Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 20
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Aguiar, P. M. Lima, T. M. and Storpirtis, S. 2016. Systematic review of the economic evaluations of novel therapeutic agents in multiple myeloma: what is the reporting quality?. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Vol. 41, Issue. 2, p. 189.

    Garattini, Livio Curto, Alessandro and Freemantle, Nick 2016. Pharmaceutical Price Schemes in Europe: Time for a ‘Continental’ One?. PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 34, Issue. 5, p. 423.

    Evers, Silvia M.A.A. Hiligsmann, Mickaël and Adarkwah, Charles Christian 2015. Risk of bias in trial-based economic evaluations: Identification of sources and bias-reducing strategies. Psychology & Health, Vol. 30, Issue. 1, p. 52.

    Batty, Nicolas Shatzel, Joseph Wiles, Samuel Kabalan, Mathew Sharma, Rohit Pang, Jonathan Yi, David Alatovic, Iris Saif, Sana Narasimha, Deepika LaPenna, Joseph Troitino, Anthony Attwood, Kristopher Weinstein, Michael Murawski, Eric Valerio, Mathew Yin, Yong and Wetzler, Meir 2014. Deficiencies of methods applied in cost effectiveness analysis of hematological malignancies. Journal of Cancer Policy, Vol. 2, Issue. 2, p. 40.

    Frederix, Gerardus W. J. van Hasselt, Johan G. C. Schellens, Jan H. M. Hövels, Anke M. Raaijmakers, Jan A. M. Huitema, Alwin D. R. and Severens, Johan L. 2014. The Impact of Structural Uncertainty on Cost-Effectiveness Models for Adjuvant Endocrine Breast Cancer Treatments: the Need for Disease-Specific Model Standardization and Improved Guidance. PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 32, Issue. 1, p. 47.

    Rosén, Måns 2014. WHO SHOULD CONDUCT MODELING AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS?. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 30, Issue. 01, p. 128.

    van de Vooren, Katelijne Duranti, Silvy Curto, Alessandro and Garattini, Livio 2014. Cost Effectiveness of the New Pneumococcal Vaccines: A Systematic Review of European Studies. PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 32, Issue. 1, p. 29.

    van de Vooren, Katelijne Duranti, Silvy Curto, Alessandro and Garattini, Livio 2014. A Critical Systematic Review of Budget Impact Analyses on Drugs in the EU Countries. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Vol. 12, Issue. 1, p. 33.

    Virgili, Gianni Parravano, Mariacristina Menchini, Francesca and Brunetti, Massimo 2014. Cost–effectiveness of treatments for diabetic macular oedema: should we pay more attention to the appraisal and reporting of economic evaluations?. British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 98, Issue. 4, p. 421.

    Husereau, Don Drummond, Michael Petrou, Stavros Carswell, Chris Moher, David Greenberg, Dan Augustovski, Federico Briggs, Andrew H. Mauskopf, Josephine and Loder, Elizabeth 2013. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value in Health, Vol. 16, Issue. 2, p. 231.

    Thorn, Joanna C. Noble, Sian M. and Hollingworth, William 2013. Timely and Complete Publication of Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomized Controlled Trials. PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 31, Issue. 1, p. 77.

    Yang, Mo Patel, Dhaval S Tufail, Waqas and Issa, Amalia M 2013. The quality of economic studies of cancer pharmacogenomics: a quantitative appraisal of the evidence. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, Vol. 13, Issue. 5, p. 597.

    Arana, Estanislao and Catalá-López, Ferrán 2012. Cost–effectiveness of iodinated contrast media for CT scanning in Spain: a decision-based analysis. Imaging in Medicine, Vol. 4, Issue. 2, p. 193.

    Hill, Suzanne R 2012. Cost-effectiveness analysis for clinicians. BMC Medicine, Vol. 10, Issue. 1,

    Hui, David Reddy, Akhila Parsons, Henrique A. and Bruera, Eduardo 2012. Reporting of Funding Sources and Conflict of Interest in the Supportive and Palliative Oncology Literature. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Vol. 44, Issue. 3, p. 421.

