Conflict of interest in economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: A systematic review

Sekwon Jang, Young Kwang Chae, Tufia C Haddad, Navneet S. Majhail

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To determine whether authors conducting economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions if the economic study is sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug. Articles reporting the economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer were selected from PubMed in May 2009. Information was collected on the types of analysis, the qualitative conclusion, the quantitative results, and the funding sources. Fisher's exact test was conducted to compare the frequency of unfavorable conclusions based on study sponsorship. Thirty-two eligible articles were identified. Twenty-six were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 4 were funded by non-pharmaceutical companies. Two studies did not report a funding source. Twenty-one studies evaluated aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant setting, while 11 studies examined their use in advanced breast cancer. Twenty-two studies evaluated one type aromatase inhibitor, while 10 compared multiple types of aromatase inhibitors. Only one of the 26 (4%) pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported unfavorable cost-effectiveness of an aromatase inhibitor, which was a competitor's product, whereas two of four (50%) non-pharmaceutical companysponsored studies concluded aromatase inhibitors are not cost-effective in certain clinical scenarios (P < 0.05). Seven pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies conducted a comparison among several aromatase inhibitors; all 7 studies reported favorable conclusions for the sponsoring company's products. The majority of economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are sponsored by pharmaceuticals. Economic evaluations of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer that are funded by a pharmaceutical company are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions about the sponsor's product.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)273-279
Number of pages7
JournalBreast Cancer Research and Treatment
Volume121
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Conflict of Interest
Aromatase Inhibitors
Economics
Breast Neoplasms
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Cost-Benefit Analysis
PubMed
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Aromatase inhibitor
  • Breast cancer
  • Conflict of interest
  • Economic analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Conflict of interest in economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer : A systematic review. / Jang, Sekwon; Chae, Young Kwang; Haddad, Tufia C; Majhail, Navneet S.

In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 121, No. 2, 06.2010, p. 273-279.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5efb79d4d0bb4417a715e0e5b020d58b,
title = "Conflict of interest in economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: A systematic review",
abstract = "To determine whether authors conducting economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions if the economic study is sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug. Articles reporting the economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer were selected from PubMed in May 2009. Information was collected on the types of analysis, the qualitative conclusion, the quantitative results, and the funding sources. Fisher's exact test was conducted to compare the frequency of unfavorable conclusions based on study sponsorship. Thirty-two eligible articles were identified. Twenty-six were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 4 were funded by non-pharmaceutical companies. Two studies did not report a funding source. Twenty-one studies evaluated aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant setting, while 11 studies examined their use in advanced breast cancer. Twenty-two studies evaluated one type aromatase inhibitor, while 10 compared multiple types of aromatase inhibitors. Only one of the 26 (4{\%}) pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported unfavorable cost-effectiveness of an aromatase inhibitor, which was a competitor's product, whereas two of four (50{\%}) non-pharmaceutical companysponsored studies concluded aromatase inhibitors are not cost-effective in certain clinical scenarios (P < 0.05). Seven pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies conducted a comparison among several aromatase inhibitors; all 7 studies reported favorable conclusions for the sponsoring company's products. The majority of economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are sponsored by pharmaceuticals. Economic evaluations of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer that are funded by a pharmaceutical company are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions about the sponsor's product.",
keywords = "Aromatase inhibitor, Breast cancer, Conflict of interest, Economic analysis",
author = "Sekwon Jang and Chae, {Young Kwang} and Haddad, {Tufia C} and Majhail, {Navneet S.}",
year = "2010",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1007/s10549-010-0870-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "121",
pages = "273--279",
journal = "Breast Cancer Research and Treatment",
issn = "0167-6806",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conflict of interest in economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Jang, Sekwon

AU - Chae, Young Kwang

AU - Haddad, Tufia C

AU - Majhail, Navneet S.

PY - 2010/6

Y1 - 2010/6

N2 - To determine whether authors conducting economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions if the economic study is sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug. Articles reporting the economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer were selected from PubMed in May 2009. Information was collected on the types of analysis, the qualitative conclusion, the quantitative results, and the funding sources. Fisher's exact test was conducted to compare the frequency of unfavorable conclusions based on study sponsorship. Thirty-two eligible articles were identified. Twenty-six were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 4 were funded by non-pharmaceutical companies. Two studies did not report a funding source. Twenty-one studies evaluated aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant setting, while 11 studies examined their use in advanced breast cancer. Twenty-two studies evaluated one type aromatase inhibitor, while 10 compared multiple types of aromatase inhibitors. Only one of the 26 (4%) pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported unfavorable cost-effectiveness of an aromatase inhibitor, which was a competitor's product, whereas two of four (50%) non-pharmaceutical companysponsored studies concluded aromatase inhibitors are not cost-effective in certain clinical scenarios (P < 0.05). Seven pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies conducted a comparison among several aromatase inhibitors; all 7 studies reported favorable conclusions for the sponsoring company's products. The majority of economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are sponsored by pharmaceuticals. Economic evaluations of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer that are funded by a pharmaceutical company are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions about the sponsor's product.

AB - To determine whether authors conducting economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions if the economic study is sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug. Articles reporting the economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer were selected from PubMed in May 2009. Information was collected on the types of analysis, the qualitative conclusion, the quantitative results, and the funding sources. Fisher's exact test was conducted to compare the frequency of unfavorable conclusions based on study sponsorship. Thirty-two eligible articles were identified. Twenty-six were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 4 were funded by non-pharmaceutical companies. Two studies did not report a funding source. Twenty-one studies evaluated aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant setting, while 11 studies examined their use in advanced breast cancer. Twenty-two studies evaluated one type aromatase inhibitor, while 10 compared multiple types of aromatase inhibitors. Only one of the 26 (4%) pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies reported unfavorable cost-effectiveness of an aromatase inhibitor, which was a competitor's product, whereas two of four (50%) non-pharmaceutical companysponsored studies concluded aromatase inhibitors are not cost-effective in certain clinical scenarios (P < 0.05). Seven pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies conducted a comparison among several aromatase inhibitors; all 7 studies reported favorable conclusions for the sponsoring company's products. The majority of economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer are sponsored by pharmaceuticals. Economic evaluations of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer that are funded by a pharmaceutical company are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions about the sponsor's product.

KW - Aromatase inhibitor

KW - Breast cancer

KW - Conflict of interest

KW - Economic analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953024444&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953024444&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10549-010-0870-7

DO - 10.1007/s10549-010-0870-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 20352486

AN - SCOPUS:77953024444

VL - 121

SP - 273

EP - 279

JO - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

JF - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

SN - 0167-6806

IS - 2

ER -