Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants

Globally optimal trial design and risk sharing arrangements are key to avoiding opportunity costs of delay and enabling equitable, feasible and effective global vaccine research and implementation in current or future pandemics

Global vaccination in the face of pandemics such as COVID-19 and new variants is a race against time. Avoiding the opportunity costs of delay and the associated health, social, and downstream economic impacts is a challenge and an imperative. Failures to address the global challenges posed by COVID-19 have become increasingly evident as waves of vaccine-evading mutations have emerged, facilitated by unequal vaccination coverage and diminishing immunity against new variants worldwide. To address these challenges, societal decision-makers (governments) and industry manufacturer interests must be better aligned for rapid, globally optimal trial design, ideally with research coverage, implementation, and accessibility of effective vaccines across joint research, implementation, and distribution cycles to address pandemic evolution in real time. Value of information (VoI) methods for optimal global trial design and risk-sharing arrangements align the research, distribution, and implementation interests and efforts globally to meet head-on the imperative of avoiding opportunity costs of delay and enabling consistent global solutions with maximizing local and global net benefits. They uniquely enable feasible early adoption of the most promising strategies in real time while the best globally translatable evidence is collected and interests are aligned for global distribution and implementation. Furthermore, these methods are generally shown to be imperative for feasible, fast, and optimal solutions across joint research, reimbursement, and regulatory processes for current and future pandemics and other global existential threats. Establishing pathways for globally optimal trial designs, risk-sharing agreements, and efficient translation to practice is urgent on many fronts.

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 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.

Pharmacotherapy for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

BACKGROUND

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and disabling disorder. Evidence that PTSD is characterised by specific psychobiological dysfunctions has contributed to a growing interest in the use of medication in its treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of medication for reducing PTSD symptoms in adults with PTSD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 11, November 2020); MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1974-), PsycINFO (1967-) and PTSDPubs (all available years) either directly or via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched international trial registers. The date of the latest search was 13 November 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy for adults with PTSD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors (TW, JI, and NP) independently assessed RCTs for inclusion in the review, collated trial data, and assessed trial quality. We contacted investigators to obtain missing data. We stratified summary statistics by medication class, and by medication agent for all medications. We calculated dichotomous and continuous measures using a random-effects model, and assessed heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We include 66 RCTs in the review (range: 13 days to 28 weeks; 7442 participants; age range 18 to 85 years) and 54 in the meta-analysis.  For the primary outcome of treatment response, we found evidence of beneficial effect for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.74; 8 studies, 1078 participants), which improved PTSD symptoms in 58% of SSRI participants compared with 35% of placebo participants, based on moderate-certainty evidence.  For this outcome we also found evidence of beneficial effect for the noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) mirtazapine: (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.94; 1 study, 26 participants) in 65% of people on mirtazapine compared with 22% of placebo participants, and for the tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) amitriptyline (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.96; 1 study, 40 participants) in 50% of amitriptyline participants compared with 17% of placebo participants, which improved PTSD symptoms. These outcomes are based on low-certainty evidence. There was however no evidence of beneficial effect for the number of participants who improved with the antipsychotics (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.67; 2 studies, 43 participants) compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. For the outcome of treatment withdrawal, we found evidence of a harm for the individual SSRI agents compared with placebo (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.87; 14 studies, 2399 participants). Withdrawals were also higher for the separate SSRI paroxetine group compared to the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.29; 5 studies, 1101 participants). Nonetheless, the absolute proportion of individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events in the SSRI groups was low (9%), based on moderate-certainty evidence. For the rest of the medications compared to placebo, we did not find evidence of harm for individuals dropping out from treatment due to adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review support the conclusion that SSRIs improve PTSD symptoms; they are first-line agents for the pharmacotherapy of PTSD, based on moderate-certainty evidence. The NaSSA mirtazapine and the TCA amitriptyline may also improve PTSD symptoms, but this is based on low-certainty evidence. In addition, we found no evidence of benefit for the number of participants who improved following treatment with the antipsychotic group compared to placebo, based on very low-certainty evidence. There remain important gaps in the evidence base, and a continued need for more effective agents in the management of PTSD.

Pharmacotherapy for trichotillomania

BACKGROUND

Trichotillomania (TTM; hair-pulling disorder) is a prevalent and disabling disorder characterised by recurrent hair-pulling. Here we update a previous Cochrane Review on the effects of medication for TTM.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of medication for trichotillomania (TTM) in adults, children and adolescents compared with placebo or other medication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, eleven other bibliographic databases, trial registries and grey literature sources (to 26 November 2020). We checked reference lists and contacted subject experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of medication versus placebo or other medication for TTM in adults, children and adolescents.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. We identified 10 studies in adults (286 participants) with a mean sample size of 29 participants per trial; one study in children and adolescents (39 participants); and, one study in adults and adolescents (22 participants: 18 adults and 4 adolescents). All studies were single-centre, outpatient trials. Eleven studies compared medication and placebo (334 participants); one study compared two medications (13 participants). Studies were 5 to 13 weeks duration. We undertook meta-analysis only for opioid antagonists as other comparisons contained a single study, or reported insufficient data. Antioxidants versus placebo in adults There was little to no difference in treatment response between antioxidant (35.7%) and placebo groups (28.6%) after six weeks, based on a single trial of silymarin (risk ratio (RR) 2.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 5.99; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (18 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antioxidants versus placebo in adolescents There was little to no difference in treatment response between antioxidant (50%) and placebo groups (25%) after six weeks, based on a single trial of silymarin (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.28 to 14.20; 8 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (8 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antipsychotics versus placebo in adults There may be greater treatment response in the antipsychotic group (85%) compared to the placebo group (17%) after 12 weeks, based on a single trial of olanzapine (RR 5.08, 95% CI 1.4 to 18.37; 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (25 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cell signal transducers versus placebo in adults There was little to no difference in treatment response between cell signal transducer (42.1%) and placebo groups (31.6%) after 10 weeks, based on a single trial of inositol (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.57 to 3.11; 38 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (38 participants; low-certainty evidence). Glutamate modulators versus placebo in adults There is probably greater treatment response in the glutamate modulator group (56%) compared to the placebo group (16%) after 12 weeks, based on a single trial of N-acetylcysteine (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.34 to 9.17; 50 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (50 participants; low-certainty evidence). Glutamate modulators versus placebo in children and adolescents There was little to no difference in treatment response between the glutamate modulator (25%) and placebo groups (21.1%) in children and adolescents, based on a single trial of N-acetylcysteine (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.77; 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in dropouts due to adverse events between glutamate modulator (5%) and placebo (0%) groups, based on a single trial (RR 2.86, 95% CI 0.12 to 66.11; 39 participants; low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists versus placebo in adults There may be little to no difference in treatment response between opioid antagonist (37.5%) and placebo groups (25%) after six to eight weeks, based on two studies of naltrexone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.25 to 18.17; 2 studies, 68 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available regarding dropouts due to adverse events. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus placebo in adults There were no data available for treatment response to SSRIs. There was little to no difference in dropouts due to adverse events in the SSRI group (5.1%) compared to the placebo group (0%) after 6 to 12 weeks, based on two trials of fluoxetine (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.62; 2 studies, 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) with predominantly serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) actions versus placebo in adults There may be greater treatment response in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group (40%) compared to the placebo group (0%) after nine weeks, but the evidence is very uncertain, based on a single trial of clomipramine (RR 5.73, 95% CI 0.36 to 90.83; 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be increased dropouts due to adverse events in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group (30%) compared to the placebo group (0%), but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 4.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 73.81; 16 participants; very low-certainty evidence). TCAs with predominantly SRI actions versus other TCAs in adults There may be greater treatment response in the TCAs with predominantly SRI actions group compared to the other TCAs group after five weeks, based on a single trial comparing clomipramine to desipramine (mean difference (MD) -4.00, 95% CI -6.13 to -1.87; 26 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate differences in number of dropouts as there were no events in either group (26 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence from meta-analysis to confirm or refute the efficacy of any agent or class of medication for the treatment of TTM in adults, children or adolescents. Preliminary evidence suggests there may be beneficial treatment effects for N-acetylcysteine, clomipramine and olanzapine in adults based on four trials, albeit with relatively small sample sizes.

