2021. The top 20 publicly and top 20 privately funded institutions received 77% of the public and 37% of the private funding, respectively. Private funding was greatest (31.5%) for projects exploring adult reconstruction. CONCLUSION: While the amount of public research funding was more than double the amount of private research funding, the distribution of public research funding was concentrated in fewer institutions when compared with private research funding. This suggests the formation of orthopaedic centers of excellence (CoEs), which are programs that have high concentrations of talent and resources. Furthermore, the similar median payment by gender is indicative of equitable payment size. In the future, orthopaedic funding should follow a distribution model that aligns with the existing approach, giving priority to a nondiscriminatory stance regarding gender, and allocate funds toward CoEs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Securing research funding is vital for driving innovation in orthopaedic surgery, which is crucial for enhancing clinical interventions. Thus, understanding the patterns and distribution of research funding can help orthopaedic surgeons tailor their future projects to better align with current funding trends, thereby increasing the likelihood of securing support for their work.

A Scholarly Dialog on Recent Trends in National Institutes of Health's Funding for the Thyroid Field.

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the major funding agency for biomedical research in the United States. To initiate a scholarly dialog about research and career development in the thyroid field, here we reviewed recent trends in NIH funding for this area. We used the Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database to estimate the level of NIH extramural support during 2013-2022 (number of active grants/year and $amount/year weighed by the total number of active grants/year and $amount/year), provided by the NIH to the thyroid field. We determined that in 2013, the NIH supported ∼140 grants/year, totaling almost $50 million/year, the majority in the form of R01 grants. Within the thyroid field, support was evenly split between thyroid cancer and thyroid hormone metabolism and action subareas. In the subsequent years (2014-2022), the total number of active grants peaked at 150/year ($55 million) in 2014 but progressively decreased to about 100 active grants/year ($30 million) in 2022. This trend occurred while the NIH budget increased from $29 to $46 billion/year. Globally, the number of thyroid-related publications increased by ∼70% during the study period, and the fractional contribution of several countries remained relatively stable, except for China which increased by ∼600%. Remarkably, the fraction of thyroid-related publications in the United States sponsored by the NIH decreased from 5.5% to 3.1% of the global number. Conclusion: These results constitute a very concerning scenario for research and education in the thyroid field. We appeal to the NIH, the professional societies in endocrinology and thyroidology, and all other relevant stakeholders such as thyroid-related professionals and thyroid patients to engage in further discussions to identify the root causes of this trend and implement an action plan to stabilize and eventually reverse this situation.

Evaluation of non-research and research industry payments to pediatric hematologist/oncologists in the United States between 2013 and 2021.

Financial interactions between healthcare industry and pediatric hematologist/oncologists (PHOs) could be conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, little is known about financial relationships between healthcare industry and PHOs. This cross-sectional analysis of the Open Payments Database examined general and research payments to PHOs from healthcare industry in the United States between 2013 and 2021. Payments to the PHOs were analyzed descriptively. Trends in payments were assessed using generalized estimating equation models. Of 2784 PHOs, 2142 (76.9%) PHOs received payments totaling $187.3 million from the healthcare industry between 2013 and 2021. Approximately, $46.3 million (24.8%) were general payments and $137.7 million (73.5%) were funding for research where PHOs served as principal investigators (associated research funding). Both general payments and associated research funding considerably increased between 2014 and 2019. The number of PHOs receiving general payments and associated research funding annually increased by 2.2% (95% CI: 1.2-3.3%, p < .001) and 5.0% (95% CI: 3.3-6.8%, p < .001) between 2014 and 2019, respectively.

Establishing a consensus on research priorities in orthopaedic trauma within South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Despite improvements in trauma-related morbidity and mortality in high-income countries over recent years, outcomes following MSK injuries in low- and middle-income countries, such as South Africa (SA), have not. Despite governmental recognition that this is required, funding and research into this significant health burden are limited within SA. This study aims to identify research priorities within MSK trauma care using a consensus-based approach amongst MSK healthcare practitioners within SA. METHOD: Members from the Orthopaedic Research Collaboration in Africa (ORCA), based in SA, collaborated using a two round modified Delphi technique to form a consensus on research priorities within orthopaedic trauma care. Members involved in the process were orthopaedic healthcare practitioners within SA. RESULTS: Participants from the ORCA network, working within SA, scored research priorities across two Delphi rounds from low to high priority. We have published the overall top 10 research priorities for this Delphi process. Questions were focused on two broad groups-clinical effectiveness in trauma care and general trauma public health care. Both groups were represented by the top two priorities, with the highest ranked question regarding the overall impact of trauma in SA and the second regarding the clinical treatment of open fractures. CONCLUSION: This study has defined research priorities within orthopaedic trauma in South Africa. Our vision is that by establishing consensus on these research priorities, policy and research funding will be directed into these areas. This should ultimately improve musculoskeletal trauma care across South Africa and its significant health and socioeconomic impacts.

