gms | German Medical Science

11. Jahrestagung 2004 der GAA

Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie

30.09. bis 01.10.2004, Jena

Industry-sponsored economic studies in oncology versus studies sponsored by non-profit organizations

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • corresponding author presenting/speaker M. Hartmann - Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena
  • D. Schulz - Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena

Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelanwendungsforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie (GAA) e.V.. 11. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie (GAA) e.V.. Jena, 30.09.-01.10.2004. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2004. Doc04gaa15

Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist vollständig und ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/de/meetings/gaa2004/04gaa15.shtml

Veröffentlicht: 30. September 2004

© 2004 Hartmann et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielf&aauml;ltigt, verbreitet und &oauml;ffentlich zug&aauml;nglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.


Gliederung

Text

Context and Aim of the Study

The purpose of this analysis of health economic studies in the field of oncology was to investigate among sponsored studies whether any relationship could be established between type of sponsorship and: (1) type of economic analysis, (2) health technology assessed, (3) sensitivity analysis performed, (4) publication status, and (5) qualitative conclusions about costs.

Material and Methods

The Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED, Version 1995-2002) was searched on the basis of oncological ICD-9 codes, sponsorship, and comparative studies. This search yielded a total of 150 eligible articles. Their evaluations were prepared independently by two investigators on the basis of specific criteria. When evaluators disagreed, a third investigator provided a deciding evaluation.

Results

There was no statistically significant relationship between type of sponsorship and sensitivity analysis performed (p = 0.29) or publication status (p = 0.08). However, we found a significant relationship between the types of sponsorship and of economic analysis (p = 0.004), the health technology assessed (p < 0.0001), and qualitative cost-assessment (p = 0.002). Studies with industrial sponsorship were 2.56 (99% lower-CI = 1.28) times more likely to involve cost-minimization analyses, were 0.04 (99% higher-CI = 0.39) times less likely to investigate diagnostic screening methods, and were 1.86 (99% lower-CI = 1.21) times more likely to reach a positive qualitative conclusion about costs than studies supported by nonprofit organizations.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that there is a greater probability that industry-sponsored economic studies in the field of oncology tend to be cost-minimization analyses, to investigate less likely diagnostic screening methods, and to draw a positive qualitative cost assessment, as compared to studies supported by nonprofit organizations.

Conflict of interest: None