Differences in the Selection of Health State Utility Values by Sponsorship in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

BACKGROUND

Health state utility values (HSUVs) are among the most influential attributes of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). Our objective was to evaluate whether industry-funded studies select systematically different HSUVs as compared with studies without industry funding.

METHODS

Among 10 diseases with high disease burden in the United States, we further identified 31 progressive health states. We then searched the Tufts Medical Center's CEA Registry to identify studies that included HSUVs and were submitted to the registry between 2002 and 2019. Two reviewers mapped the free-text descriptions of health states onto the 31 predefined health states. We analyzed the effect of industry funding on the point estimates of these HSUVs with a beta regression. We also analyzed the difference between related health states within studies by funding source with a linear regression.

RESULTS

After identifying 26,222 HSUVs from 4198 CEAs, we matched 2573 HSUVs to the 31 predefined health states. We observed large variations within each health state: 12 of 31 health states included a range of HSUVs greater than 0.5. The point estimate model showed 1 statistically significant difference of 31 comparisons between studies with any industry funding and those without. The utility difference model found 3 significant differences out of 39 comparisons between CEAs with any industry funding and those without.

LIMITATIONS

Inclusion of unpublished CEAs may have affected our conclusions about the effect of industry funding on selection of HSUVs. We also relied on free-text descriptions of health states available in the CEA Registry and did not include adjustment for multiple comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence exists that industry-funded studies select different HSUVs compared to non-industry-funded studies for the health states we considered.

Newer v. older antidepressants in long-term pharmacotherapy: Revisiting… Prevention of relapse and recurrence of depression

There is much evidence from clinical trials that antidepressants help prevent relapse and recurrence of major depression. However, this is unlikely to hold true for all patients with depression, particularly those treated in primary care. Individual antidepressants are equally efficacious, so choice (as first-line treatment in general or for individual patients) is largely determined by differences in side-effects, even though many of these disappear during long-term treatment, owing to adaptation. Specific effects that are considered in choosing a drug include those on cognition, psychomotor performance and sexual function; drug interactions, lethality in overdose and the potential for teratogenicity are also considered. There are insufficient entirely objective and generally accepted data on pharmaco-economics to allow for confident recommendations on drug choice for long-term treatment. Drug acquisition costs must be considered by those with restricted budgets, and especially patients in developing countries where difference in cost between newer and older drugs can be translated into more food for a hungry family.

Child psychiatry and its relationship with the pharmaceutical industry: theoretical and practical issues

The pharmaceutical industry is primarily responsible to its shareholders and so making profit is its primary motivation. The industry's marketing techniques affect not only prescribing habits of doctors but also concepts of mental health. This editorial examines the impact this has had on both theory and practice in child and adolescent psychiatry. Undue influence by the pharmaceutical industry contributes to a skewing of the literature towards biological disease models of childhood mental health in order to support the use of the pharmaceutical companies' products. Using fluoxetine and stimulants as two case examples, the article illustrates how pharmaceutical companies have contributed to widespread acceptance of erroneous beliefs about the safety and efficacy of using psychotropic drugs in children and adolescents. Suggestions are made on how child psychiatrists, both individually and collectively, can incorporate this knowledge into their professional development and practice.

Pharmacotherapy for social anxiety disorder (SAnD)

BACKGROUND

Recognition is growing that social anxiety disorder (SAnD) is a chronic and disabling disorder, and data from early trials demonstrate that medication may be effective in its treatment. This systematic review is an update of an earlier review of pharmacotherapy of SAnD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacotherapy for social anxiety disorder in adults and identify which factors (methodological or clinical) predict response to treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR-Studies and CCMDCTR-References) to 17 August 2015. The CCMDCTR contains reports of relevant RCTs from MEDLINE (1950-), Embase (1974-), PsycINFO (1967-) and CENTRAL (all years). We scanned the reference lists of articles for additional studies. We updated the search in August 2017 and placed additional studies in Awaiting Classification, these will be incorporated in the next version of the review, as appropriate.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We restricted studies to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacotherapy versus placebo in the treatment of SAnD in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (TW and JI) assessed trials for eligibility and inclusion for this review update. We extracted descriptive, methodological and outcome information from each trial, contacting investigators for missing information where necessary. We calculated summary statistics for continuous and dichotomous variables (if provided) and undertook subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 RCTs in the review (> 24 weeks; 11,597 participants; age range 18 to 70 years) and 63 in the meta-analysis. For the primary outcome of treatment response, we found very low-quality evidence of treatment response for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) compared with placebo (number of studies (k) = 24, risk ratio (RR) 1.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48 to 1.85, N = 4984). On this outcome there was also evidence of benefit for monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) (k = 4, RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.75, N = 235), reversible inhibitors of monoamine oxidase A (RIMAs) (k = 8, RR 1.83; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.55, N = 1270), and the benzodiazepines (k = 2, RR 4.03; 95% CI 2.45 to 6.65, N = 132), although the evidence was low quality. We also found clinical response for the anticonvulsants with gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) analogues (k = 3, RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.16 to 2.20, N = 532; moderate-quality evidence). The SSRIs were the only medication proving effective in reducing relapse based on moderate-quality evidence. We assessed tolerability of SSRIs and the serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine on the basis of treatment withdrawal; this was higher for medication than placebo (SSRIs: k = 24, RR 2.59; 95% CI 1.97 to 3.39, N = 5131, low-quality evidence; venlafaxine: k = 4, RR 3.23; 95% CI 2.15 to 4.86, N = 1213, moderate-quality evidence), but there were low absolute rates of withdrawal for both these medications classes compared to placebo. We did not find evidence of a benefit for the rest of the medications compared to placebo.For the secondary outcome of SAnD symptom severity, there was benefit for the SSRIs, the SNRI venlafaxine, MAOIs, RIMAs, benzodiazepines, the antipsychotic olanzapine, and the noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA) atomoxetine in the reduction of SAnD symptoms, but most of the evidence was of very low quality. Treatment with SSRIs and RIMAs was also associated with a reduction in depression symptoms. The SSRIs were the only medication class that demonstrated evidence of reduction in disability across a number of domains.We observed a response to long-term treatment with medication for the SSRIs (low-quality evidence), for the MAOIs (very low-quality evidence) and for the RIMAs (moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of treatment efficacy for the SSRIs, but it is based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence. Tolerability of SSRIs was lower than placebo, but absolute withdrawal rates were low.While a small number of trials did report treatment efficacy for benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, MAOIs, and RIMAs, readers should consider this finding in the context of potential for abuse or unfavourable side effects.

