Industry-Sponsored Economic Studies in Critical and Intensive Care Versus Studies Sponsored by Nonprofit Organizations

Hartmann, Michael; Knoth, Holger; Schulz, D; Knoth, Sven; Meier‐Hellmann, Andreas

doi:10.1177/0885066603255683

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another study in the field of oncology, Friedberg et al [38] found that, in 44 identified articles, industry sponsorship was more likely to report positive results. [39] Baker et al [40] studied 46 economic evaluations of antidepressants and found a clear relationship between study sponsorship and reporting of positive outcomes. [39] Baker et al [40] studied 46 economic evaluations of antidepressants and found a clear relationship between study sponsorship and reporting of positive outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Funding Source Influence the Results in Economic Evaluations?

Fleurence¹,

Spackman

Hollenbeak

2010

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is often assumed to be more likely to report favourable cost-effectiveness results. To determine whether there was a relationship between the source of funding and the reporting of positive results. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify economic evaluations of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. We extracted the source of funding, region of study, the journal name and impact factor, and all reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We identified which ICERs were under the thresholds of $US20 000, $US50 000 and $US100 000 per QALY. A quality score between 0 and 7 was also given to each of the studies. We used generalized estimating equations for the analysis. The systematic review yielded 532 potential abstracts; 17 of these met our final eligibility criteria. Ten studies (59%) were funded by non-industry sources. A total of 571 ICERs were analysed. There was no significant difference between the number of industry- and non-industry-funded studies reporting ICERs below the thresholds of $US20 000 and $US50 000. However, industry-sponsored studies were more likely to report ICERs below $US100 000 (odds ratio = 4.69, 95% CI 1.77, 12.43). Studies of higher methodological quality (scoring >4.5 of 7) were less likely to report ICERs below $US20 000 and $US50 000 than studies of lower methodological quality (scores <4). Methodological quality was not significantly different between studies reporting ICERs under $US100 000. In this relatively small sample of studies of bisphosphonates, the funding source (industry vs non-industry) did not seem to significantly affect the reporting of ICERs below the $US20 000 and $US50 000 thresholds. We hypothesize that methodological quality might be a more significant factor than the source of funding in differentiating which studies are likely to report favourable ICERs, with the higher-quality studies significantly less likely to report ICERs below $US20 000 and $US50 000 per QALY. Further research should explore this finding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Funding Source Influence the Results in Economic Evaluations?

Fleurence¹,

Spackman

Hollenbeak

2010

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence has consistently shown that industry-funded economic evaluations were more likely to report favourable cost effectiveness results to the sponsor. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Most of the published studies, however, were limited to specific diseases or treatments—for example, cancer, 2 6 7 9 10 antidepressants, 3 herpes zoster vaccine, 5 and statins. 4 The most recent analysis of bias in cost effectiveness studies based on systematic literature review was published more than 15 years ago.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Industry’s economic ties to insurance coverage approval could lead to sponsorship bias in CEAs. Evidence has consistently shown that industry-funded economic evaluations were more likely to report favourable cost effectiveness results to the sponsor 12345678910. Most of the published studies, however, were limited to specific diseases or treatments—for example, cancer,267910 antidepressants,3 herpes zoster vaccine,5 and statins 4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Industry-Sponsored Economic Studies in Critical and Intensive Care Versus Studies Sponsored by Nonprofit Organizations

Cited by 2 publications

References 14 publications

Does the Funding Source Influence the Results in Economic Evaluations?

Does the Funding Source Influence the Results in Economic Evaluations?

Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About