scholarly journals Testing Scientific Research Grant Funding Fairness

Author(s):  
Peter Z. Revesz
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S758-S759
Author(s):  
Stephen I Pelton ◽  
Rotem Lapidot ◽  
Matthew Wasserman ◽  
Melody Shaff ◽  
Ahuva Hanau ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in infancy (i.e., among children aged < 2 years) may have long-term consequences for the rapidly developing lung. We examined the impact of pneumonia in infancy on subsequent respiratory health. Methods A retrospective matched-cohort design and data from Optum’s de-identified Integrated Claims-Clinical dataset (2009-2018) were employed. Study population comprised children who were hospitalized for CAP before age 2 years (“CAP patients”) as well as matched comparators without evidence of pneumonia before age 2 years (“comparison patients”). CAP patients and comparison patients were matched (fixed 1:5 ratio, without replacement) using estimated propensity scores and a nearest-neighbor approach; those with evidence of selected medical conditions (e.g., extreme prematurity, congenital diseases, respiratory diseases) before age 2 years were excluded. Study outcomes included recurrent pneumonia and a composite of asthma, recurrent wheezing, and hyperactive airway disease. Rates of study outcomes from age 2 to 5 years were estimated for all CAP and comparison patients as well as subgroups of CAP patients (and corresponding comparison patients) stratified by etiology (bacterial, viral, unspecified). Results Study population totaled 1,343 CAP patients and 6,715 comparison patients. CAP patients and comparison patients were well-balanced on their baseline characteristics and mean duration of follow-up was 757 and 729 days, respectively. Rates of chronic respiratory disorders from age 2 to 5 years were significantly higher among CAP patients versus comparison patients. Analyses of subgroups stratified by etiology demonstrated higher rates of study outcomes among CAP patients across all strata. Rates of recurrent pneumonia and a composite of asthma, recurrent wheezing, and hyperactive airway disease from age 2 to 5 years among CAP patients and matched comparison patients Conclusion Infant CAP foreshadows an increase in subsequent risk of chronic respiratory disorders. Further studies are needed to determine whether this elevated risk is due to infant pneumonia or whether infant pneumonia is a marker of at-risk children. Disclosures Stephen I. Pelton, MD, Merck vaccine (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Pfizer (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Sanofi Pasteur (Consultant, Other Financial or Material Support, DSMB)Seqirus Vaccine Ltd. (Consultant) Rotem Lapidot, MD, MSCI, Pfizer (Consultant) Matthew Wasserman, MSc., Pfizer Inc. (Employee) Melody Shaff, BA, Pfizer, Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support) Ahuva Hanau, BS, Pfizer, Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support) Alexander Lonshteyn, PhD, Pfizer, Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support) Derek Weycker, PhD, Pfizer Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 372.3-372
Author(s):  
L. Diekmann ◽  
L. Daniello ◽  
J. Kunz ◽  
J. Leipe ◽  
H. M. Lorenz ◽  
...  

Background:Rheumatic immune-related adverse events (irAE) are associated with a better tumour response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). In contrast to other irAEs, their potentially chronic course may require long-term immunosuppressive treatment.Objectives:Our registry-based study analyses real-world data on the characteristics and outcome of rheumatic irAEs and underlying malignancy. Herein, we present first evidence that these parameters and the optimal clinical management may differ depending on the tumour entity.Methods:The TRheuMa registry is a prospective long-term observational study of a patient cohort suffering from rheumatic side effects of cancer therapies with focus on ICI. It is part of the MalheuR project initiated in July 2018 at the University Hospital Heidelberg to explore interrelations of malignancies and RMDs.Results:64 patients were recruited due to a rheumatic irAE under ICI treatment (nivolumab n=30, pembrolizumab n=33, ipilimumab n=12, PD-L1i n=5, ipi/nivo n=10) with a follow-up of up to 30 months. Of these, 47% had NSCLC and 41% melanoma. In local cohorts of patients receiving ICI, 4% of NSCLC (n total=888) and 13% of melanoma (n total=195) developed a rheumatic irAE. 7% of NSCLC and 23% of melanoma patients experienced a flare of a pre-existing RMD. De novo irAE mostly resembled phenotypes of spondyloarthritis both in NSCLC (43%) as well as in melanoma patients (33%). CRP levels were increased in 83% of NSCLC and 71% of melanoma patients. Almost all irAE patients showed autoantibody negativity and signs of inflammation in ultrasound examination (96%). Comparison of best responses to treatment in patients with and without rheumatic irAE in melanoma and without any irAE in NSCLC patients were as following: Complete remission (CR) in 48% vs. 4% of melanoma patients and partial remission (PR) in 68% vs. 41% of NSCLC patients. In accordance with our severity-based treatment algorithm, 25% of the melanoma patients in CR and 16% of the NSCLC patients in PR needed add-on DMARDs for sufficient irAE-treatment. ICI-treatment was discontinued in 7 cases (17% NSCLC, 8% melanoma)Conclusion:Prospective real-world data from the TRheuMa-registry provide first evidence that rheumatic irAE have distinct characteristics depending on the underlying malignancy. Oncological outcome was better with rheumatic irAE than in their absence and this effect was more pronounced in melanoma patients despite a larger use of immunosuppressants for irAE-treatment.Disclosure of Interests:Leonore Diekmann: None declared, Lea Daniello: None declared, Julia Kunz: None declared, Jan Leipe Consultant of: Pfizer; Novartis; Honoraria (self), Abbvie; Astra Zeneca; BMS; Celgene; Hospira; Janssen-Cilag; Gilead; LEO Pharma; Lilly; MSD; Roche; Sanofi; UCB., Grant/research support from: Research grant/Funding (self): Pfizer; Novartis; Honoraria (self), Hanns-Martin Lorenz Consultant of: Abbvie; BMS; MSD; Pfizer; Celgene; Roche; Chugai; Medac; GSK; Honoraria (self), Novartis; UCB; Janssen-Cilag; Astra Zeneca; Lilly, Grant/research support from: Research grant/Funding (institution): Abbvie; BMS; MSD; Pfizer; Celgene; Roche; Chugai; Medac; GSK; Honoraria (self), Research grant/Funding (institution), Novartis; UCB; Janssen-Cilag; Astra Zeneca; Lilly; Research grant/Funding (institution): Baxter; SOBI; Biogen; Actelion; Mundipharma; Bayer Vital; Octapharm; Sanofi; Hexal; Thermo Fischer; Shire., Jessica Hassel Consultant of: MDS; Honoraria (self): Roche; Novartis; Pierre Fabre., Grant/research support from: BMS; Honoraria (self), Karin Jordan Consultant of: Advisory/Consultancy: Amgen; Merck; MSD; Riemser; Helsinn; Tesaro; Kreussler; Voluntis; Pfizer; Pomme-med; Hexal., Petros Christopoulos Consultant of: advisory board/lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda., Grant/research support from: research funding from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Karolina Benesova Grant/research support from: Foundations and Awards” commission of the University of Heidelberg: University of Heidelberg; AbbVie; Novartis; Rheumaliga Baden-Württemberg e.V


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayaka Sato ◽  
Pascal Mark Gygax ◽  
Julian Randall ◽  
Marianne Schmid Mast

Abstract The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.


1991 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 619-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonarda Falcone ◽  
Soldati Gianni ◽  
Ana Piffaretti-Yanez ◽  
Maurizio Marchini ◽  
Urs Eppenberger ◽  
...  

Science ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 322 (5899) ◽  
pp. 189a-189a ◽  
Author(s):  
H. G. Mandel ◽  
E. S. Vesell
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document