Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does the Funding Source Influence the Results in Economic Evaluations?

A Case Study in Bisphosphonates for the Treatment of Osteoporosis

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is often assumed to be more likely to report favourable cost-effectiveness results.

Objective: To determine whether there was a relationship between the source of funding and the reporting of positive results.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify economic evaluations of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. We extracted the source of funding, region of study, the journal name and impact factor, and all reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We identified which ICERs were under the thresholds of $US20 000, $US50 000 and $US100 000 per QALY. A quality score between 0 and 7 was also given to each of the studies. We used generalized estimating equations for the analysis.

Result: The systematic review yielded 532 potential abstracts; 17 of these met our final eligibility criteria. Ten studies (59%) were funded by non-industry sources. A total of 571 ICERs were analysed. There was no significant difference between the number of industry- and non-industry-funded studies reporting ICERs below the thresholds of $US20 000 and $US50 000. However, industry-sponsored studies were more likely to report ICERs below $US100 000 (odds ratio = 4.69, 95% CI 1.77, 12.43). Studies of higher methodological quality (scoring >4.5 of 7) were less likely to report ICERs below $US20 000 and $US50 000 than studies of lower methodological quality (scores <4). Methodological quality was not significantly different between studies reporting ICERs under $US100 000.

Conclusions: In this relatively small sample of studies of bisphosphonates, the funding source (industry vs non-industry) did not seem to significantly affect the reporting of ICERs below the $US20 000 and $US50 000 thresholds. We hypothesize that methodological quality might be a more significant factor than the source of funding in differentiating which studies are likely to report favourable ICERs, with the higher-quality studies significantly less likely to report ICERs below $US20 000 and $US50 000 per QALY. Further research should explore this finding.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Table III
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taylor RS, Drummond MF, Salkeld G, et al. Inclusion of cost effectiveness in licensing requirements of new drugs: the fourth hurdle. BMJ 2004 Oct 23; 329 (7472): 972–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [online]. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 Jun

    Google Scholar 

  3. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fmcpnet.org/data/resource/Format~Version_2_1~Final_Final.pdf [Accessed 2009 Dec 16]

  4. Neumann PJ. Evidence-based and value-based formulary guidelines. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004 Jan-Feb; 23 (1): 124–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tufts Medical Center. The CEA registry [online]. Available from URL: https://research.tufts-nemc.org/cear/default.aspx [Accessed 2009 Dec 15]

  6. Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG, et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ 2006 Mar 25; 332 (7543): 699–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fleurence RL, Iglesias CP, Johnson JM. The cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis: a structured review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (11): 913–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, et al. Use of costeffectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge? Value Health 2004 Sep-Oct; 7 (5): 518–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Evans C, Tavakoli M, Crawford B. Use of quality adjusted life years and life years gained as benchmarks in economic evaluations: a critical appraisal. Health Care Manag Sci 2004 Feb; 7 (1): 43–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. CMAJ 1992 Feb 15; 146 (4): 473–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Neumann PJ, Greenberg D, Olchanski NV, et al. Growth and quality of the cost-utility literature, 1976–2001. Value Health 2005 Jan-Feb; 8 (1): 3–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Owens DK. Interpretation of cost-effectiveness analyses. J Gen Intern Med 1998 Oct; 13 (10): 716–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Neumann PJ, Stone PW, Chapman RH, et al. The quality of reporting in published cost-utility analyses, 1976–1997. Ann Intern Med 2000 Jun 20; 132 (12): 964–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ankjaer-Jensen A, Johnell O. Prevention of osteoporosis: cost-effectiveness of different pharmaceurical treatments. Osteoporos Int 1996; 6 (4): 265–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Aursnes I, Storvik G, Gasemyr J, et al. A Bayesian analysis of bisphosphonate effects and cost-effectiveness in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2000; 9 (6): 501–9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Buckley LM, Hillner BE. Acost effectiveness analysis of calcium and vitamin D supplementation, etidronate, and alendronate in the prevention of vertebral fractures in women treated with glucocorticoids. J Rheumatol 2003 Jan; 30 (1): 132–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Francis RM, Anderson FH, Torgerson DJ. A comparison of the effectiveness and cost of treatment for vertebral fractures in women. Br J Rheumatol 1995 Dec; 34 (12): 1167–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rodriguez Escolar C, Fidalgo Garcia ML, Rubio Cerbrian S. A cost-effectiveness analysis of alendronate compared to placebo in the prevention of hip fracture. Atencion Primaria 1999 Oct; 24 (7): 390–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rosner AJ, Grima DT, Torrance GW, et al. Cost effectiveness of multi-therapy treatment strategies in the prevention of vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 1998 Nov; 14 (5): 559–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Borgstrom F, Johnell O, Jonsson B, et al. Cost effectiveness of alendronate for the treatment of male osteoporosis in Sweden. Bone 2004 Jun; 34 (6): 1064–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brown MA, Bradlow J, Gray AM. Cost effectiveness of bone density measurements. J Br Menopause Soc 2001 Sep; 7 (3): 130–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Christensen PM, Brixen K, Gyrd-Hansen D, et al. Costeffectiveness of alendronate in the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in Danish women. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2005 May; 96 (5): 387–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Coyle D, Cranney A, Lee KM, et al. Cost effectiveness of nasal calcitonin in postmenopausal women: use of Cochrane Collaboration methods for meta-analysis within economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (5 Pt 2): 565–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Grima DT, Burge RT, Becker DL, et al. Short-term cost-effectiveness of bisphosphonate therapies for postmenopausal osteoporotic women at high risk of fracture. P T 2002 Sep; 27 (9): 448–55

