Abstract:Background China’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. Methods We 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 2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis. Results We 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). Conclusion The 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.

International Experience of Utilizing Pharmacoeconomic Evidences and the Application in China

International Experience of Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation in Health Decision-making

Evidence-based Research on the Selection Method System for China's Essential Medicine List

Application of Health Insurance Data in Pharmacoeconomics Evaluation--International Experience and Related Advices

Specific Role of Pharmacoeconomics in the Medical Reform Program Implementation

International Experiences of Medicines Insurance Payment Pricing Mechanisms and the Implications to China

Assessment of the quality of pharmacoeconomic evaluation literature in China

Intended and Unintended Impacts of Price Changes for Drugs and Medical Services: Evidence from China.

Conducting Pharmacoeconomics Studies to Provide Service for the Sustainable Development of Medical Insurance System

Bibliometric Analysis of Foreign Pharmacoeconomic Literatures

Systems analysis and evaluation of Chinese pharmacoeconomic literatures over ifve years

Issues in Drug Pricing,Reimbursement and Access in China from the International Perspectives

Health Technology Assessment and Its Use in Drug Policies in China

Use of Health Technology Assessment in Drug Reimbursement Decisions in China.

Drug pricing reform in China: analysis of piloted approaches and potential impact of the reform.

Comparative Study on the Policies of Drug Price and Expenditure Control in China and Other Countries

International Experience in the Management of OTC Drugs' Reimbursement

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

Use of real world data to improve drug coverage decisions in China

"4+7" City Drug Volume-Based Purchasing and Using Pilot Program in China and Its Impact.

Application of pharmacoeconomic evaluation in reimbursement decision-making in South Korea