Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38030227›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2023

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review.

Zixuan He, Xianqin Huang, Dingyi Chen, Guoan Wang, Yuezhen Zhu, Huangqianyu Li, Sheng Han, Luwen Shi, Xiaodong Guan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Zixuan HeInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Xianqin HuangInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Dingyi ChenInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Guoan WangInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yuezhen ZhuInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Huangqianyu LiInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Sheng HanInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Luwen ShiInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Xiaodong GuanInternational Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China guanxiaodong@pku.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-1290-3827

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChina's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

methodsWe searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ

resultsWe identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

conclusionThe study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Indexed as

Economics, PharmaceuticalNegotiatingChinaCost-Benefit AnalysisDrug CostsHumansHealth economicsHealth policy

Identifiers

PMID38030227
PMCPMC10689407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.