Skip to main content
Log in

Applied Pharmacoeconomics

When Can Publication Be Legitimately Withheld?

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kassirer JP, Angell M. The journals policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 669–670

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Clemens K, Townsend R, Luscombe F, et al. Methodological and conduct principles for pharmacoeconomic research. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 8: 169–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Task Force on Principles for Economic Analysis of Health Care Technology. Economic analysis of health care technology. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 61–70

    Google Scholar 

  6. Drummond MF. Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1: 8–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its outcome. JAMA 1990; 263: 1385–1389

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990; 263: 1405–1408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Neumann PJ, Zinner DE, Paltiel AD. The FDA and regulation of cost-effectiveness claims. Health Aff 1996; 15: 54–71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schulman K, Sulmasy DP, Roney D. Ethics, economics, and the publication policies of major medical journals. JAMA 1994; 272: 154–156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. King RT. How a drug firm paid for university study, then under- mined it. Wall Street J 1996 Apr 25; Sect. A: 1

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rennie D. Thyroid storm. JAMA 1997; 277: 1238–1243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Luce BR, Lyles CA, Rentz AM. The view from managed care pharmacy. Health Aff 1996; 15: 168–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users guides to the medical literature: VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994; 272: 1367–1371

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan L. Hillman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712050-00001

Keywords

Navigation