Efficacy of antidepressants: bias in randomized clinical trials and related issues

INTRODUCTION

Countless antidepressant randomized trials were conducted and showed statistically significant benefits of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) over placebo. Meanwhile, critics are increasing regarding the efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of MDD because at least a proportion of clinical trials could be hampered by various biases. In contrast, number of failed trials is increasing in the recent years which have made developing psychiatric medications progressively more time-consuming and expensive. Areas covered: Biases and related issues in clinical trials for antidepressants can be identified as an important common contributing factor to the two paradoxical phenomenon. This review identifies possible biases that can occur before, during, and after clinical trials of antidepressant. Expert commentary: Recent studies not only may over-estimate efficacy of antidepressants, but also may exaggerate placebo response because of various biases. Sponsorship and publication biases have been one of the targets of the criticism and ethical debate. Thus, initiating new trend of research by re-organizing academic-industry partnership will be the most important task in the next five years.

Therapeutic Effects of Phytochemicals and Medicinal Herbs on Depression

Background. Depression is a recurrent, common, and potentially life-threatening psychiatric disease related to multiple assignable causes. Although conventional antidepressant therapy can help relieve symptoms of depression and prevent relapse of the illness, complementary therapies are required due to disadvantage of the current therapy such as adverse effects. Moreover, a number of studies have researched adjunctive therapeutic approaches to improve outcomes for depression patients. Purpose. One potential complementary method with conventional antidepressants involves the use of medicinal herbs and phytochemicals that provide therapeutic benefits. Studies have revealed beneficial effects of medical herbs and phytochemicals on depression and their central nervous system mechanism. Here, we summarize the current knowledge of the therapeutic benefits of phytochemicals and medicinal herbs against depression and describe their detailed mechanisms. Sections. There are two sections, phytochemicals against depression and medical herbs against depression, in this review. Conclusion. Use of phytomedicine may be an alternative option for the treatment of depression in case conventional drugs are not applicable due to their side effects, low effectiveness, or inaccessibility. However, the efficacy and safety of these phytomedicine treatments for depression have to be supported by clinical studies.

Impact of vaccine herd-protection effects in cost-effectiveness analyses of childhood vaccinations. A quantitative comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Inclusion of vaccine herd-protection effects in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can impact the CEAs-conclusions. However, empirical epidemiologic data on the size of herd-protection effects from original studies are limited.

METHODS

We performed a quantitative comparative analysis of the impact of herd-protection effects in CEAs for four childhood vaccinations (pneumococcal, meningococcal, rotavirus and influenza). We considered CEAs reporting incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratios (ICERs) (per quality-adjusted-life-years [QALY] gained; per life-years [LY] gained or per disability-adjusted-life-years [DALY] avoided), both with and without herd protection, while keeping all other model parameters stable. We calculated the size of the ICER-differences without vs with-herd-protection and estimated how often inclusion of herd-protection led to crossing of the cost-effectiveness threshold (of an assumed societal-willingness-to-pay) of $50,000 for more-developed countries or X3GDP/capita (WHO-threshold) for less-developed countries.

RESULTS

We identified 35 CEA studies (20 pneumococcal, 4 meningococcal, 8 rotavirus and 3 influenza vaccines) with 99 ICER-analyses (55 per-QALY, 27 per-LY and 17 per-DALY). The median ICER-absolute differences per QALY, LY and DALY (without minus with herd-protection) were $15,620 (IQR: $877 to $48,376); $54,871 (IQR: $787 to $115,026) and $49 (IQR: $15 to $1,636) respectively. When the target-vaccination strategy was not cost-saving without herd-protection, inclusion of herd-protection always resulted in more favorable results. In CEAs that had ICERs above the cost-effectiveness threshold without herd-protection, inclusion of herd-protection led to crossing of that threshold in 45% of the cases. This impacted only CEAs for more developed countries, as all but one CEAs for less developed countries had ICERs below the WHO-cost-effectiveness threshold even without herd-protection. In several analyses, recommendation for the adoption of the target vaccination strategy depended on the inclusion of the herd protection effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of herd-protection effects in CEAs had a substantial impact in the estimated ICERs and made target-vaccination strategies more attractive options in almost half of the cases where ICERs were above the societal-willingness to pay threshold without herd-protection. More empirical epidemiologic data are needed to determine the size of herd-protection effects across diverse settings and also the size of negative vaccine effects, e.g. from serotype substitution.

Cost-effectiveness research in cancer therapy: a systematic review of literature trends, methods and the influence of funding

OBJECTIVE

To perform a first-time analysis of the cost-effectiveness (CE) literature on chemotherapies, of all types, in cancer, in terms of trends and change over time, including the influence of industry funding.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

A wide range of cancer-related research settings within healthcare, including health systems, hospitals and medical centres.

PARTICIPANTS

All literature comparative CE research of drug-based cancer therapies in the period 1986 to 2015.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes are the literature trends in relation to journal subject category, authorship, research design, data sources, funds and consultation involvement. An additional outcome measure is the association between industry funding and study outcomes.

ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics and the χ2, Fisher exact or Somer's D tests were used to perform non-parametric statistics, with a p value of <0.05 as the statistical significance measure.

RESULTS

Total 574 publications were analysed. The drug-related CE literature expands over time, with increased publishing in the healthcare sciences and services journal subject category (p<0.001). The retrospective data collection in studies increased over time (p<0.001). The usage of prospective data, however, has been decreasing (p<0.001) in relation to randomised clinical trials (RCTs), but is unchanging for non-RCT studies. The industry-sponsored CE studies have especially been increasing (p<0.001), in contrast to those sponsored by other sources. While paid consultation involvement grew throughout the years, the declaration of funding for this is relatively limited. Importantly, there is evidence that industry funding is associated with favourable result to the sponsor (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates clear trends in how the CE cancer research is presented to the practicing community, including in relation to journals, study designs, authorship and consultation, together with increased financial sponsorship by pharmaceutical industries, which may be more influencing study outcomes than other funding sources.

[Potential sponsorship bias in cost-effectiveness analyses of healthcare interventions: A cross-sectional analysis]

Objetivo

Examinar la relación entre la fuente de financiación de los análisis coste-efectividad de intervenciones sanitarias publicados en España y las conclusiones de los estudios.