    Slørdal, Lars Eggen, Anne and Rygnestad, Tarjei 2012. Interessekonflikter - en kunnskapsbasert tilnærming. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening, Vol. 132, Issue. 11, p. 1358.

    Burls, Amanda and Sandercock, Josie 2011. Decision-making under conditions of uncertainty-what can we learn from palivizumab?. Acta Paediatrica, Vol. 100, Issue. 10, p. 1302.

    Garattini, Livio and Padula, Anna 2011. To model or not to model: lessons from two vaccinations. The European Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 12, Issue. 3, p. 189.

    Jobanputra, P. 2011. A clinician's critique of rheumatoid arthritis health economic models. Rheumatology, Vol. 50, Issue. suppl 4, p. iv48.

    Sud, Sachin and Cuthbertson, Brian H. 2011. Understanding health economic analysis in critical care. Current Opinion in Critical Care, Vol. 17, Issue. 5, p. 504.

  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 26, Issue 3
  • July 2010, pp. 330-333

Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: Funding sources and outcomes

  • Livio Garattini (a1), Daniela Koleva (a1) and Gianluigi Casadei (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 29 June 2010

Objectives: The prime objective of this study was to investigate whether sponsorship by the pharmaceutical industry affected the results of full economic evaluations (FEE) based on modeling. In particular, we focused on the flourishing literature based on Markov models, by far the most widely exploited tool for estimating lifetime costs and benefits.

Methods: We made a literature search of the international database PubMed to find all the studies on pharmacological treatments based on Markov models published in English in the period January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2009. We selected the FEEs focused on single drugs only, specifically cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. Two hundred articles including FEEs based on Markov models were considered eligible. For the analysis, we classified the FEEs into two groups according to whether or not they had financial backing from the pharmaceutical industry. We then assessed the main conclusions, which were classified as (i) “favorable,” (ii) “doubtful,” and (iii) “unfavorable.”

Results: Of the 200 articles, 138 (69 percent) were sponsored and 162 (81 percent) reached favorable conclusions. Sponsored studies were much more likely to report favorable conclusions than nonsponsored ones (95 percent and 50 percent, p < .001), the former even omitting unfavorable conclusions.

Conclusions: The review found a substantial share of studies supported by the pharmaceutical industry, almost all concluding in favor of the drug studied, without any unfavorable conclusions at all. These results confirm also in the field of pharmacoeconomic studies that the best way of limiting confounding factors is by clearly distinguishing assessors from manufacturers and marketers of any new technology.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1.MV Bala , JA Mauskopf . Optimal assignment of treatments to health states using a Markov decision model. An introduction to basic concepts. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24:345354.

3. CM Bell , DR Urbach , JG Ray , Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: Systematic review. BMJ. 2006;332:699703.

4. A Burls , J Sandercock . How to make a compelling submission to NICE: Tips for sponsoring organizations. BMJ. 2003;327:14461448.

5. PH Conway , C Clancy . Comparative-effectiveness research— Implications of the Federal Coordinating Council's Report. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:328330.

6. FB Dong , SW Sorensen , DL Manninen , Cost effectiveness of ACE inhibitor treatment for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22:10151027.

7. L Garattini , G Casadei . Health technology assessment: For whom the bell tolls? Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9:311312.

8.S Gerkens , M Nechelput , L Annemans , A health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of PEG IFN α-2a and ribavirin in patients with mild chronic hepatitis C. J Viral Hepat. 2007;14:523536.

9. JK Iglehart . Priorizing Comparative-effectiveness research – IOM recommendations. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:325327.

10. S Krimsky . Conflict of Interest and Cost-effectiveness Analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:14741475.

11. J Lexchin , LA Bero , B Djulbegovic , O Clark . Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:11671170.

13.Z Philips , L Ginnelly , M Sculpher , Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1158.

14. R Steinbrook . Controlling conflict of interest – Proposal from the Institute of Medicine. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:21602163.

15. KG Volpp , A Das . Comparative effectiveness – Thinking beyond medication A versus medication B. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:331333.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Garattini et al. supplementary material
Supplementary table

 Unknown (224 KB)
224 KB