THANK YOU FOR JOINING ISMPP U
TODAY!
The program will begin promptly at 11:00 am EST
December 10, 2014
ISMPP WOULD LIKE TO THANK. . .
. . . the following Corporate Platinum Sponsors for their
ongoing support of the society
2
ISMPP ANNOUNCEMENTS
•
Don't forget to register for the 2015 European Meeting of ISMPP—Early Bird
discount ends December 16! Check out the latest version of the brochure @
ismpp.org
•
Watch for information on the 11th Annual Meeting of ISMPP—registration
opening soon!
•
•
Interested in taking the March CMPP exam? Don’t miss the February 1 deadline.
•
Do you have social skills? Follow us on Twitter (@ISMPP) or join the
conversation at ISMPP's LinkedIn group page.
•
This program qualifies for 1 credit towards recertification (professional
responsibilities)
Did you know your company can sponsor an ISMPP U webinar? If you're
interested or would like more information, contact ismpp@ismpp.org.
3
FOR THE BEST LISTENING EXPERIENCE . . .
To optimize your ISMPP U webinar experience today, please:
•
If using VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) vs. your
telephone, turn up the volume of your computer speakers
•
•
•
Use a hardwire connection if available
Use the fastest internet connection available to you
If you experience audio problems, consider switching from
one access method to another (VOIP phone or phone
VOIP)
4
SOCIAL MEDIA IN PUBLICATION PLANNING:
CASE SERIES
Speakers: Sarah Feeny, ISMPP CMPPTM
Complete Medical Communications
Ira Mills, PAREXEL
Tom Rees, PhD, PAREXEL
Moderator: Lisa Baker, PhD, ISMPP CMPPTM
INTRODUCTIONS
•
•
Faculty: Sarah L Feeny, ISMPP CMPPTM is Global Head of Scientific Direction at
Complete Medical Communications, head-quartered in the UK with offices in NJ,
USA. Sarah moved to Complete Medical Communications in 1998 and has extensive
experience in the field of ethical publication planning and delivery. She is a charter
member of ISMPP, past Chair of the European Committee of ISMPP (2008-2011) and
has served on the ISMPP Board of Trustees (2011-2014).
Ira Mills, PhD is a Senior Scientific Specialist at PAREXEL where he has worked for
the past 3 years. Ira has broad experience in publications with 15 years at medical
communication agencies and 20 years as a Research Scientist on the faculty at
Brown and Yale University. Ira has published more than 40 peer-reviewed articles of
original research in the area of cell signaling. Ira is an ISMPP member and has been
an active presenter at recent ISMPP Annual Meeting poster sessions with 2 recent
presentations focused on assessing social media in relation to publication activity. Ira
is currently serving on the ISMPP Annual Meeting Committee.
6
INTRODUCTIONS, Cont'd.
•
Tom Rees, PhD is a Scientific Strategy Advisor in the Strategy & Innovations group
at PAREXEL International. Tom has 18 years’ experience in medical communications
and publications planning, and is a regular contributor to ISMPP meetings through
poster and oral presentations and through his work on the ISMPP Workshop
Committee.
•
Lisa Baker, PhD, ISMPP CMPPTM is Principal Medical Writer and Team Lead at The
Envision Pharma Group, a publication planning agency. She received her PhD in
research psychology from McGill University and has been a medical writer since
2006. Lisa’s work has included publication development and strategic publication
planning for varied clients and therapeutic areas. She is an ISMPP Certified Medical
Publication Professional™ (CMPP), a member of the ISMPP-U committee and a
former member of the ISMPP Standards and Communications committees.
7
AN ANALYSIS OF TWITTER ACTIVITY OF
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES AND
TWEETS RELATING TO PUBLICATION
ACTIVITY
Sarah Feeny, Global Head
Scientific Direction, CMC
Presented at:
ISMPP Annual Meeting (April, 2014)
Medicine 2.0 (October, 2014)
WHAT WE WANTED TO KNOW
•
Are pharmaceutical companies
using Twitter to provide
information about congress
abstracts/presentations and
journal publications?