Diseño

Estudio descriptivo transversal.

Emplazamiento

Bases de datos de literatura científica (hasta diciembre de 2014).

Participantes (unidad de análisis)

Cohorte de análisis coste-efectividad de intervenciones sanitarias publicados en España entre 1989-2014 (n = 223) que presentaran como medida de resultado los años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC).

Mediciones principales

Se establecieron relaciones entre las conclusiones cualitativas de los estudios y el tipo de fuente de financiación utilizando la prueba exacta de Fisher en tablas de contingencia. Se exploraron las distribuciones de las estimaciones de las razones coste-efectividad incremental por fuente de financiación en relación a umbrales hipotéticos de disposición a pagar entre 30.000-50.000 € por AVAC.

Resultados

Un total de 136 (61,0%) estudios fueron financiados por la industria. Los estudios financiados por la industria eran menos propensos a presentar conclusiones desfavorables o neutrales que los estudios no financiados por la industria (2,2% frente al 23,0%; p < 0,0001), fundamentalmente en los estudios que evaluaban fármacos (0,9% frente al 21,4%; p < 0,0001). Las razones coste-efectividad incremental en los estudios financiados por la industria eran más propensas a situarse por debajo de los umbrales hipotéticos de disposición a pagar de 30.000 € (73,8% frente al 56,3%; p < 0,0001) y 50.000 € (89,4% frente al 68,2%; p < 0,0001) por AVAC.

Conclusiones

El presente estudio revela un potencial sesgo de patrocinio en los análisis coste-efectividad. Los estudios financiados por la industria podrían estar favoreciendo el perfil de eficiencia de sus productos.

Sponsorship bias in the comparative efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sponsorship bias has never been investigated for non-pharmacological treatments like psychotherapy.

AIMS

We examined industry funding and author financial conflict of interest (COI) in randomised controlled trials directly comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in depression.

METHOD

We conducted a meta-analysis with subgroup comparisons for industry v. non-industry-funded trials, and respectively for trial reports with author financial COI v. those without.

RESULTS

In total, 45 studies were included. In most analyses, pharmacotherapy consistently showed significant effectiveness over psychotherapy, g = -0.11 (95% CI -0.21 to -0.02) in industry-funded trials. Differences between industry and non-industry-funded trials were significant, a result only partly confirmed in sensitivity analyses. We identified five instances where authors of the original article had not reported financial COI.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry-funded trials for depression appear to subtly favour pharmacotherapy over psychotherapy. Disclosure of all financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry should be encouraged.

Reporting of sources of funding in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry

Industry-supported clinical trials may present better outcomes than those supported by other sources. The aim of this paper was to assess whether systematic reviews (SRs) published in periodontology and implant dentistry report and discuss the influence of funding sources on study results. Two reviewers conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews independently and in duplicate to identify SRs published up to 11 November 2012. Speciality dental journals and the reference lists of included SRs were also scrutinised. Information on the reporting and discussion of funding sources of primary studies included in the SRs was extracted independently and in duplicate. Any disagreement regarding SR selection or data extraction was discussed until consensus was achieved. Of 146 SRs included in the assessment, only 45 (31%) reported the funding sources of primary studies. Fourteen (10%) SRs discussed the potential influence of funding sources on study results, that is, sponsorship bias. Funding sources are inadequately reported and discussed in SRs in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment, reporting, and critical appraisal of potential sponsorship bias of meta-analytic estimates are paramount to provide proper guidance for clinical treatments.

Aquatic blues: modeling depression and antidepressant action in zebrafish

Depression is a serious psychiatric condition affecting millions of patients worldwide. Unipolar depression is characterized by low mood, anhedonia, social withdrawal and other severely debilitating psychiatric symptoms. Bipolar disorder manifests in alternating depressed mood and 'hyperactive' manic/hypomanic states. Animal experimental models are an invaluable tool for research into the pathogenesis of bipolar/unipolar depression, and for the development of potential treatments. Due to their high throughput value, genetic tractability, low cost and quick reproductive cycle, zebrafish (Danio rerio) have emerged as a promising new model species for studying brain disorders. Here, we discuss the developing utility of zebrafish for studying depression disorders, and outline future areas of research in this field. We argue that zebrafish represent a useful model organism for studying depression and its behavioral, genetic and physiological mechanisms, as well as for anti-depressant drug discovery.

Risk of bias in trial-based economic evaluations: identification of sources and bias-reducing strategies

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this article are first to give an overview of the risks of bias in trial-based economic evaluations and, second, to identify how key sources for bias can be revealed and overcome (i.e. what bias-reducing strategies might be employed) in future trial-based economic evaluations in the field of health psychology.

DESIGN

Narrative review discussing sources of bias in trial-based economic evaluations and bias-reducing strategies.

RESULTS

We identified 11 biases and assigned them to a particular trial phase. A distinction is made between pre-trial biases, biases during the trial and biases that are relevant after the actual trial. All potential forms of bias are discussed in detail and strategies are shown to detect and overcome these biases.

CONCLUSION

In order to avoid bias in trial-based economic evaluations, one has to be aware of all the possible forms of bias. All stakeholders have to examine trial-based economic evaluations in a rigorous and stringent manner. This article can be helpful in this examination as it gives an overview of the possible biases which researchers should take into account.

The effect of funding sources on donepezil randomised controlled trial outcome: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether there is a difference in the treatment effect of donepezil on cognition in Alzheimer disease between industry-funded and independent randomised controlled trials.

DESIGN

Fixed effects meta-analysis of standardised effects of donepezil on cognition as measured by the Mini Mental State Examination and the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale.

DATA SOURCES

Studies included in the meta-analyses reported in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technical appraisal 217 updated with new studies through a PubMed search.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of any length comparing patients diagnosed with probable Alzheimer disease (according to the NINCDS-ADRDA/DSM-III/IV criteria) taking any dosage of donepezil. Studies of combination therapies (eg, donepezil and memantine) were excluded, as were studies that enrolled patients with a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease associated with other disorders (eg, Parkinson's disease and Down's syndrome).

RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 14 relevant trials (4 independent) with suitable data. Trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies reported a larger effect of donepezil on standardised cognitive tests than trials published by independent research groups (standardised mean difference (SMD)=0.46, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.55 vs SMD=0.33, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.48, respectively). This difference remained when only data representing change up to 12 weeks from baseline were analysed (industry SMD=0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53 vs independent SMD=0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52). Analysis revealed that the effect of funding as a moderator variable of study heterogeneity was not statistically significant at either time point.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect size of donepezil on cognition is larger in industry-funded than independent trials and this is not explained by the longer duration of industry-funded trials. The lack of a statistically significant moderator effect may indicate that the differences are due to chance, but may also result from lack of power.

Pharmacotherapy for trichotillomania

BACKGROUND

Trichotillomania (TTM) (hair-pulling disorder) is a prevalent and disabling disorder characterised by recurrent hair-pulling. The effect of medication on trichotillomania has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of medication for trichotillomania in adults compared with placebo or other active agents.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group Register (to 31 July 2013), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years); EMBASE (1974 to date); MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Two review authors identified relevant trials by assessing the abstracts of all possible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of a medication versus placebo or active agent for TTM in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed the data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments, and disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third review author. Primary outcomes included the mean difference (MD) in reduction of trichotillomania symptoms on a continuous measure of trichotillomania symptom severity, and the risk ratio (RR) of the clinical response based on a dichotomous measure, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight studies with a total of 204 participants and a mean sample size of 25. All trials were single-centre trials, and participants seen on an outpatient basis. Seven studies compared medication and placebo (n = 184); one study compared medication and another active agent (n = 13). Duration of the studies was six to twelve weeks. Meta-analysis was not undertaken because of the methodological heterogeneity of the trials. The studies did not employ intention-to-treat analyses and were at a high risk of attrition bias. Adverse events were not well-documented in the studies.None of the three studies of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) demonstrated strong evidence of a treatment effect on any of the outcomes of interest. The unpublished naltrexone study did not provide strong evidence of a treatment effect. Two studies, an olanzapine study and a N-acetylcysteine (NAC) study, reported statistically significant treatment effects. One study of clomipramine demonstrated a treatment effect on two out of three measures of response to treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No particular medication class definitively demonstrates efficacy in the treatment of trichotillomania. Preliminary evidence suggests treatment effects of clomipramine, NAC and olanzapine based on three individual trials, albeit with very small sample sizes.

Conflict of interest in the assessment of hyaluronic acid injections for osteoarthritis of the knee: an updated systematic review

The search results of a recent systematic review of prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials on hyaluronic acid injections for knee arthritis were updated and reviewed for funding source and qualitative conclusions. Forty-eight studies were identified; 30 (62.5%) were industry funded, and 3 (6.25%) were not. Fifteen (31.3%) studies did not identify a funding source. An association was observed between a reported potential financial conflict of interest of the author and the qualitative conclusion (P=0.018). None of the studies with a reported financial conflict of interest of at least one author had an unfavorable conclusion; 11 (35%) of the 31 studies with no industry-affiliated authors indicated that hyaluronic acid injection for knee osteoarthritis was no more effective than a placebo injection.

When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins

Background

We examined sponsorship of published cost-effectiveness analyses of statin use for cardiovascular (CV) prevention, and determined whether the funding source is associated with study conclusions.

Methods and Findings

We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (up to June 2011) to identify cost-effectiveness analyses of statin use for CV prevention reporting outcomes as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and/or life years gained (LYG). We examined relationships between the funding source and the study conclusions by means of tests of differences between proportions. Seventy-five studies were included. Forty-eight studies (64.0%) were industry-sponsored. Fifty-two (69.3%) articles compared statins versus non-active alternatives. Secondary CV prevention represented 42.7% of articles, followed by primary CV prevention (38.7%) and both (18.7%). Overall, industry-sponsored studies were much less likely to report unfavourable or neutral conclusions (0% versus 37.1%; p<0.001). For primary CV prevention, the proportion with unfavourable or neutral conclusions was 0% for industry-sponsored studies versus 57.9% for non-sponsored studies (p<0.001). Conversely, no statistically significant differences were identified for studies evaluating secondary CV prevention (0% versus 12.5%; p=0.222). Incremental costs per QALY/LYG estimates reported in industry-sponsored studies were generally more likely to fall below a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of US $50,000.

Conclusions

Our systematic analysis suggests that pharmaceutical industry sponsored economic evaluations of statins have generally favored the cost-effectiveness profile of their products particularly in primary CV prevention.

Of mugs, meals and more: the intricate relations between physicians and the medical industry

Empirical research has proven the influence exerted by the medical industry on physicians' decision-making. Physicians are the gatekeepers who determine how money is spent within the healthcare system. Hence, they are the target group of powerful lobbies in the field, i.e. the manufacturers of medical devices and the pharmaceutical industry. As clinical research lies in the hands of physicians, they play an exclusive and central role in launching new medical products. There are many ethical problems involved here: physicians may develop a mindset of entitlement; biased decisions may put patients at risk; academic interests and research activities will no longer be free if they are influenced considerably by financial incentives; fair resource allocation may be restricted. An aspect that has been neglected so far is the administrators' involvement as they not rarely expect physicians to acquire external financial resources from industry as benefits often lie with the institutions. To "protect" physicians from undue sway may be in the best interest of patients in order to guarantee a fair allocation of resources and to prevent the application of technologies (and medications) that would not have been used according to current standards of care. The latter may and obviously does put patients at risk. On the other hand, medico-industrial relations are of great importance. A considerable part of medical progress is driven by private industry. Yet, any co-operation between those who care for patients and industry ultimately has to serve the patient. Hence, strong policies to guide conduct are sorely needed. The following points are held to be pivotal in order to secure ethical conduct: (1) professional codes of ethics; (2) a stronger academic attitude amongst medical staff, (3) rules of transparency for medico-industrial relations including online disclosure and limiting scale of payments, (4) establishing rules (and laws) that ban unethical conduct and mandate vigorous surveillance of adherence to guidelines.

On markets and morals--(re-)establishing independent decision making in healthcare: a reply to Joao Calinas-Correia

Medical practitioners owe much of the significant progress made in the diagnosis and treatment of disease to industrial research. Hence, co-operation between providers of medical services, most notably medical practitioners, and the pharmaceutical industry is in the best interest of patients. Yet, empirical evidence shows how well-directed influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry impacts physicians' decision-making. Profit-motivated inducement by the pharmaceutical industry may expose patients to considerable risks. Against what many think to be based on overwhelming evidence, Joao Calinas-Correia takes the view that the criticism levelled at the pharmaceutical industry as well as the call for transparency in the relationships between physicians and the industry are exaggerated. In his polemic he praises "Big Pharma" as a success and espouses the view that the undesired consequences of its activities are allegedly inherent in the underlying market environment shaped by politics. Moreover, he believes that the proposals made to control and eliminate such undesired effects will lead to mediocrity. Astonishingly, his polemic reaches out to contest the appropriateness of setting rules at all-even if being set by a democratic process. Calinas-Correia's assertions are based on the wrong premises. They fail to recognize that today individual civil rights and liberties often enough do not have to be defended against encroachments by governmental authorities. Rather, it is incumbent on the state to create rules designed to defend the individual against infringements by overly powerful non-governmental institutions, in our case the medical-industrial complex. Given the power exercised by physicians and the special nature of their role in public health, clear-cut rules have to be enacted and implemented with respect to their relationship to Big Pharma.

