ArticleJAMA network open2021
Characteristics of Cost-effectiveness Studies for Oncology Drugs Approved in the United States From 2015-2020.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reporting Quality in Health Economic Evaluation Studies of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review.Clinical drug investigation · 2025Pooled it
- Global representativeness and impact of funding sources in cost-effectiveness research on systemic therapies for advanced breast cancer: A systematic review.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) Inhibitors in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of Enasidenib versus conventional care for older patients withLeukemia & lymphoma · 2025Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of precision medicine in oncology setting in China: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Costs of care during chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Review
- Scoping Review of Published Oncology Meta-analyses in High-Impact Oncology Journals.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Frequency and Characteristics of Trials Using Medical Writer Support in High-Impact Oncology Journals.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Lessons from Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Smoking Cessation Programs for Cancer Patients.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- A David and Goliath set-up: a qualitative study of the challenges of ensuring the introduction of cost-effective new cancer medicines in Finland.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2022Article
- Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: registry based analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- Analyzing a Cost-Effectiveness Dataset: A Speech and Language Example for Clinicians.Seminars in speech and language · 2022Article
- Real-world assessment of attenuated dosing anti-PD1 therapy as an alternative dosing strategy in a high-income country (as defined by World Bank).Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Increasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine the value of rapidly increasing oncology drugs; however, this assumes that these analyses are unbiased. Objective: To analyze the characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies and to determine characteristics associated with whether an oncology drug is found to be cost-effective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2020. Exposures: Each drug was analyzed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year, the funding of the study, the authors' conflict of interest, the threshold of willingness-to-pay, from what country's perspective the analysis was done, and whether a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness analysis had been done. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective. Results: There were 116 drug approvals with 254 studies and country perspectives. Of the country perspectives, 132 (52%) were from the US. Forty-seven of 78 drugs with cost-effective studies had been shown to improve overall survival, whereas 15 of 38 of drugs without a cost-effectiveness study had been shown to improve overall survival. Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective than studies without funding (odds ratio, 41.36; 95% CI, 11.86-262.23). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, pharmaceutical funding was associated with greater odds that an oncology drug would be found to be cost-effective. These findings suggest that simply disclosing potential conflict of interest is inadequate. We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.