•
Twitter (created 2006) is an online social networking service that enables users to post and read short 140character messages called ‘tweets’
•
Tweets can contain images and links to other online content
•
As of July 2014, Twitter had more 271 million active users (Twitter Q2 Annual Report)
9
APPROACH
•
•
In Jan 2014, we identified the ‘top’ 20 pharmaceutical companies
Identified Twitter accounts for each:
@AbbotNews
@Amgen
@AstellasUS
@AstraZeneca
@Baxter_Intl
@BayerHealthCare
@BMSnews
@Boehringer
@GSK_conferences
•
•
@JNJnews
@Lillypad
@Merck
@Millennium_US
@Novartis
@NovoNordiskUS
@Pfizer
@Roche
@SanofiUS
One company (Teva) included didn’t have a Twitter account
One account @DaiichiSankyo did not have any tweets
10
OVERALL ACTIVITY IN THOSE 3 MONTHS
11
7% OF ALL TWEETS WERE RELATED TO CONGRESS
PRESENTATIONS OR PUBLICATIONS
12
COMPANIES WHO ARE NOT TWEETING ABOUT
PUBLICATION ACTIVITY
13
COMPANIES WHO ARE NOT TWEETING ABOUT
PUBLICATION ACTIVITY, Cont'd.
14
COMPANIES WHO ARE NOT TWEETING ABOUT
PUBLICATION ACTIVITY, Cont'd.
15
IS ANYONE CONSUMING THIS INFORMATION?
16
USE OF LINKS AND DRUG NAMES
Over half of the publication tweets
contained links and the majority of links
directed followers to a company-related
website
Only approximately 15% of tweets
mentioned product names; however, 45.0%
of tweets had links that mentioned
products
17
CONCLUSIONS
For the Twitter accounts analysed, over the time periods identified:
7.2% of tweets were considered related to journal publications or congress
abstracts and presentation
Over half of these tweets contained links and the majority of links directed
followers to a company-related website
Only approximately 15% of tweets mentioned product names; however, 45.0%
of tweets had links that mentioned products
Twitter activity varies greatly across top pharmaceutical companies
18
AUDIENCE QUESTION
Do you have a Twitter account?
A. Yes
B. No
AUDIENCE QUESTION
19
SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY
FOR OPTIMIZING PUBLICATION TIMING
IN ACCORDANCE WITH DRUG APPROVAL
Ira Mills, PhD
Senior Scientific Specialist, PAREXEL
AUDIENCE QUESTION
Do you believe that tracking Twitter activity longitudinally across the
evolution of a clinical trial could be useful in publication planning?
A. Yes
AUDIENCE QUESTION
B. No
C. I don’t understand the question
21
INTRODUCTION
•
•
•
•
Social media Twitter conversations on oncology are ubiquitous
•
Treatment-related prostate cancer tweets are aligned with
recent advances in prostate cancer drug development
Contributions by oncologists are relatively sparse, but growing
Oncologist-related Twitter activity varies by cancer type
The proportion of prostate cancer tweets that are treatmentrelated is among the highest across different cancer types
Reid BR, et al. The Social Oncology Project. Mdigital Life. http://www.wcgworld.com/mdigitallife. Accessed November 8, 2014.
