Reporting and dissemination of industry versus non-profit sponsored economic analyses of six novel drugs used in oncology

Purpose: Our prior study found that pharmaceutical-sponsored and non-profit sponsored analyses differed in their published assessments of the economic value of six new oncology drugs. In this study, we expand on our earlier f indings and evaluate the association between funding source and 1) characte ristics of the published study report and 2) journal type for dissemination of the previously evaluated economic studies. Methods: We reviewed the published cost-effectiveness literature for hemato poietic colony stimulating factors, 5-HT3 antagonist antiemetics, and taxan es. Two blinded investigators rated specific aspects of study reporting bas ed on the US Public Health Service Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health an d Medicine criteria. Dissemination strategies were evaluated using impact f actor scores from the Science Citation Index. Results: The operational aspects of pharmaceutical-sponsored study reportin g were better overall than those associated with non-profit sponsored studi es. Specifically, pharmaceutical-sponsored studies were more likely to be r eported based on data obtained from randomized clinical trials or detailed cost-models (90% vs. 70%), to include descriptions of the source of cost di fferences (90% vs. 79%), to state whether the study was carried out from a societal, governmental, or insurer perspective (70% vs. 42%), and to clearl y indicate the time-period over which costs were evaluated (65% vs. 50%). N onprofit sponsored studies were more likely than pharmaceutical sponsored s tudies to report the generalizability of the findings, including being more likely to include information about how the data could be extrapolated to other clinical settings (58% vs. 35%), to include statements on the statist ical significance of the findings (38% vs. 20%), and to clearly outline the cost per unit and data sources for the cost analyses (67% vs. 45%). A simi lar percent of pharmaceutical and non-profit sponsored studies reported bac kground and conclusions with about 80% providing literature comparisons of the results (about 80%) and two thirds to three fourths discussing the limi tations of the finding (75% for pharmaceutical-sponsored and 67% for non-pr ofit sponsored studies). Most studies were published in low impact factor p eer-reviewed journals, and journal impact factor scores were similar betwee n pharmaceutical and nonprofit sponsored studies. Conclusions: Upon reviewing the entire pharmacoeconomic literature for six new oncology drugs, we identified differences in study reporting, but not i n types of journals where studies were published, between pharmaceutical-sp onsored and non-profit sponsored studies. These results, particularly the o bserved differences in data generalizability, may account in part for our p revious finding of lower likelihood of reporting unfavorable conclusions in pharmaceutical-sponsored studies.