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
[41]  
LAUPACIS A, 1992, CAN MED ASSOC J, V146, P473
[42]   THE COST OF TREATMENT DROPOUT IN DEPRESSION - A COST-BENEFIT-ANALYSIS OF FLUOXETINE VS TRICYCLICS [J].
LEPEN, C ;
LEVY, E ;
RAVILY, V ;
BEUZEN, JN ;
MEURGEY, F .
JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS, 1994, 31 (01) :1-18
[43]  
LUCE BR, 1995, DRUG INF J, V29, P1469
[44]   Manufacturer support and outcome [J].
Mandelkern, M .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY, 1999, 60 (02) :122-122
[45]   Computer modelling - The need for careful evaluation and public audit [J].
Maynard, A ;
Cookson, RF .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1998, 14 (Suppl 2) :67-72
[46]   Testing the validity of cost-effectiveness models [J].
McCabe, C ;
Dixon, S .
PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2000, 17 (05) :501-513
[47]   COST-EFFECTIVENESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR MANAGED CARE SYSTEMS - TREATING DEPRESSION IN PRIMARY-CARE [J].
MCFARLAND, BH .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1994, 97 :S47-S58
[48]  
Melton ST, 1997, PSYCHOPHARMACOL BULL, V33, P93
[49]   Economic analysis of treating depression with nefazodone v imipramine [J].
Montgomery, SA ;
Brown, RE ;
Clark, M .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 1996, 168 (06) :768-771
[50]   Paying the piper for pharmacoeconomic studies [J].
Neumann, PJ .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 1998, 18 (02) :S23-S26