Financial Conflicts of Interest Are Common and Frequently Influence Conclusions of Economic Analyses Presented at the American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 810 Economic analyses of pharmaceutical agents are important determinants of health reimbursement decisions and are essential components of comparative effectiveness research. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting is an important forum for presentation of economic analyses of hematology-oncology drugs. We hypothesized that economic analyses sponsored by pharmaceutical companies would be more likely to support that company's product. We conducted this study to determine the frequency of financial conflicts of interest in economic analyses presented at the ASH annual meeting and to examine whether such conflicts influenced study outcomes and directly or indirectly supported a specific product (an example of indirect support is a study on costs of febrile neutropenia sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that manufactures granulocyte colony-stimulating factor). ASH annual meeting abstracts from 2006-2008 were searched for economic analyses using following search terms: ‘cost', ‘economic', ‘dollar', ‘cost-effective', and ‘cost-benefit'. All abstracts in the ‘Health Services and Outcomes Research' category were also reviewed for economic analyses. Information was collected on the type of economic analysis, health technology assessed, author affiliation, the presence of conflict of interest and study conclusion. A total of 124 original economic analyses were identified. The majority of studies (52%) were conducted in the US, followed by Canada (11%) and UK (7%). Most studies were presented as a poster (61%). Eighty-seven studies (70%) evaluated a pharmaceutical product. First author affiliations included academic institutions (67%), consulting company employee (23%) and employee of sponsoring corporate (10%). Eighty-eight of 124 studies (71%) had at least one author with a financial conflict of interest. Studies with a conflict of interest were more likely to evaluate a pharmaceutical product than studies without a conflict of interest (81% vs. 44%, p<0.001). First authors of abstracts with a conflict of interest were less likely to be affiliated with an academic institution compared with abstracts without a conflict of interest (53% vs. 100%, p<0.001). The conclusions of 87 of 88 economic analyses with a conflict of interest favored the sponsor's product either directly (72%) or indirectly (27%). In conclusion, financial conflicts of interest are common in economic analyses presented at the ASH annual meeting. Almost all economic analyses with a financial conflict of interest support their sponsor's products. We could not exclude a publication bias, wherein economic analyses that did not favor a sponsor's product were less likely to be submitted for presentation. Economic analyses have important health policy implications and conflicts of interest should be carefully considered when interpreting the conclusions of economic analyses. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,182 | 0,565 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,017 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,039 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».