Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants

被引:112
作者
Baker, CB
Johnsrud, MT
Crismon, ML
Rosenheck, R
Woods, SW
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, New Haven, CT 06519 USA
[2] Connecticut Mental Hlth Ctr, New Haven, CT USA
[3] Univ Texas, Ctr Pharmacoecon Studies, Austin, TX 78712 USA
[4] Texas Dept Mental Hlth & Mental Retardat, Off Med Director, Austin, TX USA
[5] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Psychiat, West Haven, CT 06516 USA
[6] VA NE Program Evaluat Ctr, West Haven, CT USA
[7] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, New Haven, CT 06510 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1192/bjp.183.6.498
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Background Concern is widespread about potential sponsorship influence on research, especially in pharmacoeconomic studies. Quantitative analysis of possible bias in such studies is limited. Aims To determine whether there is an association between sponsorship and quantitative outcomes in pharmacoeconomic studies of antidepressants. Method Using all identifiable articles with original comparative quantitative cost or cost-effectiveness outcomes for antidepressants, we performed contingency table analyses of study sponsorship and design v. study outcome. Results Studies sponsored by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) manufacturers favoured SSRIs over tricyclic antidepressants more than non-industry-sponsored studies. Studies sponsored by manufacturers of newer antidepressants favoured these drugs more than did non-industry-sponsored studies. Among industry-sponsored studies, modelling studies favoured the sponsor's drug more than did administrative studies. Industry-sponsored modelling studies were more favourable to industry than were nonindustry-sponsored ones. Conclusions Pharmacoeconomic studies of antidepressants reveal clear associations of study sponsorship with quantitative outcome. Declaration of interest Range of industry and non-industry funding received, detailed in Acknowledgements.
引用
收藏
页码:498 / 506
页数:9
相关论文
共 85 条
[1]  
ANTON SF, 1995, PSYCHOPHARMACOL BULL, V31, P249
[2]  
*AUSTR GOV, 1995, GUID PHARM IND PREP
[3]   The effectiveness of cost-effectiveness analysis in containing costs [J].
Azimi, NA ;
Welch, HG .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1998, 13 (10) :664-669
[4]   COST-ANALYSIS OF PAROXETINE VERSUS IMIPRAMINE IN MAJOR DEPRESSION [J].
BENTKOVER, JD ;
FEIGHNER, JP .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1995, 8 (03) :223-232
[5]   Economic impact of using mirtazapine compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in the UK [J].
Borghi, J ;
Guest, JF .
EUROPEAN PSYCHIATRY, 2000, 15 (06) :378-387
[6]   Clinical and economic comparison of sertraline and fluoxetine in the treatment of depression - A 6-month double-blind study in a primary-care setting in France [J].
Boyer, P ;
Danion, JM ;
Bisserbe, JC ;
Hotton, JM ;
Troy, S .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1998, 13 (01) :157-169
[7]   Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in Austria [J].
Brown, MCJ ;
Nimmerrichter, AA ;
Guest, JF .
EUROPEAN PSYCHIATRY, 1999, 14 (04) :230-244
[8]  
Brown MCJ, 1999, EUR J PSYCHIAT, V13, P197
[9]  
*CAN COORD OFF HLT, 1998, EVIDENCE BASED MED, V3, P87
[10]  
*CAN COORD OFF HLT, 1994, GUID EC EV PHARM