Optimal global value of information trials: better aligning manufacturer and decision maker interests and enabling feasible risk sharing

Risk sharing arrangements relate to adjusting payments for new health technologies given evidence of their performance over time. Such arrangements rely on prospective information regarding the incremental net benefit of the new technology, and its use in practice. However, once the new technology has been adopted in a particular jurisdiction, randomized clinical trials within that jurisdiction are likely to be infeasible and unethical in the cases where they would be most helpful, i.e. with current evidence of positive while uncertain incremental health and net monetary benefit. Informed patients in these cases would likely be reluctant to participate in a trial, preferring instead to receive the new technology with certainty. Consequently, informing risk sharing arrangements within a jurisdiction is problematic given the infeasibility of collecting prospective trial data. To overcome such problems, we demonstrate that global trials facilitate trialling post adoption, leading to more complete and robust risk sharing arrangements that mitigate the impact of costs of reversal on expected value of information in jurisdictions who adopt while a global trial is undertaken. More generally, optimally designed global trials offer distinct advantages over locally optimal solutions for decision makers and manufacturers alike: avoiding opportunity costs of delay in jurisdictions that adopt; overcoming barriers to evidence collection; and improving levels of expected implementation. Further, the greater strength and translatability of evidence across jurisdictions inherent in optimal global trial design reduces barriers to translation across jurisdictions characteristic of local trials. Consequently, efficiently designed global trials better align the interests of decision makers and manufacturers, increasing the feasibility of risk sharing and the expected strength of evidence over local trials, up until the point that current evidence is globally sufficient.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting.

OBJECTIVE

The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.

METHODS

The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list.

RESULTS

Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).

CONCLUSIONS

We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Conceptualizing a model: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--2

The appropriate development of a model begins with understanding the problem that is being represented. The aim of this article was to provide a series of consensus-based best practices regarding the process of model conceptualization. For the purpose of this series of articles, we consider the development of models whose purpose is to inform medical decisions and health-related resource allocation questions. We specifically divide the conceptualization process into two distinct components: the conceptualization of the problem, which converts knowledge of the health care process or decision into a representation of the problem, followed by the conceptualization of the model itself, which matches the attributes and characteristics of a particular modeling type with the needs of the problem being represented. Recommendations are made regarding the structure of the modeling team, agreement on the statement of the problem, the structure, perspective, and target population of the model, and the interventions and outcomes represented. Best practices relating to the specific characteristics of model structure and which characteristics of the problem might be most easily represented in a specific modeling method are presented. Each section contains a number of recommendations that were iterated among the authors, as well as among the wider modeling taskforce, jointly set up by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society for Medical Decision Making.

Coauthorship and institutional collaborations on cost-effectiveness analyses: a systematic network analysis

Background

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) has been promoted as an important research methodology for determining the efficiency of healthcare technology and guiding medical decision-making. Our aim was to characterize the collaborative patterns of CEA conducted over the past two decades in Spain.

Methods and Findings

A systematic analysis was carried out with the information obtained through an updated comprehensive literature review and from reports of health technology assessment agencies. We identified CEAs with outcomes expressed as a time-based summary measure of population health (e.g. quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years), conducted in Spain and published between 1989 and 2011. Networks of coauthorship and institutional collaboration were produced using PAJEK software. One-hundred and thirty-one papers were analyzed, in which 526 authors and 230 institutions participated. The overall signatures per paper index was 5.4. Six major groups (one with 14 members, three with 7 members and two with 6 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were generally affiliated with the private-for-profit sector (e.g. consulting firms and the pharmaceutical industry). The private-for-profit sector mantains profuse collaborative networks including public hospitals and academia. Collaboration within the public sector (e.g. healthcare administration and primary care) was weak and fragmented.

Conclusions

This empirical analysis reflects critical practices among collaborative networks that contributed substantially to the production of CEA, raises challenges for redesigning future policies and provides a framework for similar analyses in other regions.

Financial relationships in economic analyses of targeted therapies in oncology

PURPOSE

A potential financial relationship between investigators and pharmaceutical manufacturers has been associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable conclusions about a sponsor's proprietary agent in pharmacoeconomic studies. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether there is an association between financial relationships and outcome in economic analyses of new targeted therapies in oncology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed (last update June 2011) for economic analyses of targeted therapies (including monoclonal antibodies, tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors) in oncology. The trials were qualitatively rated regarding the cost assessment as favorable, neutral, or unfavorable on the basis of prespecified criteria.

RESULTS

Overall, 81 eligible studies were identified. Economic analyses that were funded by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to report favorable qualitative cost estimates (28 [82%] of 34 v 21 [45%] of 47; P = .003). The presence of an author affiliated with manufacturer was not associated with study outcome. Furthermore, if only studies including a conflict of interest statement were included (66 of 81), studies that reported any financial relationship with manufacturers (author affiliation and/or funding and/or other financial relationship) were more likely to report favorable results of targeted therapies compared with studies without financial relationship (32 [71%] of 45 v nine [43%] of 21; P = .025).

CONCLUSION

Our study reveals a potential threat for industry-related bias in economic analyses of targeted therapies in oncology in favor of analyses with financial relationships between authors and manufacturers. A more balanced funding of economic analyses from other sources may allow greater confidence in the interpretation of their results.

Cost-effectiveness analysis for clinicians

In a climate of economic uncertainty, cost effectiveness analysis is a potentially important tool for making choices about health care interventions. Methods for such analyses are well established, but the results need to be interpreted carefully and are subject to bias. Making decisions based on results of cost-effectiveness analyses can involve setting thresholds, but for individual patients, there needs to be disaggregation of benefits and harms included in a quality adjusted life year to ensure appropriate consideration of benefits and harms as well as personal preferences and circumstances.

On markets and morals-(re-)establishing independent decision making in healthcare

Medical practitioners owe much of the significant progress made in the diagnosis and treatment of disease to industrial research. Hence, co-operation between providers of medical services, most notably medical practitioners, and the pharmaceutical industry is in the best interest of patients. Yet, empirical evidence shows how well-directed influence exerted by the pharmaceutical industry impacts physicians' decision-making. Profit-motivated inducement by the pharmaceutical industry may expose patients to considerable risks. Against what many think to be based on overwhelming evidence, Joao Calinas-Correia takes the view that the criticism levelled at the pharmaceutical industry as well as the call for transparency in the relationships between physicians and the industry are exaggerated. In his polemic he praises "Big Pharma" as a success and espouses the view that the undesired consequences of its activities are allegedly inherent in the underlying market environment shaped by politics. Moreover, he believes that the proposals made to control and eliminate such undesired effects will lead to mediocrity. Astonishingly, his polemic reaches out to contest the appropriateness of setting rules at all-even if being set by a democratic process. Calinas-Correia's assertions are based on the wrong premises. They fail to recognize that today individual civil rights and liberties often enough do not have to be defended against encroachments by governmental authorities. Rather, it is incumbent on the state to create rules designed to defend the individual against infringements by overly powerful non-governmental institutions, in our case the medical-industrial complex. Given the power exercised by physicians and the special nature of their role in public health, clear-cut rules have to be enacted and implemented with respect to their relationship to Big Pharma.

