Development and Evaluation of a Framework for Identifying and Addressing Spin for Harms in Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

"Spin" refers to misleading reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of findings in primary and secondary research (such as in systematic reviews). The study of spin primarily focuses on beneficial outcomes. The objectives of this research were threefold: first, to develop a framework for identifying spin associated with harms in systematic reviews of interventions; second, to apply the framework to a set of reviews, thereby pinpointing instances where spin may be present; and finally, to revise the spin examples, offering guidance on how spin can be rectified.The authors developed their framework through an iterative process that engaged an international group of researchers specializing in spin and reporting bias. The framework comprises 12 specific types of spin for harms, grouped by 7 categories across the 3 domains (reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation). The authors subsequently gathered instances of spin from a random sample of 100 systematic reviews of interventions. Of the 58 reviews that assessed harm and the 42 that did not, they found that 28 (48%) and 6 (14%), respectively, had at least 1 of the 12 types of spin for harms. Inappropriate extrapolation of the results and conclusions for harms to populations, interventions, outcomes, or settings not assessed in a review was the most common category of spin in 17 of 100 reviews.The authors revised the examples to remove spin, taking into consideration the context (for example, medical discipline, source population), findings for harms, and methodological limitations of the original reviews. They provide guidance for authors, peer reviewers, and editors in recognizing and rectifying or (preferably) avoiding spin, ultimately enhancing the clarity and accuracy of harms reporting in systematic review publications.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Randomised study of the effects of sense of entitlement and conflict of interest contrarianism on researcher decision-making to work with the alcohol industry.

BACKGROUND: It is well established that the tobacco industry used research funding as a deliberate tactic to subvert science. There has been little wider attention to how researchers think about accepting industry funding. We developed, then tested, hypotheses about two psychological constructs, namely, entitlement and conflict of interest contrarianism (CoI-C) among alcohol researchers who had previously received industry funding. METHODS: A mixed-methods pilot study involved construct and instrument development, followed by an online survey and nested 3-arm randomised trial. We randomly allocated alcohol industry funding recipients to one of three conditions. In two experimental conditions we asked participants questions to remind them (and thus increase the salience) of their sense of entitlement or CoI-C. We compared these groups with a control group who did not receive any reminder. The outcome was a composite measure of openness to working with the alcohol industry. RESULTS: 133 researchers were randomised of whom 79 completed the experiment. The posterior distribution over effect estimates revealed that there was a 94.8% probability that reminding researchers of their CoI-C led them to self-report being more receptive to industry funding, whereas the probability was 68.1% that reminding them of their sense of entitlement did so. Biomedical researchers reported being more open to working with industry than did psychosocial researchers. CONCLUSION: Holding contrarian views on conflict of interest could make researchers more open to working with industry. This study shows how it is possible to study researcher decision-making using quantitative experimental methods.

Characteristics of Advanced Practice Nurses Receiving Top Industry Payments and Their Practice Settings: a Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The pharmaceutical industry promotes prescribing through the cultivation of key opinion leaders. Advanced practice nurses (APNs) are a growing and influential group of prescribers across generalist and specialty practice. Public reporting of industry payments to APNs allows for exploration of their influence within practice settings. OBJECTIVE: To understand the characteristics of APNs with top industry payments including their positions of influence and other payment recipients at the same address. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of US national Open Payments reports of industry payments made between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS: APNs who received > $50,000 USD in industry payments for speaking, consulting, and honoraria ("personal fees"). MEASURES: Description of top APN recipients' practice setting type, clinical specialty, presence of other payment recipients, value of payments attributed to the same address, and top manufacturers and therapeutic categories associated with payments to top APN recipients. Structured content analysis of public-facing websites for evidence of APNs' clinical, research, and teaching leadership. RESULTS: A total of 99 APNs received > $50,000 USD in aggregate personal fees and a median $74,080 USD (IQR $57,303-101,702) in aggregate payments. They shared a practice setting with a median of 1 (IQR 0-5) physician and 0 (IQR 0-3) other APN payment recipients and were often the only (39%, 42/109) or the dominant (45%, 30/67) payment recipient in their practice setting. In total, 36% held clinical leadership positions, 25% led scientific research, and 18% had university appointments. Forty-two percent (37/88) owned a clinical practice, including cosmetic clinics (51%, 19/37) and mental/behavioral health clinics (24%, 9/37). CONCLUSIONS: Top APN payment recipients attracted high-value payments in practice settings and specialities associated with high-cost drug development; however, there may be little oversight of APNs' industry relationships. Policy development related to industry relationships must be inclusive of and responsive to the activities of interprofessional providers.

