Sponsorship-Related Outcome Selection Bias in Published Economic Studies of Triptans

Peura, Pekka; Martikainen, Janne; Purmonen, Timo; Turunen, Juha

doi:10.1177/0272989x11403834

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are consistent with other studies assessing the relationship between the source of funding and the cost-effectiveness findings, specifically for oncologic drugs [29–33], neuropsychiatric drugs [34–36], venous thromboembolism pharmacologic prevention [37], drug-eluting stents [38], bisphosphonates for osteoporosis treatment [39], Pap tests for cervical cancer diagnosis [40]. They are also consistent with the CEAs submitted by manufacturers to health technology assessment agencies [5,6], and/or reviews selecting general cost-effectiveness studies [4,7,41,42].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWe examined sponsorship of published cost-effectiveness analyses of statin use for cardiovascular (CV) prevention, and determined whether the funding source is associated with study conclusions.Methods and FindingsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE (up to June 2011) to identify cost-effectiveness analyses of statin use for CV prevention reporting outcomes as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and/or life years gained (LYG). We examined relationships between the funding source and the study conclusions by means of tests of differences between proportions. Seventy-five studies were included. Forty-eight studies (64.0%) were industry-sponsored. Fifty-two (69.3%) articles compared statins versus non-active alternatives. Secondary CV prevention represented 42.7% of articles, followed by primary CV prevention (38.7%) and both (18.7%). Overall, industry-sponsored studies were much less likely to report unfavourable or neutral conclusions (0% versus 37.1%; p<0.001). For primary CV prevention, the proportion with unfavourable or neutral conclusions was 0% for industry-sponsored studies versus 57.9% for non-sponsored studies (p<0.001). Conversely, no statistically significant differences were identified for studies evaluating secondary CV prevention (0% versus 12.5%; p=0.222). Incremental costs per QALY/LYG estimates reported in industry-sponsored studies were generally more likely to fall below a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of US $50,000.ConclusionsOur systematic analysis suggests that pharmaceutical industry sponsored economic evaluations of statins have generally favored the cost-effectiveness profile of their products particularly in primary CV prevention.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[3][4][5] Industry-funded (IF) studies have been shown to report more favorable base-case cost-effectiveness values. [6][7][8][9][10][11] Mechanisms for this have been proposed, 7,[11][12][13] one of them being the tendency of IF studies to use favorable base-case values. 14,15 The association between the extent to which uncertainty is considered in a health economic evaluation and sponsorship has not been investigated.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sponsorship Bias in Base-Case Values and Uncertainty Bounds of Health Economic Evaluations? A Systematic Review of Herpes Zoster Vaccination

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Examples include studies for statins in cardiovascular prevention, 58 oncologic drugs, 9,59-61 neuropsychiatric drugs, 62,63 and bisphosphonates for osteoporosis treatment. 64 The influence of industry funding on cost-effectiveness results has been considered a hot topic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of health economic evaluations of vaccines in Brazil

Sartori

Rozman

Decimoni

et al. 2017

Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods: Systematic review of the literature. We searched multiple databases. Two researchers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The methodological quality of individual studies was evaluated using CHEERS items. Results: Twenty studies were reviewed. The most evaluated vaccines were pneumococcal (25%) and HPV (15%). The most used types of HEE were cost-effectiveness analysis (45%) and cost-utility analysis (20%). The research question and compared strategies were stated in all 20 studies and the target population was clear in 95%. Nevertheless, many studies did not inform the perspective of analysis or data sources. Conclusions: HEE of vaccines in Brazil has increased since 2008. However, the studies still have methodological deficiencies.

show abstract

Sponsorship-Related Outcome Selection Bias in Published Economic Studies of Triptans

Abstract: The results of published economic studies of triptans are conflicting and biased. There is a tendency to select clinical outcome measures that support the sponsor's product. This leads to concern about the possible poor applicability of these results in decision making.

Cited by 20 publications

References 40 publications

When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins

When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins

Sponsorship Bias in Base-Case Values and Uncertainty Bounds of Health Economic Evaluations? A Systematic Review of Herpes Zoster Vaccination

A systematic review of health economic evaluations of vaccines in Brazil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About