Conflict of interest in industrysponsored economic evaluations: Real or imagined?
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
As industry sponsorship of pharmacoeconomic studies has increased, concerns have been raised about potential biases, owing to the conflicts of interest that this sponsorship creates. A review of the literature indicates that there are some causes for concern, given the fact that most pharmacoeconomic studies report positive findings for the sponsor’s drug. However, a more detailed analysis suggests that, although the methodologic quality of some published studies may be poor, the main reason for positive results is that companies only sponsor economic studies where a positive outcome is likely. Therefore, it is concluded that the best way of dealing with perceptions of sponsorship bias is not increased rhetoric, but rather increased public funding for economic evaluation of medicines, thereby creating a true mixed economy for research funding in this field.
- Morgan S, Baker M, Evans R: Health economists meet the fourth tempter: drug dependency and scientific discourse. Health Econ 2000, 9:659–667. One of the most recent papers investigating the potential for bias in industry-sponsored clinical and cost-effectiveness studies. CrossRef
- Hillman AL, Eisenberg JM, Pauly MV, et al.: Avoiding bias in the conduct of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 1991, 324:1362–1365. CrossRef
- Krimsky S: Conflict of interest and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1999, 282:1474–1475. CrossRef
- Freemantle N, Maynard A: Something rotten in the state of clinical and economic evaluation. Health Econ 1994, 3:305–307. CrossRef
- Evans RG: Manufacturing consensus, marketing truth: guidelines for economic evaluation, Ann Intern Med 1995, 123:59–60.
- Drummond MF: Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics 1992, 1:1–13.
- Relman AS: Dealing with conflict of interest. N Engl J Med 1984, 310:1182–1183. CrossRef
- Drummond MF: Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics 1998, 14:1–9. The author investigates some of the main issues related to the potential for bias of industry-sponsored studies, in particular whether this potential for bias is perceived or not. Suggestions are made for minimizing the risk of bias and what other initiatives should or could be undertaken. CrossRef
- Schulman KA, Rubestein LE, Glick HA, et al.: Relationships between sponsors and investigators in pharmacoeconomics and clinical research. Pharmacoeconomics 1995, 7:206–220.
- Schwarz RP: Maintaining integrity and credibility in industry-sponsored clinical research. Controlled Clin Trials 1991, 12:53–60.
- Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky AS: Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 1998, 338:101–106. CrossRef
- Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, et al.: A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med 1994, 154:157–163. CrossRef
- Davidson RA: Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1986, 1:155–158. CrossRef
- Cho MK, Bero LA: The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 1996, 124:485–489.
- Barnes DA, Bero LA: Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 1998, 154:157–163.
- Azimi NA, Welsh G: The effectiveness of cost-effectiveness analysis in containing costs. J Gen Intern Med 1998, 13:664–669. One of the first reviews of cost-effectiveness analysis performed in order to investigate potential conflict of interest in companysponsored studies. The authors found that industry-financed cost-effectiveness analyses were more likely to support additional expenditures for investigational drugs than standard treatments. CrossRef
- Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, et al.: Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999, 282:1453–1457. A recent review of cost-effectiveness analyses of oncology drugs. The authors found that industry-sponsored studies were less likely than studies sponsored by nonprofit institutions to report unfavorable conclusions and more likely to overstate quantitative results. CrossRef
- Sacristan JA, Bolanos E, Hernandez JM, et al.: Publication bias in health economics. Pharmacoeconomics 1997, 11:289–291.
- Drummond MF, Cooke J, Walley T: Economic evaluation under managed competition: evidence from UK. Soc Sci Med 1997, 45:583–595. CrossRef
- Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology: Economic analysis of health care technology: a report on principles. Ann Intern Med 1995, 123:61–70.
- Gagnon JP: Sources of bias in the economic analysis of new drugs [letter]. JAMA 2000, 283:1423–1425. CrossRef
- Le Pen C: Sources of bias in the economic analysis of new drugs [letter]. JAMA 2000, 283:1423–1425. CrossRef
- Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, et al.: Publication and related bias. Health Technol Assess 2000, 4:1–115. A systematic review of publication bias and related biases. The authors investigate the issue from different perspectives: investigators, authors, editors, peer reviewers, and research funding bodies.
- Dickersin K, Yuan-I Min, Meinert CL: Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 2000, 267:374–378. CrossRef
- Easterbook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR: Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991, 337:867–872. CrossRef
- Freestone DS, Mitchell H: Inappropriate publication of trial results and potential for allegations of illegal share dealing. BMJ 1993, 306:1112–1114. CrossRef
- Drummond R: Publication bias: the triumph of hope over experience. JAMA 1992, 267:411–412. CrossRef
- Gazzaniga P, Garattini L: Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: a critical appraisal of seven studies on cholesterollowering agents. Pharmacoeconomics 1992, 2:270–278.
- Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment: Herceptin: monoclonal antibody therapy for metastatic breast cancer; 1998. Accessible at www.ccohta.ca
- National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment: A systematic review of the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of the taxanes used in the treatment of advanced breast and ovarian cancer; 2000. Accessible at www.ncchta.org
- Conflict of interest in industrysponsored economic evaluations: Real or imagined?
Current Oncology Reports
Volume 3, Issue 5 , pp 410-413
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Current Medicine Group
- Additional Links