C. Bruce Baker

Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants

BACKGROUND Concern is widespread about potential sponsorship influence on research, especially in pharmacoeconomic studies. Quantitative analysis of possible bias in such studies is limited. AIMS To determine whether there is an association between sponsorship and quantitative outcomes in pharmacoeconomic studies of antidepressants. METHOD Using all identifiable articles with original comparative quantitative cost or cost-effectiveness outcomes for antidepressants, we performed contingency table analyses of study sponsorship and design v. study outcome. RESULTS Studies sponsored by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) manufacturers favoured SSRIs over tricyclic antidepressants more than non-industry-sponsored studies. Studies sponsored by manufacturers of newer antidepressants favoured these drugs more than did non-industry-sponsored studies. Among industry-sponsored studies, modelling studies favoured the sponsors drug more than did administrative studies. Industry-sponsored modelling studies were more favourable to industry than were non-industry-sponsored ones. CONCLUSIONS Pharmacoeconomic studies of antidepressants reveal clear associations of study sponsorship with quantitative outcome.

Cost of treatment failure for major depression: direct costs of continued treatment.

Understanding subsequent costs of treating patients who fail initial treatment for depression is critical in cost-effectiveness analysis. This prospective observational study calculated such costs in a community mental health center. Total mean annual direct per-patient costs were

Effects of Levetiracetam on Tardive Dyskinesia : A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

6,818 to

Control Group Bias in Randomized Atypical Antipsychotic Medication Trials for Schizophrenia

8,661. This total was markedly higher than those reported in studies that were based partially on the assumptions of expert panels rather than observed utilization rates. These results suggest that in settings similar to the present study, antidepressant treatments with higher failure rates may carry a marked hidden cost disadvantage.