Longitudinal analysis of National Institutes of Health funding for academic thoracic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for academic (noncardiac) thoracic surgeons at the top-140 NIH-funded institutes in the United States was assessed. We hypothesized that thoracic surgeons have difficulty in obtaining NIH funding in a difficult funding climate. METHODS: The top-140 NIH-funded institutes' faculty pages were searched for noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Surgeon data, including gender, academic rank, and postfellowship training were recorded. These surgeons were then queried in NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results for their funding history. Analysis of the resulting grants (1980-2019) included grant type, funding amount, project start/end dates, publications, and a citation-based Grant Impact Metric to evaluate productivity. RESULTS: A total of 395 general thoracic surgeons were evaluated with 63 (16%) receiving NIH funding. These 63 surgeons received 136 grants totaling $228 million, resulting in 1772 publications, and generating more than 50,000 citations. Thoracic surgeons have obtained NIH funding at an increasing rate (1980-2019); however, they have a low percentage of R01 renewal (17.3%). NIH-funded thoracic surgeons were more likely to have a higher professorship level. Thoracic surgeons perform similarly to other physician-scientists in converting K-Awards into R01 funding. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, thoracic surgeons have received more NIH funding over time. Thoracic surgeons are able to fill the roles of modern surgeon-scientists by obtaining NIH funding during an era of increasing clinical demands. The NIH should continue to support this mission.

Financial relationships between industry and principal investigators of US cooperative group randomized cancer clinical trials.

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) could bias the potentially practice-changing oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of tomorrow. This investigation characterized the FCOIs of the principal investigators (PIs) of all currently accruing trials of the four (adult) cooperative groups of the National Clinical Trials Network. For our study, the PI list was first compiled, and each name was then searched in the CMS Open Payments database. For each transaction (general payments (GPs) or research funding (RF)), the amount/number/source of payments was recorded. Results showed that from 2014 to 2019, the 91 PIs collectively accepted nearly one-third of a billion dollars ($10 477 023 GPs and $320 096 233 RF). The mean and median GP was $6505 and $945, respectively, and $301 693 and $49 824 RF, respectively. Multivariable Gamma regression analysis revealed that higher GP sums were associated with RCTs involving any type of systemic therapy, and higher RF sums with medical oncologist PIs, trials with phase III components, and RCTs involving radiotherapy (P < .05 for all). Both higher-volume GPs and RF were predicted by PIs having accepted payment(s) from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their RCT (P < .001 GP, P = .008 RF). Taken together, the main message of this investigation is that FCOIs may be particularly high in PIs of phase III systemic therapy trials, especially if the PI accepted payments from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their trial. Such RCTs should be thoroughly scrutinized by medical journals, the FDA, and insurance companies for potential "industry bias" that could influence the integrity of their conclusions.

Systems epidemiology and cancer: A review of the National Institutes of Health extramural grant portfolio 2013-2018.

OBJECTIVES: Systems epidemiology approaches may lead to a better understanding of the complex and dynamic multi-level constellation of contributors to cancer risk and outcomes and help target interventions. This grant portfolio analysis aimed to describe the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) investments in systems epidemiology and to identify gaps in the cancer systems epidemiology portfolio. METHODS: The analysis examined grants funded (2013-2018) through seven NIH systems science Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) as well as cancer-specific systems epidemiology grants funded by NCI during that same time. Study characteristics were extracted from the grant abstracts and specific aims and coded. RESULTS: Of the 137 grants awarded under the NIH FOAs, 52 (38%) included systems epidemiology. Only five (4%) were focused on cancer systems epidemiology. The NCI-wide search (N = 453 grants) identified 35 grants (8%) that included cancer systems epidemiology in their specific aims. Most of these grants examined epidemiology and surveillance-based questions (60%); fewer addressed clinical care or clinical trials (37%). Fifty-four percent looked at multiple scales within the individual (e.g., cell, tissue, organ), 49% looked beyond the individual (e.g., individual, community, population), and few (9%) included both. Across all grants examined, the systems epidemiology grants primarily focused on discovery or prediction, rather than on impacts of intervention or policy. CONCLUSIONS: The most notable finding was that grants focused on cancer versus other diseases reflected a small percentage of the portfolio, highlighting the need to encourage more cancer systems epidemiology research. Opportunities include encouraging more multiscale research and continuing the support for broad examination of domains in these studies. Finally, the nascent discipline of systems epidemiology could benefit from the creation of standard terminology and definitions to guide future progress.