Health Effects of High-Concentration Cannabis Products: Scoping Review and Evidence Map.

Background. The concentration of pharmacologically active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in cannabis products has been increasing over the past decade. Concerns about potential harmful health effects of using these increasingly higher-concentration products have led some states to consider regulation of cannabis product THC concentration. We conducted a scoping review of health effects of high-concentration cannabis products to inform policy on whether the THC concentrations of cannabis product should be regulated or limited. Objectives. We conducted a scoping review to (1) identify and describe human studies that explore the relationship of high-concentration cannabis products with any health outcomes in the literature and (2) create an interactive evidence map of the included studies to facilitate further analyses. Search Methods. An experienced medical information specialist designed a comprehensive search strategy of 7 electronic databases. Selection Criteria. We included human studies of any epidemiological design with no restrictions by age, sex, health status, country, or outcome measured that reported THC concentration or included a known high-concentration cannabis product. Data Collection and Analysis. We imported search results into Distiller SR, and trained coders conducted artificial intelligence‒assisted screening. We developed, piloted, and revised data abstraction forms. One person performed data abstraction, and a senior reviewer verified a subset. We provide a tabular description of study characteristics, including exposures and outcomes measured, for each included study. We interrogated the evidence map published in Tableau to answer specific questions and provide the results as text and visual displays. Main Results. We included 452 studies in the scoping review and evidence map. There was incomplete reporting of exposure characteristics including THC concentration, duration and frequency of use, and products used. The evidence map shows considerable heterogeneity among studies in exposures, outcomes, and populations studied. A limited number of reports provided data that would facilitate further quantitative synthesis of the results across studies. Conclusions. This scoping review and evidence map support strong conclusions concerning the utility of the literature for characterizing risks and benefits of the current cannabis marketplace and the research approaches followed in the studies identified. Relevance of the studies to today's products is limited. Public Health Implications. High-quality evidence to address the policy question of whether the THC concentration of cannabis products should be regulated is scarce. The publicly available interactive evidence map is a timely resource for other entities concerned with burgeoning access to high-concentration cannabis. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(12):1332-1342. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307414).

Clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics: summary of recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person's goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation; initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non-cancer or chronic cancer-survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid-related adverse effects; gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review; consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid-related harms; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence-based care, such as medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; and use of evidence-based co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THESE GUIDELINES: To our knowledge, these are the first evidence-based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain.

Branded Care: The Policy Implications of Pharmaceutical Industry-Funded Nursing Care Related to Specialty Medicines.

