Literature DB >> 20467553

The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials.

Gisela Schott1, Henry Pachl, Ulrich Limbach, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Wolf-Dieter Ludwig, Klaus Lieb.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent years, a number of studies have shown that clinical drug trials financed by pharmaceutical companies yield favorable results for company products more often than independent trials do. Moreover, pharmaceutical companies have been found to influence drug trials in various ways. This paper provides an overview of the findings of current, systematic studies on this topic.
METHODS: Publications retrieved from a systematic Medline search on this topic from 1 November 2002 to 16 December 2009 were independently evaluated and selected by two of the authors. These publications were supplemented by further ones found in their references sections.
RESULTS: 57 publications were included for evaluation in Parts 1 and 2 of this article. Published drug trials that were financed by pharmaceutical companies, or whose authors declared a financial conflict of interest, were found to yield favorable results for the drug manufacturer more frequently than independently financed trials whose authors had no such conflicts. The results were also interpreted favorably more often than in independently financed trials. Furthermore, there was evidence that pharmaceutical companies influenced study protocols in a way that was favorable to themselves. The methodological quality of trials financed by pharmaceutical companies was not found to be any worse than that of trials financed in other ways.
CONCLUSION: Published drug trials that are financed by pharmaceutical companies may present a distorted picture. This cannot be explained by any difference in methodological quality between such trials and trials financed in other ways.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20467553      PMCID: PMC2868984          DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0279

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int        ISSN: 1866-0452            Impact factor:   5.594


  50 in total

1.  Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology.

Authors:  M Friedberg; B Saffran; T J Stinson; W Nelson; C L Bennett
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials.

Authors:  J Yaphe; R Edman; B Knishkowy; J Herman
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.267

Review 3.  Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants.

Authors:  C Bruce Baker; Michael T Johnsrud; M Lynn Crismon; Robert A Rosenheck; Scott W Woods
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 9.319

Review 4.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

Authors:  Joel Lexchin; Lisa A Bero; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Otavio Clark
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-05-31

Review 5.  Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

Authors:  Justin E Bekelman; Yan Li; Cary P Gross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003 Jan 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?

Authors:  Bodil Als-Nielsen; Wendong Chen; Christian Gluud; Lise L Kjaergard
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-08-20       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials.

Authors:  Mohit Bhandari; Jason W Busse; Dianne Jackowski; Victor M Montori; Holger Schünemann; Sheila Sprague; Derek Mears; Emil H Schemitsch; Dianne Heels-Ansdell; P J Devereaux
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Availability of comparative trials for the assessment of new medicines in the European Union at the moment of market authorization.

Authors:  Johan C F van Luijn; Frank W J Gribnau; Hubert G M Leufkens
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-12-07       Impact factor: 4.335

9.  End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs.

Authors:  John R Johnson; Grant Williams; Richard Pazdur
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-04-01       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 10.  Clozapine v. conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a re-examination.

Authors:  Joanna Moncrieff
Journal:  Br J Psychiatry       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 9.319

View more
  38 in total

1.  Of mugs, meals and more: the intricate relations between physicians and the medical industry.

Authors:  Stephan Sahm
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2013-05

2.  Drug research: marketing before evidence, sales before safety.

Authors:  David Klemperer
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): Search bias.

Authors:  Anja Braschoss
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): Opinion leaders.

Authors:  Stefan Sachtleben
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): Need for advice.

Authors:  Guido Grass; Karolina Mäder
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 5.594

6.  A survey of german physicians in private practice about contacts with pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Authors:  Klaus Lieb; Simone Brandtönies
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-06-04       Impact factor: 5.594

7.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): National foundation.

Authors:  Mathias Freund
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 5.594

8.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): Notorious weaknesses.

Authors:  Jürgen Maares
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 5.594

9.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): Wholesale accusations?

Authors:  Siegfried Throm
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 5.594

10.  Correspondence (letter to the editor): Trend gives cause for concern.

Authors:  Christoph Maier; Michael Zenz
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 5.594

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.