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hart WM, Rubio-Terres C, Burrell A, et al. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis with risedronate or alendronate. Rev Esp Enferm Metab Oseas 2002; 11 (3): 97–104

    Google Scholar 

  26. Iglesias CP, Torgerson DJ, Bearne A, et al. The cost utility of bisphosphonate treatment in established osteoporosis. QJM 2002 May; 95 (5): 305–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnell O, Jonsson B, Jonsson L, et al. Cost effectiveness of alendronate (fosamax) for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of fractures. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (5): 305–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kanis JA, Borgstrom F, Johnell O, et al. Cost-effectiveness of risedronate for the treatment of osteoporosis and prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women. Osteoporos Int 2004 Nov; 15 (11): 862–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kanis JA, Brazier JE, Stevenson M, et al. Treatment of established osteoporosis: a systematic review and cost-utility analysis. Health Technol Assess 2002; 6 (29): 1–146

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mobley LR, Hoerger TJ, Wittenborn JS, et al. Costeffectiveness of osteoporosis screening and treatment with hormone replacement therapy, raloxifene, or alendronate. Med Decis Making 2006 Mar-Apr; 26 (2): 194–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pfister AK, Welch CA, Lester MD, et al. Cost-effectiveness strategies to treat osteoporosis in elderly women. South Med J 2006 Feb; 99 (2): 123–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schousboe JT, Ensrud KE, Nyman JA, et al. Potential cost-effective use of spine radiographs to detect vertebral deformity and select osteopenic post-menopausal women for amino-bisphosphonate therapy. Osteoporos Int 2005 Dec; 16 (12): 1883–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schousboe JT, Ensrud KE, Nyman JA, et al. Universal bone densitometry screening combined with alendronate therapy for those diagnosed with osteoporosis is highly cost-effective for elderly women. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005 Oct; 53 (10): 1697–704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Schousboe JT, Nyman JA, Kane RL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of alendronate therapy for osteopenic postmenopausal women. Ann Intern Med 2005 May 3; 142 (9): 734–41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Solomon DH, Kuntz KM. Should postmenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis who are starting corticosteroid treatment be screened for osteoporosis? A cost-effectiveness analysis. Arthritis Rheum 2000 Sep; 43 (9): 1967–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Stevenson M, Jones ML, De Nigris E, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of alendronate, etidronate, risedronate, raloxifene and teriparatide for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Health Technol Assess 2005 Jun; 9 (22): 1–160

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hartmann M, Knoth H, Schulz D, et al. Industry-sponsored economic studies in oncology vs studies sponsored by nonprofit organisations. Br J Cancer 2003 Oct 20; 89 (8): 1405–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, et al. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999 Oct 20; 282 (15): 1453–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Hartmann M, Knoth H, Schulz D, et al. Industry-sponsored economic studies in critical and intensive care versus studies sponsored by nonprofit organizations. J Intensive Care Med 2003 Sep-Oct; 18 (5): 265–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, et al. Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 2003 Dec; 183: 498–506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Miners AH, Garau M, Fidan D, et al. Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ 2005 Jan 8; 330 (7482): 65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King Jr JT, et al. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care 2008 Apr; 46 (4): 349–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Luce BR, Mauskopf J, Sloan FA, et al. The return on investment in health care: from 1980 to 2000. Value Health 2006 May-Jun; 9 (3): 146–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Coyle D, Tosteson AN. Towards a reference case for economic evaluation of osteoporosis treatments. J Rheumatol Suppl 2003 Dec; 68: 31–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models: a suggested framework and example of application. Pharmacoeconomics 2000 May; 17 (5): 461–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices — Modeling Studies. Value Health 2003 Jan-Feb; 6 (1): 9–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lipsitz SR, Fitzmaurice GM, Orav EJ, et al. Performance of generalized estimating equations in practical situations. Biometrics 1994 Mar; 50 (1): 270–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

United BioSource Corporation is a private research organization that consults for several of the companies manufacturing the agents reviewed in this study. These companies were not involved in the funding, conception, development and writing of this article. There was no funding support received for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. United BioSource Corporation, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 600, Bethesda, Maryland, 20814, USA

    Rachael L. Fleurence

  2. Department of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

    D. Eldon Spackman

  3. Surgery and Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA

    Christopher Hollenbeak

Authors
  1. Rachael L. Fleurence
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Eldon Spackman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Hollenbeak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachael L. Fleurence.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fleurence, R.L., Spackman, D.E. & Hollenbeak, C. Does the Funding Source Influence the Results in Economic Evaluations?. Pharmacoeconomics 28, 295–306 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11530530-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11530530-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation