Cargando…

Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xie, Feng, Zhou, Ting
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9214880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35732297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-069573
_version_ 1784731105581072384
author Xie, Feng
Zhou, Ting
author_facet Xie, Feng
Zhou, Ting
author_sort Xie, Feng
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9214880
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92148802022-07-07 Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis Xie, Feng Zhou, Ting BMJ Research 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. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2022-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9214880/ /pubmed/35732297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-069573 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Xie, Feng
Zhou, Ting
Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis
title Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis
title_full Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis
title_fullStr Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis
title_full_unstemmed Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis
title_short Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis
title_sort industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9214880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35732297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-069573
work_keys_str_mv AT xiefeng industrysponsorshipbiasincosteffectivenessanalysisregistrybasedanalysis
AT zhouting industrysponsorshipbiasincosteffectivenessanalysisregistrybasedanalysis