22
OBJECTIVE
To determine the feasibility of assessing registration
trial publication timing relative to regulatory approval to
generate the most “buzz” as measured by social media
Twitter activity
Registration Trial Publication
(eg, NEJM)
Regulatory Approval
(eg, FDA)
23
METHODS
•
Twitter activity examined for the publication record timeline of an
illustrative prostate cancer drug
•
Key events associated with this trial examined
– IDMC recommendation of trial stoppage
– NEJM publication
– FDA approval notification
– EMA approval notification
24
ILLUSTRATIVE TWITTER ACTIVITY WITH A RECENTLY
APPROVED PROSTATE CANCER (PC) DRUG
25
METHODS (Cont’d)
•
As most Twitter activity was associated with the publication
of the registration trial and US regulatory approval, we
examined
– The correlation of tweets associated with these 2 events for other
prostate cancer drugs
– The nature of Twitter users
– The generalizability of our prostate cancer findings to a broader
sample of oncology drugs
26
TWITTER ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED
WITH NEJM PUBLICATION AND FDA
APPROVAL OF PC DRUGS
Prostate
cancer drug
NEJM publication
date
FDA approval date
Enzalutamide
(AFFIRM)
August 15, 2012
Abiraterone
(COU-AA-302)
December 12, 2012
Radium-223
(ALSYMPCA)
July 18, 2013
August 31, 2012
December 12, 2012
Sipuleucel-T
(IMPACT)
May 15, 2013
July 29, 2010
April 29, 2010
NEJM date
to FDA
date, Δ
(days)
NEJM
tweets
FDA tweets
NEJM
tweets/FDA
tweets*
-16
254
279
0.91
0
85
62
1.37
+64
119
116
1.03
+91
23
28
0.82
*FDA tweets (reference) = 1.0
27
CORRELATION BETWEEN NEJM
TWEETS/FDA TWEETS AND AND NEJM DATE
TO FDA DATE OF PC DRUGS
28
TWITTER ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED
WITH JOURNAL PUBLICATION AND FDA
APPROVAL OF ONCOLOGY DRUGS
Oncologic
Drug
Indication
Journal
Pub date
FDA date
Δ (days)
Journal
tweets
FDA
tweets
Journal
tweets/FDA
tweets
Ibrutinib
MCL
NEJM
6/19/13
11/13/13
-148
406
265
1.53
Regorafenib
GIST
Lancet
11/22/12
2/25/13
-95
87
109
0.80
Pomalidomide
MMyl
Blood
1/13/13
2/8/13
-26
26
206
0.13
NSCLC
JCO
7/1/13
7/12/13
-11
31
236
0.13
Lenalidomide
MCL
TLO
6/6/13
6/5/13
+1
0
118
0
Trametinib
MMel
NEJM
6/4/13
5/29/13
+6
15
126
0.12
Adotratuzumab
MBC
JCO
3/20/13
2/22/13
+26
0
81
0
Dabrafenib
MMel
Lancet
6/25/13
5/29/13
+27
12
126
0.10
Denosumab
GCT
TLO
7/16/13
6/13/13
+33
33
131
0.25
Obinutuzumab
CLL
NEJM
1/8/14
11/1/13
+69
33
160
0.21
Afatinib
29
CORRELATION BETWEEN JOURNAL
TWEETS/FDA TWEETS AND JOURNAL
DATE TO FDA DATE OF ONCOLOGY DRUGS
30
CHARACTERIZATION OF TWITTER PROFILE
TYPE RELATED TO NEJM PUBLICATION
AND FDA APPROVAL – ILLUSTRATIVE PC DRUG
31
LIMITATIONS
•
•
Twitter search conducted by generic name
•
Data sampling conducted in general Twitter feeds with no
specialization per medical professionals and
journal/congress-related blogs
Data represent oncology social media and may not be
generalizable across therapeutic areas
32
CONCLUSIONS
•
•
•
•
We observed episodic Twitter usage related to registration
trial publication and regulatory approvals
Focusing on these 2 events failed to show an association
between timing of these events and respective Twitter
activity
Thus, managing timing of registration trial publication to
FDA approval to potentially optimize publication impact may
not be warranted
The presence and visibility of medical professionals on
Twitter, particularly of specialists, is limited and may reflect
privacy and legal concerns
33
FUTURE TRENDS
34
2014 ASCO ANNUAL MEETING
TWEETERS
ASCO Daily News. May 30, 2014. http://am.asco.org/2014-asco-annual-meeting-tweeters. Accessed November 30, 2014.
35
#ASCO2014
CANCER TYPE/TOPIC HASHTAGS
ASCO Daily News. May 30, 2014. http://am.asco.org/2014-asco-annual-meeting-tweeters. Accessed November 30, 2014.
