Summary
Pharmacoeconomic studies can help decision-makers choose the most efficient drug treatments in our internationally cost-constrained healthcare environment. However, perceptions of bias about the nature of many economic evaluations limit the usefulness of pharmacoeconomic data to decision-makers. In an effort to increase the credibility of pharmacoeconomic studies, several groups have developed methodological guidelines, and one has developed ethical guidelines for these evaluations.
In this article, we evaluate issues related to the publication of the results of pharmacoeconomic studies. Pharmacoeconomics is a true science (and should be so treated), rather than a form of marketing. Pharmacoeconomic studies must undergo the same peer review process and be published in serious research journals, as are other types of scientific investigations. Investigators should attempt to publish the results of pharmacoeconomic studies, even (and, perhaps, especially) when the results are not favourable to the sponsor.
However, there are acceptable reasons to withhold publication of ‘negative’ results. For example, when methodological problems plague a study, or when the study addresses an investigational drug not likely to be approved, then researchers are justified in giving up on publication, if they so choose. Similarly, feasibility studies to test methods of data collection or analyses conducted very early in the drug development process need not always be published. Nonetheless, access to all important investigations - regardless of whether the results are positive or negative - will become more important as healthcare becomes more evidence-based, as decisions have impact on large populations of people, and as those in charge of formularies actually begin to use cost-effectiveness analysis to help make choices among competing drugs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hillman AL, Eisenberg JM, Pauly MV, et al. Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 1362–1365
Pharmacoeconomic oversight by FDA may have hospital pharmacist support, according to ASHP; Philadelphia research firm finds PE sophistication in MCOs. Pink Sheet 1995 Oct 30: 8-10
Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journals policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 669–670
Clemens K, Townsend R, Luscombe F, et al. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8: 169–174
Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 61–70
Drummond MF. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 8–13
Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its outcome. JAMA 1990; 263: 1385–1389
Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990; 263: 1405–1408
Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Paltiel AD. The FDA and regulation of cost-effectiveness claims. Health Aff 1996; 15: 54–71
Schulman K, Sulmasy DP, Roney D. Ethics, economics, and the publication policies of major medical journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 154–156
King RT. How a drug firm paid for university study, then under- mined it. Wall Street J 1996 Apr 25; Sect. A: 1
Rennie D. Thyroid storm. JAMA 1997; 277: 1238–1243
Luce BR, Lyles CA, Rentz AM. The view from managed care pharmacy. Health Aff 1996; 15: 168–176
Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users guides to the medical literature: VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994; 272: 1367–1371
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yee, G.C., Hillman, A.L. Applied Pharmacoeconomics. Pharmacoeconomics 12, 511–516 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712050-00001
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712050-00001