The Policies for the Disclosure of Funding and Conflict of Interest in Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Industry through its funding of research and through its relationships with study authors can influence the results of research. Most journals have policies for reporting funding and disclosing conflict of interest (COI) to mitigate the influence of industry on research. The objective of this study is to assess the policies of surgery journals for the reporting of funding and the disclosure of COI. METHODS: We described the prevalence and characteristics of funding and COI policies of journals indexed under "Surgery" in the Journal Citation Reports. We extracted data from publicly available information and through simulation of manuscript submission. RESULTS: Of the 186 eligible journals, 171 (92%) had policies for reporting of funding. None of the policies described procedures to deal with non-reporting or underreporting of funding. Of the 186 journals, 183 (99%) had a policy for disclosure of COI. All journals with a COI policy required disclosure of financial interest, while 96 (52%) required the disclosure of non-financial interests. Only 24 (13%) policies described how non-disclosure of COI affects the editorial process, and none described procedures to verify COI disclosure. Of the policies that required disclosing COI, 94 (51%) also required reporting the source of financial COI. CONCLUSIONS: Most journals have policies for reporting of funding and disclosure of financial COI. However, many do not have clear policies for disclosing non-financial COI. Major limitations in the policies include the lack of processes for the verification of disclosed interests and for dealing with underreporting of funding and of COI.

Economic Evaluations in National Cancer Institute-Sponsored Network Cancer Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Amid a rapid increase in cancer care costs, we examined the extent to which economic evaluations (EEs) were conducted for new treatments evaluated in clinical trials at SWOG, a large National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer research network. METHODS: We investigated phase III cancer treatment clinical trials activated from 1980 onward with primary articles reporting the protocol-designated endpoints published in scientific journals by 2017. Using PubMed, Web of Science, and EconLit, we searched for EEs using trial name, cancer type, information on the comparison arms, and refined keywords for EE designs. We reported the overall proportion of trials with associated EEs and trends of this proportion over time. We synthesized and analyzed information on funding sources, health outcomes, and sources of quality-of-life and cost data from the EEs. RESULTS: Among 182 examined trials, 15 EEs were associated with 13 (7.1%) trials. Among the EEs, almost half (7 of 15) were either unfunded or did not report funding information, whereas nearly half (7 of 15) were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 2 (2 of 15, 13.3%) were supported by federal funding. All EEs reported a healthcare payer perspective. The proportion of trials with an associated EE increased from 1980 to 1989 and 2000 to 2009, but never exceeded 11%. Sources for cost and quality-of-life data for the EEs primarily came from outside the clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Few economic studies of treatments evaluated in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials have been conducted. Policymakers, payers, and patients lack economic evidence to consider newly evaluated cancer treatments, despite an urgent need to control healthcare costs.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Research Funded by the American Head and Neck Society Foundation.

Importance: For decades, the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) has been providing funding for meritorious research to investigators for studies on head and neck cancer. Recently, the AHNS Foundation sought to evaluate the impact of its funds for investigators and research. Objective: To examine the mechanisms and outcomes of research funding by the AHNS. Design, Setting, and Participants: An online survey was sent to all AHNS grant-funded principal investigators who had received funds from 1998 to 2018. Over this time, approximately $1.5 million in grant funding was awarded for research. Grants were separated into 2 groups: pilot and resident grants (PRs), approximately $10 000 each type of grant for 1 year, and career development grants (CDAs), approximately $20 000 to $80 000 over 1 to 2 years. Results: Of 82 awardees, 49 individuals (60%) responded to the survey (36 men [73%]), including 28 recipients (57%) of PR grants and 21 recipients (43%) of CDA grants. Twenty-six studies (53%) were reported as translational, 20 studies (41%) were basic science, 2 studies (4%) were clinical, and 1 study (2%) was outcomes research. At the time of the award, 19 recipients (39%) were faculty/attending physicians, 11 recipients (22%) were fellows, and 19 recipients (39%) were residents/students. Twenty of 21 CDA grants (95%) were given to fellows or faculty. Thirty-seven grants (75%) resulted in publications, with a total of 84 publications reported. Nineteen CDA grants (90%) and 18 PR grants (64%) resulted in publication. Thirty-one (63%) investigators were awarded another grant after their AHNS grant: 19 CDA (90%), 8 pilot (44%), and 4 (40%) resident awardees reported having a future grant. Fourteen respondents (29%) reported a future K, R, or other major foundation grant. Of all awardees, 46 recipients (93%) were still conducting research and 40 recipients (82%) reported serving as academic faculty. Respondents also noted associations between grants and mentorship, investigator development, institutional support, and academic promotion. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that, over the past 20 years, the AHNS funding mechanism has resulted in 80% of awards generating publications and 63% resulting in future funding. The additional benefits of AHNS grant awards on the culture of research is also substantial. Continued analysis of these data may help guide future AHNS funding and award decisions.