36
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
•
This study, presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of ISMPP
(April 7-9, 2014, Arlington, VA), was authored by Ira Mills,
Hajira B. Koeller, Nathaniel Hoover, Ken Youngren, and
Sheelah Smith
•
The authors would like to thank Mary-Ellen Taplin, MD,
Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School,
and Mary C. Burke, MD, UMass Medical School, for their
insightful comments in the development of this study and for
their critical review of the content
37
BAD NEWS TRAVELS FURTHEST:
THE SOCIAL MEDIA IMPACT OF PUBLICATIONS
AROUND TRIAL DISCLOSURE AND MEDICAL
WRITING
Tom Rees, PhD
Scientific Strategy Advisor, PAREXEL
BEN GOLDACRE LAUNCHED THE ALLTRIALS
CAMPAIGN IN 2013 AS A CALL TO ACTION
The AllTrials campaign: Calls for ALL clinical trials to be registered
and ALL methods and results to be reported
Launched in January 2013
Signed by 532 organizations,
including:
•
•
•
•
•
Patient organizations
GSK
NHS
BMA
UK Clinical Research Collaboration
39
NEGATIVE OPINIONS OF THE PUBLICATIONS
PROFESSIONALS ABOUND
•
Despite many good publications clarifying the issues,
misconceptions remain widespread
– Medical writers are “Ghost writers”
– Negative trials aren’t published
•
Why isn’t the message getting through?
– Perhaps the positive messages aren’t popular?
40
WHAT WE DID
•
Identified 7 representative peer-reviewed commentaries on publications
practice published 2012–2014
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Jones CW, et al. Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis BMJ. 2013;347:f6104
Doshi P, et al. Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings BMJ.
2013;346:f2865
Bosch X, et al. Challenging Medical Ghostwriting in US Courts. PLoS Med. 2012;9(1):e1001163
Rawal B and Deane BR. Clinical trial transparency: an assessment of the disclosure of results of companysponsored trials associated with new medicines approved recently in Europe. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;1-11
Chan A-W, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383:257266
Mansi BA, et al. Ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored clinical
research: a joint journal and pharmaceutical industry perspective. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87(5):424-429
Woolley KL, et al. Time to Finger Point or Fix? An Invitation to Join Ongoing Efforts to Promote Ethical Authorship
and Other Good Publication Practices. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47:1084-1087
Used Altmetric.com to analyse social media impact
41
THE ALTMETRIC SCORE WAS HIGHEST FOR
ARTICLES WITH A NEGATIVE PERSPECTIVE
42
NEGATIVE ARTICLES WERE MORE LIKELY TO BE
COVERED IN NEWS STORIES AND BLOGS
43
MOST TWEETS WERE FROM MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC
Insufficient tweets to analyse Mansi, et al.
44
WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN ALTMETRICS?
•
The negative articles were published in high impact factor
journals with wide readership (BMJ, PLoS Medicine)
– Although Chan, et al was published in the Lancet
•
•
The negative articles carried a clear message
The negative articles appeal to “confirmation bias”
45
AUDIENCE QUESTION
What kind of titles do you click on?
AUDIENCE QUESTION
A. Ones with numbers (5 things that will make you click!)
B. They have between 5 and 9 words
C. I never click on a title unless it has a negative spin
D. Subheadings: they're a real incentive to click
E. A good title is very clear
46
NEGATIVE HEADLINES ARE MORE CLICKABLE!
http://www.outbrain.com/blog/2013/07/brainpower-how-negative-headlines-far-outperform-positive-ones.html
Reproduced with permission.
47
DECONSTRUCTING A TITLE
Negative
6-7 Words
Subheading
Non-publication of large randomized clinical trials: cross sectional analysis
Jones CW, et al. BMJ. 2013;347:f6104
Very clear
Clinical trial transparency: an assessment of the disclosure of results of
company-sponsored trials associated with new medicines approved recently in
Europe.
Rawal B and Deane BR. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;1-11
48
DID IT INFLUENCE THE DEBATE?