An increasing proportion of new drugs approved for market worldwide are now high cost, specialty medicines. Pharmaceutical marketers face the challenge of convincing payers, prescribers, and patients that the cost and complexity of care associated with specialty medicines is worth the trouble, and now offer patient support programs, free of charge, to patients prescribed their drug. We conducted a secondary, qualitative, interpretive analysis of 24 interviews with leaders of patient groups and members of hospital formulary committees in Australia to describe the work of pharmaceutical company-employed or contracted nurses who provide support to patients prescribed specialty medicines, and to prompt discussion around the policy implications of relying on industry-funded nursing care within publicly funded health systems. Participants affirmed the value of specialist, holistic, person-centered nursing care, but perceived gaps within the public health system related to the availability and provision of nursing care for people living with chronic disease. Consequently, participants described the pharmaceutical industry as addressing health system gaps through sponsorship or direct provision of medication-related nursing care, but recognized that care was contingent on commercial interest. Participants highlighted a number of ethical and policy concerns stemming from industry-funded nursing care of people prescribed specialty medicines related to patient safety, continuity of care, inducement to prescribe, and health equity. This analysis suggests that outsourcing necessary medication-related care to pharmaceutical companies has implications for the health system and equitable, sustainable pharmaceutical policy that extend far beyond the care encounter.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically. METHODS: A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Association Between Conflicts of Interest and Authors' Positions on Harms of Varenicline: a Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the relationship between industry funding/conflicts of interest and authors' positions in opinion pieces on drug safety. Harmful effects of varenicline, a treatment for smoking cessation, have been highly contested. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between pharmaceutical industry funding/authors' financial conflicts of interest and position on varenicline in opinion articles, especially in relation to the minimization of harms; to assess whether opinion pieces on drug safety issues written by authors with conflicts of interest are more frequently cited in the news or social media. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS: English language opinion pieces and narrative reviews about varenicline published between May 2006 and February 2019. MAIN MEASURES: Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals; the Mann-Whitney two-sample statistic was used to test for differences in Altmetric scores, a measure of media attention. KEY RESULTS: Of the 221 included articles, 30.3% (67) disclosed the funding source and 62.9% (139) disclosed authors' conflicts of interest. Authors of opinion pieces on varenicline who reported financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry (as a conflict of interest or funding source) were more likely to minimise the cardiovascular and psychiatric risk of varenicline compared to those without conflicts of interest or industry funding (OR: 4.00; 95% CI: 1.32 to 12.16 for cardiovascular risk; OR: 8.51; 95% CI: 3.79 to 19.11 for psychiatric risk). These associations persisted in sensitivity analyses. No statistically significant difference in Altmetric score was found between articles with (mean 15.83, median 3) and without (mean 11.90, median 1) conflicts of interest, indicating similar media attention (p-value=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: We found that authors with financial ties to drug companies were more likely to publish opinion pieces that minimised harms of varenicline. These results raise questions about journals' editorial policies to accept reviews of treatments from authors with financial relationships with manufacturers.

Towards a framework for systematic reviews of the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors.

Exposure prevalence studies (as here defined) record the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors to human health. Applying systematic review methods to the synthesis of these studies would improve the rigour and transparency of normative products produced based on this evidence (e.g., exposure prevalence estimates). However, a dedicated framework, including standard methods and tools, for systematically reviewing exposure prevalence studies has yet to be created. We describe the need for this framework and progress made towards it through a series of such systematic reviews that the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization conducted for their WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates).We explain that existing systematic review frameworks for environmental and occupational health cannot be directly applied for the generation of exposure prevalence estimates because they seek to synthesise different types of evidence (e.g., intervention or exposure effects on health) for different purposes (e.g., identify intervention effectiveness or exposure toxicity or carcinogenicity). Concepts unique to exposure prevalence studies (e.g., "expected heterogeneity": the real, non-spurious variability in exposure prevalence due to exposure changes over space and/or time) also require new assessment methods. A framework for systematic reviews of prevalence of environmental and occupational exposures requires adaptation of existing methods (e.g., a standard protocol) and development of new tools or approaches (e.g., for assessing risk of bias and certainty of a body of evidence, including exploration of expected heterogeneity).As part of the series of systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, the World Health Organization collaborating with partners has created a preliminary framework for systematic reviews of prevalence studies of exposures to occupational risk factors. This included development of protocol templates, data extraction templates, a risk of bias assessment tool, and an approach for assessing certainty of evidence in these studies. Further attention and efforts are warranted from scientific and policy communities, especially exposure scientists and policy makers, to establish a standard framework for comprehensive and transparent systematic reviews of studies estimating prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors, to improve estimates, risk assessments and guidelines.