Updating and confirming an industry-sponsored pharmacoeconomic model: comparing two antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia

OBJECTIVE

This study updated a 2001 decision economic model that used indirect data and confirmed its findings by developing a new cost-effectiveness model by using now available head-to-head data. The models compared olanzapine with ziprasidone in the treatment of schizophrenia in the United States.

METHODS

A decision analytic modeling approach was used to estimate annual health-care costs and health outcomes, incorporating events such as response, relapse, and suicide. Patients without response to first-line treatment switched to the other comparator. Decision tree probabilities were extracted from head-to-head studies and other published clinical literature. Direct health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated on the basis of resource use and utility weights for initial and relapse episodes, maintenance therapy, and extended episodes of illness. Disutilities associated with treatment-emergent adverse events were included.

RESULTS

Consistent with the 2001 model, this model found that first-line treatment with olanzapine is associated with fewer hospital days, fewer days with extrapyramidal symptoms, and higher QALYs than is first-line treatment with ziprasidone. Total costs were lower for the olanzapine pathway ($70,232-$72,776 vs. $73,086-$73,310 in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale analysis) due to the cost savings associated with reduced health-care resource use. The incremental cost per QALY gained indicated that the olanzapine pathway dominated the ziprasidone pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision analytic models should be continuously assessed against new data. This case study shows that incorporating new data confirmed results of a previously published model in which olanzapine was associated with better expected health outcomes and lower total health-care costs than was ziprasidone.

Modelling the cost effectiveness of treatments for Parkinson's disease: a methodological review

The objective of this review was to assess models of cost effectiveness for Parkinson's disease (PD) published after July 2002 and to derive recommendations for future modelling. A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, Current Contents, EMBASE, EconLit, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness), NHS EED (Economic Evaluation Database) and HTA (Health Technology Assessment) of the UK NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination (July 2002 to March 2010). Only fully published studies using decision trees, Markov models, individual simulation models or sets of mathematical equations were included. Most of the 11 studies identified used Markov models (n = 9) and two employed were based on decision trees. Based on the Hoehn & Yahr (HY) scale, authors evaluated the cost effectiveness of drug treatments (n = 6), surgical approaches such as deep brain stimulation (n = 1) or striatal cell grafting (n = 1), and diagnostic procedures such as single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) testing (n = 3) over a time horizon of 1 year to lifetime. Costs were adapted to address a societal and/or healthcare provider/third-party payer perspective. All but one of the interventions investigated were considered cost effective or cost saving. Cost-effectiveness modelling in PD between 2003 and 2010 showed only minor improvement when compared with our earlier review of models published from 1998 up to 2003. Cost-effectiveness modelling recommendations were complied with to only a limited extent, leaving room for quality improvement. More advanced modelling approaches may, so far, be under-represented, but may be used in the future, driven by the research question. Adverse events of treatment, co-morbidities or disease complications are not yet sufficiently included in the models to adequately represent clinical reality.

Computational methods for the discovery of mood disorder therapies

INTRODUCTION

Despite the significant progress, research is still needed to reveal details of the complex and dynamic chemical processes operating in the central nervous system (CNS) and their relationship to psychological effects such as mood disorders. The incidence of behavioral depression is widely spread worldwide, with an estimated 14.8 million adults diagnosed yearly in the United States alone. The efficacy of current antidepressants on 50 - 60% of patients, their slow onset of action and the prevalence of adverse side effects highlight the need for developing a new generation of improved antidepressants. Computational methods have the potential to aid in the discovery of mood modulators.

AREAS COVERED

This review contains three main sections: historical evolution of marketed antidepressants, physicochemical and structural properties of antidepressant compounds reported in the ChEMBL database and recent efforts in the design and discovery of antidepressants using computational methods. The authors provide details of the computational methods employed, from chemoinformatic analyses to molecular modeling.

EXPERT OPINION

While there have been numerous and important findings in depression research, the high cost and time spent on research into new therapies for brain disorders is a risky undertaking. Computational methodologies can be employed to speed up the discovery of new antidepressants and to detect new sources of chemical compounds with potential antidepressant activity. Compound collections containing compounds already approved in the pharmaceutical and food industries that cover the property space and complement the structural space of CNS drugs represent a promising starting point for the discovery of new antidepressant agents.

Industry involvement and baseline assumptions of cost-effectiveness analyses: diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou test

BACKGROUND

Industry involvement has been associated with more favourable cost-effectiveness ratios in cost-effectiveness analyses, but the mechanisms for this association are unclear. We evaluated whether the assumed accuracy of the Papanicolaou (Pap) test was correlated with the features of cost-effectiveness analysis studies.

METHODS

We searched PubMed (last updated April 2010) for cost-effectiveness analysis studies in which at least one strategy involved the Pap test for cervical cancer. We assessed the baseline assumed diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the Pap test in each study and the association of these values with three levels of manufacturer involvement in the study.

RESULTS

Among 88 analyzed cost-effectiveness analysis studies, the assumed sensitivity of the Pap test was lower in studies with manufacturer-affiliated authors, manufacturer funding or manufacturer-related competing interests versus studies without (mean sensitivity 60% v. 70%, p < 0.001). The assumed specificity of the Pap test was lower in cost-effectiveness analyses involving new screening tests (mean 93% v. 96%, p = 0.016). The assumed specificity did not differ between trials with manufacturer involvement versus those without (mean 95% v. 95%, p = 0.755).

INTERPRETATION

The results of cost-effectiveness analyses may be affected by a downgrading of the assumed diagnostic accuracy of the standard Pap test against which newer tests or interventions are compared. New technology then seems to have more favourable results against a straw-man comparator.

Ethical perspectives on relations between industry and neuropsychiatric medicine

Conflicts of interest may influence medical research. In particular, the study on psychotropic treatment of ageing subjects suffering from neurological disorders and comorbid neuropsychiatric phenomena may be hypothetically considered economically non-advantageous, or even of negative impact on drug reputation, because of the high probability of non-response or side effects. Thus, studies on this issue may be disregarded from industry. We aimed to verify whether the global commitment of medical research reflects the actual relevance of depression in the world ageing population, associated or not with neurological conditions. Here, we: 1) have reviewed the literature on this issue, 2) have examined world published data concerning population by age, burden of disease and frequency of depressive disorders and antidepressant therapies, and 3) have reviewed the frequency of published papers on depression and its treatment associated with three neurological conditions. The overall rate of papers about depressive disorders in ageing people reflects adequately the world population and the prevalence of depression in the elderly. However, the rate of papers concerning medical experimentation for antidepressant treatment in Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and stroke is quite inadequate with respect to the rate of depressive disorders associated to these conditions. Thus, innovative medical experimentation must be encouraged, also in areas apparently of dubious economical advantage but of undoubted clinical relevance and the adoption of strategies to limit the detrimental effect of conflicts of interest in research must be enhanced.