TWEETS: #ALLTRIALS
2500
Daily tweets
2000
Doshi, et al
Jones, et al
Chan, et al
1500
Rawal, et al
Woolley, et al
1000
500
0
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
49
DID IT INFLUENCE THE DEBATE?
SENTIMENT: #ALLTRIALS
2500
Daily tweets
2000
Doshi, et al
Jones, et al
Chan, et al
1500
Rawal, et al
Woolley, et al
1000
500
0
Aggregate sentiment score
2000
Jan
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov
Jan
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
50
DID IT INFLUENCE THE DEBATE?
OTHER EVENTS WERE MORE IMPORTANT
2500
Daily tweets
2000
Doshi, et al
Jones, et al
Chan, et al
1500
Rawal, et al
Woolley, et al
1000
500
0
Aggregate sentiment score
2000
GSK
Jan announce Mar
support
1500 Launch
1000
500
May
Goldacre
on BBC
Jul
BMA votes
that nonreporting
is misconduct
Sept
Nov
Jan
European agreement
European
agreement
on
Clinical
Trials
on Clinical Trials
Regulation
Regulation
US
launch
0
-500
-1000
51
CHALLENGE: AUTOMATING SENTIMENT
200 sample
Automated sentiment:
positive, neutral, negative
Same 200 sample
Manual coding: pro, anti,
neutral climate change
Only a 55%
accuracy rate
when trying
to use
machine
learning to
automate
manual
coding
Billy Duffy, 1:AM conference, London, September 2014. Reproduced with permission.
52
SO WHAT ARE PEOPLE TWEETING ABOUT?
“RESTORING INVISIBLE AND ABANDONED TRIALS: A CALL FOR
PEOPLE TO PUBLISH THE FINDINGS” – DOSHI, ET AL
307 tweets in 5 days … then nothing!
53
"WE'VE FOUND EFFECTIVELY NO CORRELATION BETWEEN
SOCIAL SHARES AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY READING."
Haile T. What You Think You Know About the Web Is Wrong. TIME Business. March 19, 2014.
Reproduced with permission.
54
"WE'VE FOUND EFFECTIVELY NO CORRELATION BETWEEN
SOCIAL SHARES AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY READING."
DO WE SHARE THE ARTICLES WE READ?
Nope
Haile T. What You Think You Know About the Web Is Wrong. TIME Business. March 19, 2014.
Reproduced with permission.
55
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
•
For publications to have social impact, they need to have a
clear message and to be in high-profile journals …
•
… but the titles need to confirm biases, otherwise they
won’t be shared
•
Sentiment analysis is currently primitive and is easily
skewed by retweets of titles
56
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
•
This study, presented at the 10th Annual Meeting of
ISMPP (April 7-9, 2014, Arlington, VA), was authored by
Tom Rees (PAREXEL, Worthing UK), Euan Adie
(Altmetric LLP, London) and Sheelah Smith (PAREXEL,
Worthing UK).
57
FOR FOLLOW-UP CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE
PRESENTERS:
•
Sarah Feeny
•
Ira Mills
•
Tom Rees
– sarah.feeny@complete-mc.com or @iamsarahfeeny
– ira.mills@parexel.com or @IraMills
– tom.rees@parexel.com or @tomrees_meded
See the complete posters (Feeny #1, Mills #5, Rees, #24)
@ http://www.ismpp.org/10th-am---poster-presentations
58
QUESTIONS......
To ask a question, please type your query into the
‘Q&A’ chat box at the bottom right of your screen.
Every attempt will be made to answer all questions.
UPCOMING ISMPP U WEBINARS
•
January 2015
– Topic: Guideline Updates & ISMPP Partners
– Date: TBA
•
February 2015
–
–
Topic: MPIP Mission & recent article
Date: TBA
60
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING!
We hope you enjoyed today's presentation.
Please take a moment to click on the link that will
be provided and complete the survey. We depend
on your valuable feedback as we develop future
educational offerings.
61