Response to Toshihide Tsuda, Yumiko Miyano and Eiji Yamamoto [1].

BACKGROUND: In August 2021, we published in Environmental Health a Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods with the goal of providing an organizational framework for transparently evaluating epidemiological studies, a body of evidence, and resultant conclusions. Tsuda et al., the first group to utilize the Toolkit in a systematic fashion, have offered suggestions for its modification. MAIN BODY: Among the suggested modifications made by Tsuda et al., we agree that rearrangement of Part A of the Toolkit to reflect the sequence of the epidemiological study process would facilitate its usefulness. Expansion or adaptation of the Toolkit to other disciplines would be valuable but would require the input of discipline-specific expertise. We caution against using the sections of the Toolkit to produce a tally or cumulative score, because none of the items are weighted as to importance or impact. Rather, we suggest a visual representation of how a study meets the Toolkit items, such as the heat maps used to present risk of bias criteria for studies included in Cochrane reviews. We suggest that the Toolkit be incorporated in the sub-specialty known as "forensic epidemiology," as well as in graduate training curricula, continuing education programs, and conferences, with the recognition that it is an extension of widely accepted ethics guidelines for epidemiological research. CONCLUSION: We welcome feedback from the research community about ways to strengthen the Toolkit as it is applied to a broader assemblage of research studies and disciplines, contributing to its value as a living tool/instrument. The application of the Toolkit by Tsuda et al. exemplifies the usefulness of this framework for transparently evaluating, in a systematic way, epidemiological research, conclusions relating to causation, and policy decisions. POSTSCRIPT: We note that our Toolkit has, most recently, inspired authors with discipline-specific expertise in the field of Conservation Biology to adapt it for use in the Biological Sciences.

Disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest in evidence underpinning vitamin D and calcium recommendations in bone health guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to examine the relationship between study funding sources, author conflicts of interest (COI) and conclusions in studies supporting vitamin D and Ca intake cited in bone health guideline recommendations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Forty-seven global bone health guidelines with vitamin D and/or Ca recommendations for adults aged 40 years and above. PARTICIPANTS: The evidence cited to support the recommendations was extracted by two independent reviewers and classified by type of recommendation, article characteristics, study design, types of funding sources and conflict of interest (COI) disclosure and direction of study conclusions. RESULTS: Of 156 articles cited to support the bone health recommendations, 120 (77 %) disclosed a funding source, and 43 (28 %) declared that at least one author had a COI. Compared with articles with non-commercial or no funding source, those funded by commercial sponsors tended to have a study conclusion favourable towards vitamin D/Ca (relative risk (95 % CI): 1·32 (0·94, 1·87), P = 0·16), but the association was not statistically significant (Fisher's exact test). Compared to those with a COI disclosure statement, articles with missing or unclear COI disclosure were more likely to have favourable conclusions (1·56 (1·05, 2·31), P = 0·017) (Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSION: In the evidence underpinning a sample of global bone health guidelines, COI disclosure was low and studies with missing or unclear COI disclosures were more likely to have favourable study conclusions than those with disclosures, suggesting a need for greater transparency of COI in bone health guidelines.

Global access to affordable direct oral anticoagulants.