Rodent models in depression research: classical strategies and new directions

Depression, among other mood disorders, represents one of the most common health problems worldwide, with steadily increasing incidence and major socio-economic consequences. However, since the knowledge about the underlying pathophysiological principles is still very scanty, depression and other mood disorders are currently diagnosed solely on clinical grounds. Currently used treatment modalities would therefore benefit enormously from the development of alternative therapeutic interventions. The implementation of proper animal models is a prerequisite for increasing the understanding of the neurobiological basis of mood disorders and is paving the way for the discovery of novel therapeutic targets. In the past thirty years, since the seminal description of the Forced Swim Test as a system to probe antidepressant activity in rodents, the use of animals to model depression and antidepressant activity has come a long way. In this review we describe some of the most commonly used strategies, ranging from screening procedures, such as the Forced Swim Test and the Tail Suspension Test and animal models, such as those based upon chronic stress procedures, to genetic approaches. Finally we also discuss some of the inherent limitations and caveats that need to be considered when using animals as models for mental disorders in basic research.

Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review

Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles.We identified reporting bias in 40 indications comprising around 50 different pharmacological, surgical (e.g. vacuum-assisted closure therapy), diagnostic (e.g. ultrasound), and preventive (e.g. cancer vaccines) interventions. Regarding pharmacological interventions, cases of reporting bias were, for example, identified in the treatment of the following conditions: depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer's disease, pain, migraine, cardiovascular disease, gastric ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome, urinary incontinence, atopic dermatitis, diabetes mellitus type 2, hypercholesterolaemia, thyroid disorders, menopausal symptoms, various types of cancer (e.g. ovarian cancer and melanoma), various types of infections (e.g. HIV, influenza and Hepatitis B), and acute trauma. Many cases involved the withholding of study data by manufacturers and regulatory agencies or the active attempt by manufacturers to suppress publication. The ascertained effects of reporting bias included the overestimation of efficacy and the underestimation of safety risks of interventions.In conclusion, reporting bias is a widespread phenomenon in the medical literature. Mandatory prospective registration of trials and public access to study data via results databases need to be introduced on a worldwide scale. This will allow for an independent review of research data, help fulfil ethical obligations towards patients, and ensure a basis for fully-informed decision making in the health care system.

The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials

BACKGROUND

In recent years, a number of studies have shown that clinical drug trials financed by pharmaceutical companies yield favorable results for company products more often than independent trials do. Moreover, pharmaceutical companies have been found to influence drug trials in various ways. This paper provides an overview of the findings of current, systematic studies on this topic.

METHODS

Publications retrieved from a systematic Medline search on this topic from 1 November 2002 to 16 December 2009 were independently evaluated and selected by two of the authors. These publications were supplemented by further ones found in their references sections.

RESULTS

57 publications were included for evaluation in Parts 1 and 2 of this article. Published drug trials that were financed by pharmaceutical companies, or whose authors declared a financial conflict of interest, were found to yield favorable results for the drug manufacturer more frequently than independently financed trials whose authors had no such conflicts. The results were also interpreted favorably more often than in independently financed trials. Furthermore, there was evidence that pharmaceutical companies influenced study protocols in a way that was favorable to themselves. The methodological quality of trials financed by pharmaceutical companies was not found to be any worse than that of trials financed in other ways.

CONCLUSION

Published drug trials that are financed by pharmaceutical companies may present a distorted picture. This cannot be explained by any difference in methodological quality between such trials and trials financed in other ways.

Does the funding source influence the results in economic evaluations? A case study in bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis

Research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is often assumed to be more likely to report favourable cost-effectiveness results. To determine whether there was a relationship between the source of funding and the reporting of positive results. 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. 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. 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.

The effect of study sponsorship on a systematically evaluated body of evidence of head-to-head trials was modest: secondary analysis of a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of industry bias in a systematically reviewed body of evidence of head-to-head trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We limited our analysis to published head-to-head randomized controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) identified in a comparative effectiveness review. Two reviewers independently determined the status of funding for each trial. We classified drugs into one of two groups: (1) drugs associated with the funding source and (2) drugs not associated with the funding source. To determine the effect of any underlying industry bias, we conducted relative-benefit meta-analyses comparing the response rates of drugs when associated with the funding source with response rates of the same drugs when not associated with the funding source.

RESULTS

Thirteen out of 20 studies (65%) numerically favored drugs associated with the funding source over drugs used as controls. The pooled response rates of SSRIs, when associated with the funding source, are significantly greater than those of the same SSRIs when not associated with the sponsor (relative benefit=1.07; 95% confidence interval=1.02-1.11). The difference, however, is likely to be not of clinical importance.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of industry bias in comparative effectiveness reviews might play a lesser role than in systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials.

Accuracy of conflict-of-interest disclosures reported by physicians

BACKGROUND

The recent public reporting of payments made to physicians by manufacturers of orthopedic devices provides an opportunity to assess the accuracy of physicians' conflict-of-interest disclosures.

METHODS

We analyzed the reports of payments made to physicians by five manufacturers of total hip and knee prostheses in 2007. For each payment recipient who was an author of a presentation or served as a committee member or board member at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the disclosure statement was reviewed to determine whether the payment had been disclosed. To ascertain the reasons for nondisclosure, a survey was administered to physicians who had received payments that were not disclosed.

RESULTS

The overall rate of disclosure was 71.2% (245 of 344 payments). For payments that were directly related to the topic of the presentation at the meeting, the rate was 79.3% (165 of 208); for payments that were indirectly related, the rate was 50.0% (16 of 32); and for payments that were unrelated, the rate was 49.2% (29 of 59) (P=0.008). In the multivariate analysis, payments were also more likely to have been disclosed if they exceeded $10,000 (P<0.001), were directed toward an individual physician rather than a company or organization (P=0.04), or included an in-kind component (P=0.002). Among the 36 physicians who responded to the survey regarding reasons for nondisclosure (response rate, 39.6%), the reasons most commonly given for nondisclosure were that the payment was unrelated to the topic of presentation at the annual meeting (38.9% of respondents) and that the physician had misunderstood the disclosure requirements (13.9%); 11.1% reported that the payment had been disclosed but was mistakenly omitted from the program.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of self-reported conflict-of-interest disclosure by physicians at a large annual meeting, the rate of disclosure was 79.3% for directly related payments and 50.0% for indirectly related payments.

Ethics in clinical research

R&D of new drugs is driven by pharmaceutical companies that invest considerable amounts of money for this purpose. This may introduce bias, to emphasize the clinical value of drugs to be allowed onto the market. Bias is caused by methodological flaws including the population under study, the choice of inadequate comparators or of their dosage, the adoption of surrogate or composite endpoints, the decision to publish mainly positive findings or to overlook some safety concerns, etc. All this happens in a legal context that requires no added value for new drugs to be approved for the market. This encourages the use of placebo even when active comparators are available, or the search for non-inferiority of new products in comparison with active comparators. Superiority over placebo and non-inferiority to active comparators may allow drugs onto the market that are in fact less active (or safe, tolerable, convenient, etc.) than those already available, usually with consolidated properties and lower costs. In addition, they do not meet patients' or physicians' needs of defining the place in therapy and respective roles of new and available treatments. The current legislative and regulatory setting seems designed to meet commercial interests rather than public health needs.