ISSN:
1569-8041
Keywords:
cost-effectiveness
;
economic analyses
;
pharmaceutical sponsorship
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Medicine
Notes:
Abstract Purpose:Our prior study found that pharmaceutical-sponsored andnon-profit sponsored analyses differed in their published assessments of theeconomic value of six new oncology drugs. In this study, we expand on ourearlier findings and evaluate the association between funding source and 1)characteristics of the published study report and 2) journal type fordissemination of the previously evaluated economic studies. Methods:We reviewed the published cost-effectiveness literaturefor hematopoietic colony stimulating factors, 5-HT3 antagonist antiemetics,and taxanes. Two blinded investigators rated specific aspects of studyreporting based on the US Public Health Service Panel on Cost-effectivenessin Health and Medicine criteria. Dissemination strategies were evaluated usingimpact factor scores from the Science Citation Index. Results:The operational aspects of pharmaceutical-sponsored studyreporting were better overall than those associated with non-profit sponsoredstudies. Specifically, pharmaceutical-sponsored studies were more likely tobe reported based on data obtained from randomized clinical trials or detailedcost-models (90% vs. 70%), to include descriptions of the sourceof cost differences (90% vs. 79%), to state whether the studywas carried out from a societal, governmental, or insurer perspective(70% vs. 42%), and to clearly indicate the time-period overwhich costs were evaluated (65% vs. 50%). Nonprofit sponsoredstudies were more likely than pharmaceutical sponsored studies to report thegeneralizability of the findings, including being more likely to includeinformation about how the data could be extrapolated to other clinicalsettings (58% vs. 35%), to include statements on the statisticalsignificance of the findings (38% vs. 20%), and to clearlyoutline the cost per unit and data sources for the cost analyses (67%vs. 45%). A similar percent of pharmaceutical and non-profit sponsoredstudies reported background and conclusions with about 80% providingliterature comparisons of the results (about 80%) and two thirds tothree fourths discussing the limitations of the finding (75% forpharmaceutical-sponsored and 67% for non-profit sponsored studies).Most studies were published in low impact factor peer-reviewed journals, andjournal impact factor scores were similar between pharmaceutical and nonprofitsponsored studies. Conclusions:Upon reviewing the entire pharmacoeconomic literaturefor six new oncology drugs, we identified differences in study reporting, butnot in types of journals where studies were published, betweenpharmaceutical-sponsored and non-profit sponsored studies. These results,particularly the observed differences in data generalizability, may accountin part for our previous finding of lower likelihood of reporting unfavorableconclusions in pharmaceutical-sponsored studies.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008309817708
Permalink