Poor control of cardiovascular disease accounts for a substantial proportion of the disease burden in developing countries, but often essential anticoagulant medicines for preventing strokes and embolisms are not widely available. In 2019, direct oral anticoagulants were added to the World Health Organization's WHO Model list of essential medicines. The aims of this paper are to summarize the benefits of direct oral anticoagulants for patients with cardiovascular disease and to discuss ways of increasing their usage internationally. Although the cost of direct oral anticoagulants has provoked debate, the affordability of introducing these drugs into clinical practice could be increased by: price negotiation; pooled procurement; competitive tendering; the use of patent pools; and expanded use of generics. In 2017, only 14 of 137 countries that had adopted national essential medicines lists included a direct oral anticoagulant on their lists. This number could increase rapidly if problems with availability and affordability can be tackled. Once the types of patient likely to benefit from direct oral anticoagulants have been clearly defined in clinical practice guidelines, coverage can be more accurately determined and associated costs can be better managed. Government action is required to ensure that direct oral anticoagulants are covered by national budgets because the absence of reimbursement remains an impediment to achieving universal coverage. Tackling cardiovascular disease with the aid of direct oral anticoagulants is an essential component of efforts to achieve the World Health Organization's target of reducing premature deaths due to noncommunicable disease by 25% by 2025.

L'absence de lutte efficace contre les maladies cardiovasculaires contribue grandement à la charge de morbidité pesant sur les pays en développement. Pourtant, les anticoagulants essentiels permettant d'éviter les accidents vasculaires cérébraux et les embolies sont souvent difficiles à obtenir. En 2019, les anticoagulants oraux directs ont été ajoutés à la Liste modèle des médicaments essentiels publiée par l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé. Le présent document vise à résumer les avantages des anticoagulants oraux directs pour les patients souffrant d'une maladie cardiovasculaire, et à évoquer les moyens d'encourager leur utilisation au niveau international. Bien que le coût des anticoagulants oraux directs ait fait débat, intégrer ces médicaments dans la pratique clinique les rendrait plus abordables grâce à diverses méthodes: négociation des prix; achats groupés; appels d'offres concurrentiels; communautés de brevets; et recours accru aux alternatives génériques. En 2017, seulement 14 des 137 pays ayant adopté des listes nationales de médicaments essentiels y avaient inclus des anticoagulants oraux directs. Ce chiffre pourrait augmenter rapidement si les problèmes de disponibilité et d'accessibilité peuvent être résolus. Dès que les profils des patients susceptibles d'être traités par des anticoagulants oraux directs sont clairement établis dans les directives de pratique clinique, la couverture peut être définie avec plus de précision et les dépenses correspondantes, mieux gérées. Les gouvernements doivent s'assurer que ces médicaments sont bien pris en compte dans les budgets nationaux, car l'absence de remboursement demeure un obstacle à la couverture maladie universelle. La lutte contre les maladies cardiovasculaires à l'aide des anticoagulants oraux directs est un élément essentiel des efforts destinés à atteindre l'objectif de l'OMS: faire baisser de 25% d'ici 2025 les décès prématurés dus aux maladies non transmissibles de 25% d'ici 2025.

El mal control de las enfermedades cardiovasculares representa una proporción importante de la carga de enfermedades en los países en desarrollo, y a menudo los medicamentos anticoagulantes esenciales para prevenir los accidentes cerebrovasculares y las embolias no son fácilmente accesibles. En 2019, los anticoagulantes orales directos se añadieron a la lista modelo de medicamentos esenciales de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Los objetivos del presente artículo son resumir los beneficios de los anticoagulantes orales directos para los pacientes con enfermedades cardiovasculares y discutir las formas de aumentar su uso a nivel internacional. Aunque el coste de los anticoagulantes orales directos ha suscitado debate, la asequibilidad de introducir estos medicamentos en la práctica clínica podría aumentarse al: negociar precios; hacer adquisiciones conjuntas; hacer licitaciones competitivas; utilizar consorcios de patentes; y ampliar el uso de genéricos. En 2017, solo 14 de los 137 países que habían adoptado listas nacionales de medicamentos esenciales incluían un anticoagulante oral directo en sus listas. Este número podría aumentar rápidamente si se pueden abordar los problemas de disponibilidad y asequibilidad. Cuando los tipos de pacientes que pueden beneficiarse de los anticoagulantes orales directos se hayan definido claramente en las directrices de la práctica clínica, la cobertura podrá determinarse con mayor precisión y los costes asociados podrán gestionarse mejor. Es necesario que los gobiernos actúen para garantizar que los anticoagulantes orales directos estén cubiertos por los presupuestos nacionales, ya que la ausencia de reembolso sigue siendo un impedimento para lograr la cobertura universal. La lucha contra las enfermedades cardiovasculares con la ayuda de los anticoagulantes orales directos es un componente esencial de los esfuerzos por alcanzar el objetivo de la OMS de reducir las muertes prematuras debidas a enfermedades no transmisibles en un 25 % para 2025.

