Associations Between Industry Sponsorship and Results of Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Drugs Used in Breast Cancer Treatment

Lane, Jordan D.; Friedberg, Mark W.; Bennett, Charles L.

doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3928

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previously published studies used selected categories to rate the qualitative cost effectiveness conclusion as favourable, neutral, or unfavourable, either based on the statement made in the original study 4 5 7 9 10 19 20 or by applying selected cost effectiveness thresholds. 1 3 6 Our study did similar analyses that are relatively easier for interpretation and allow for comparison with previous investigations. Moreover, we also assessed the association between the sponsorship and the magnitude of the ICER.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Previous studies of cost effectiveness have been limited in the scope of the investigation by focusing only on specific diseases or interventions. 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 19 Our analysis offers a systematic and comprehensive assessment on the sponsorship bias by analysing all eligible CEAs published since 1976. Previously published studies used selected categories to rate the qualitative cost effectiveness conclusion as favourable, neutral, or unfavourable, either based on the statement made in the original study 4 5 7 9 10 19 20 or by applying selected cost effectiveness thresholds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis

Xie

Zhou

2022

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the association between industry sponsorship (drug, medical device, and biotechnology companies) and cost effectiveness results in cost effectiveness analysis (CEA). Design Registry based analysis Data source The Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry was used to identify all CEAs published in Medline between 1976 and 2021. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies CEAs that reported incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) using quality adjusted life year and provided sufficient information about the magnitude or location of the ICER. Methods Descriptive analyses were used to describe and compare the characteristics of CEAs with and without industry sponsorship. Logistic regression was used to identify the association between industry sponsorship and the cost effective conclusion using selected threshold values ($50 000 (£40 511; €47 405), $100 000, and $150 000). Robust linear regression was used to assess the association between industry sponsorship and the magnitude of ICER. All regression analyses were adjusted for disease and study design characteristics. Results 8192 CEAs were eligible and included in the analysis, with 2437 (29.7%) sponsored by industry. Industry sponsored CEAs were more likely to publish ICERs below $50 000 (adjusted odds ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.82 to 2.33), $100 000 (2.95, 2.52 to 3.44), and $150 000 (3.34, 2.80 to 3.99) than non-industry sponsored studies. Among 5877 CEAs that reported positive incremental costs and quality adjusted life years, ICERs from industry sponsored studies were 33% lower (95% confidence interval −40 to −26) than those from non-industry sponsored studies. Conclusions Sponsorship bias in CEAs is significant, systemic, and present across a range of diseases and study designs. Use of CEAs conducted by independent bodies could provide payers with more ability to negotiate lower prices. This impartiality is especially important for countries that rely on published CEAs to inform policy making for insurance coverage because of limited capacity for independent economic analysis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis

Xie

Zhou

2022

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While these studies also found a strong relationship between pharmaceutical funding and costeffectiveness benefit, both examined cost-effectiveness studies published during earlier years than we did. 16,17 Further, Garattini et al 16…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While these studies also found a strong relationship between pharmaceutical funding and cost-effectiveness benefit, both examined cost-effectiveness studies published during earlier years than we did. 16 , 17 Further, Garattini et al 16 examined studies published between 2004 to 2009 and did not limit by drug or indication; Lane et al 17 examined studies published between 1991 to 2021 and focused on drugs approved for breast cancer only. Our study examines more contemporary cost-effectiveness studies and brings to light that while the percentage of studies not disclosing funding was slightly lower in those published 2017 to 2020, compared with 2015 to 2016 (25% vs 21%), the influence of COI in the study results is as pervasive now as it was before the recommendations by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine in 2016.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26 It is also important to note that the study by Delea et al was sponsored by the manufacturer of BV, with prior work suggesting that published CEAs are more likely to identify favorable ICERs when supported by pharmaceutical organizations. 31 Last, the calculated ICERs of both CEA models are highly sensitive to the modified PFS of BV 1 AVD compared with ABVD, with Huntington et al predicting an ICER of $114 046/QALY if the HR was 0.5 (ie, absolute 2-year PFS difference between BV 1 AVD and ABVD of 10.8%) ( Figure 2).…”

Section: Cost Of Available First-line Chl Therapiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cure at what (systemic) financial cost? Integrating novel therapies into first-line Hodgkin lymphoma treatment

Huntington

2019

Hematology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) stands out as success story in the field of medical oncology, with multiagent chemotherapy with or without radiation leading to durable remission for most patients. Large-scale clinical trials during the past 40 years have sought to minimize toxicities while maintaining strong efficacy, including efforts to reduce the size of radiation fields, minimize alkylator chemotherapy, reduce the number of chemotherapy cycles, and omit radiation in select populations. The last decade has also ushered in novel therapies, including brentuximab vedotin (BV), that have improved clinical outcomes for patients with cHL resistant to standard cytotoxic therapies. More recently, a large randomized trial compared BV plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced stage cHL. With ∼24 months of available follow-up, the BV containing regimen was found to be associated with a reduction in the risk of progression, death, or incomplete response to first-line treatment (modified progression-free survival). Whether this early signal of improved efficacy is worth the additional acute toxicities and added drug-related expenses associated with incorporating BV into first-line treatment remains controversial. This chapter provides historical background; reviews the cost-effectiveness of available cHL therapies; and summarizes potential ways to balance innovation, affordability, and patient access to novel therapeutics.

show abstract

Associations Between Industry Sponsorship and Results of Cost-effectiveness Analyses of Drugs Used in Breast Cancer Treatment

Cited by 9 publications

References 4 publications

Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis

Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis

Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020

Cure at what (systemic) financial cost? Integrating novel therapies into first-line Hodgkin lymphoma treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About