Meta-research matters: Meta-spin cycles, the blindness of bias, and rebuilding trust.

Meta-research is research about research. Meta-research may not be as click-worthy as a meta-pug-a pug dog dressed up in a pug costume-but it is crucial to understanding research. A particularly valuable contribution of meta-research is to identify biases in a body of evidence. Bias can occur in the design, conduct, or publication of research and is a systematic deviation from the truth in results or inferences. The findings of meta-research can tell us which evidence to trust and what must be done to improve future research. We should be using meta-research to provide the evidence base for implementing systemic changes to improve research, not for discrediting it.

Reporting bias in the literature on the associations of health-related behaviors and statins with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality.

Reporting bias in the literature occurs when there is selective revealing or suppression of results, influenced by the direction of findings. We assessed the risk of reporting bias in the epidemiological literature on health-related behavior (tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity, and sedentary behavior) and cardiovascular disease mortality and all-cause mortality and provided a comparative assessment of reporting bias between health-related behavior and statin (in primary prevention) meta-analyses. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register Database, and Web of Science for systematic reviews synthesizing the associations of health-related behavior and statins with cardiovascular disease mortality and all-cause mortality published between 2010 and 2016. Risk of bias in systematic reviews was assessed using the ROBIS tool. Reporting bias in the literature was evaluated via small-study effect and excess significance tests. We included 49 systematic reviews in our study. The majority of these reviews exhibited a high overall risk of bias, with a higher extent in health-related behavior reviews, relative to statins. We reperformed 111 meta-analyses conducted across these reviews, of which 65% had statistically significant results (P < 0.05). Around 22% of health-related behavior meta-analyses showed small-study effect, as compared to none of statin meta-analyses. Physical activity and the smoking research areas had more than 40% of meta-analyses with small-study effect. We found evidence of excess significance in 26% of health-related behavior meta-analyses, as compared to none of statin meta-analyses. Half of the meta-analyses from physical activity, 26% from diet, 18% from sedentary behavior, 14% for smoking, and 12% from alcohol showed evidence of excess significance bias. These biases may be distorting the body of evidence available by providing inaccurate estimates of preventive effects on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.

"There are ways drug companies will get into DTC decisions": How Australian drug and therapeutics committees address pharmaceutical industry influence.

AIMS: One tool for protecting quality use of medicines in hospitals is a drug and therapeutics committee (DTC) that oversees medicines availability. Pharmaceutical industry marketing to prescribers is associated with less appropriate prescribing and increased costs. There is little data on decision-making practices of DTCs so it is unknown whether or how they might be vulnerable to pharmaceutical industry influence. This project explores DTC decision-making with a focus on how pharmaceutical industry influence on access and use of medicines is identified and managed. METHODS: We used a qualitative methodology with individual interviews of 29 participants who were current or recent members of public hospital DTCs across New South Wales, Australia. Participants included medical, pharmacy and nursing staff and 1 citizen. Committees were linked to specific hospitals or regions, and some were affiliated with paediatric, neonatal, rural or mental health services. RESULTS: Drug committee processes for oversight of medicines in public hospitals are vulnerable to pharmaceutical industry influence at several points. Applications for formulary additions are sometimes initiated and completed by company representatives. Conflict of interest disclosures among applicants and committee members may be incomplete. In some institutions, medicines are available from pharmaceutical companies without committee review, including through free samples and industry-supported medicines access programmes. Participants noticed the presence and impact of pharmaceutical company marketing activities to local clinicians, resulting in increased prescriber demand for products. CONCLUSION: Improved DTC practices and review of hospital policies concerning pharmaceutical marketing activities might preserve the independence of evidence-based decision-making for safe, cost-effective prescribing.

Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods.

BACKGROUND: Critical knowledge of what we know about health and disease, risk factors, causation, prevention, and treatment, derives from epidemiology. Unfortunately, its methods and language can be misused and improperly applied. A repertoire of methods, techniques, arguments, and tactics are used by some people to manipulate science, usually in the service of powerful interests, and particularly those with a financial stake related to toxic agents. Such interests work to foment uncertainty, cast doubt, and mislead decision makers by seeding confusion about cause-and-effect relating to population health. We have compiled a toolkit of the methods used by those whose interests are not aligned with the public health sciences. Professional epidemiologists, as well as those who rely on their work, will thereby be more readily equipped to detect bias and flaws resulting from financial conflict-of-interest, improper study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, bringing greater clarity-not only to the advancement of knowledge, but, more immediately, to policy debates. METHODS: The summary of techniques used to manipulate epidemiological findings, compiled as part of the 2020 Position Statement of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) entitled Conflict-of-Interest and Disclosure in Epidemiology, has been expanded and further elucidated in this commentary. RESULTS: Some level of uncertainty is inherent in science. However, corrupted and incomplete literature contributes to confuse, foment further uncertainty, and cast doubt about the evidence under consideration. Confusion delays scientific advancement and leads to the inability of policymakers to make changes that, if enacted, would-supported by the body of valid evidence-protect, maintain, and improve public health. An accessible toolkit is provided that brings attention to the misuse of the methods of epidemiology. Its usefulness is as a compendium of what those trained in epidemiology, as well as those reviewing epidemiological studies, should identify methodologically when assessing the transparency and validity of any epidemiological inquiry, evaluation, or argument. The problems resulting from financial conflicting interests and the misuse of scientific methods, in conjunction with the strategies that can be used to safeguard public health against them, apply not only to epidemiologists, but also to other public health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: This novel toolkit is for use in protecting the public. It is provided to assist public health professionals as gatekeepers of their respective specialty and subspecialty disciplines whose mission includes protecting, maintaining, and improving the public's health. It is intended to serve our roles as educators, reviewers, and researchers.

Industry payments to Australian medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available disclosures.

BACKGROUND: Payments to medical oncologists and clinical haematologists can negatively affect prescribing practice, but the extent of payments to these specialists is unknown in Australia. AIMS: To analyse the extent of payments from the pharmaceutical industry to Australian cancer physicians as reported during the first collated period of the Disclosure Australia website. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of payments made from November 2018 to April 2019, using a file downloaded from the Disclosure Australia website. We checked the names of listed medical practitioners against Medical Board of Australia records to assign specialties. The number of medical oncologists, clinical haematologists, other specialist physicians and non-specialist physician medical practitioners was calculated, along with the payments to each of these groups. RESULTS: A total of A$7 332 407 was paid to 2775 medical practitioners. Of these, 236 were medical oncologists, 189 were haematologists and 1145 were other specialist physicians. This represents 31.7% of Australian medical oncologists and 30.9% of Australian haematologists, compared with 11.7% of all other specialist physicians and 1.1% of all other non-specialist physician medical practitioners. Medical oncologists received significantly higher payments (median A$2131.26) than other specialist physicians (median A$1376.00, 2-tailed P = 0.004) and other medical practitioners (median A$709.00, 2-tailed P < 0.001), while haematologists received significantly higher payments (median A$1519.95) than other medical practitioners (2-tailed P < 0.001), but similar payments to other specialist physicians (2-tailed P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Australian cancer physicians receive payments at a higher proportional frequency and in greater dollar amounts than other specialist physicians and other medical practitioners in general.

'Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review.

In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readers' decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research.