Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Critical Care 4/2005

01-08-2005 | Commentary

The benefits and threats of research partnerships with industry

Author: Gordon DuVal

Published in: Critical Care | Issue 4/2005

Login to get access

Excerpt

During the past two decades, the involvement of non-academic sponsors of biomedical research, particularly clinical trial research, has increased exponentially. It is estimated that between 1980 and 2003 the overall research and development expenditure by US pharmaceutical companies increased from $2 billion to $33 billion [1]. The sources of funding for biomedical research have also shifted significantly towards industry. By 2002, 70% of funding for clinical trials came from industry [2]. The involvement of industry partners in research has undoubted benefits. Drug development is extraordinarily expensive, and government and other non-commercial sources of research funding have generally not been able to or willing to underwrite the enormous sums necessary to develop and test the medications and devices that have made remarkable improvements in the lives of so many. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: Pharmaceutical Industry Profile. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 2004. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: Pharmaceutical Industry Profile. Washington, DC: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; 2004.
2.
go back to reference Bodenheimer T: Uneasy alliance – clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000, 342: 1539-1544. 10.1056/NEJM200005183422024CrossRefPubMed Bodenheimer T: Uneasy alliance – clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000, 342: 1539-1544. 10.1056/NEJM200005183422024CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Cho MK, Bero LA: The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 1996, 124: 485-489.CrossRefPubMed Cho MK, Bero LA: The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 1996, 124: 485-489.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
go back to reference Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL: Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999, 282: 1453-1457. 10.1001/jama.282.15.1453CrossRefPubMed Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL: Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999, 282: 1453-1457. 10.1001/jama.282.15.1453CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Bero LA, Rennie D: Influences on the quality of published drug studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996, 12: 209-237.CrossRefPubMed Bero LA, Rennie D: Influences on the quality of published drug studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996, 12: 209-237.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Temple R: Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA 1999, 282: 790-795. 10.1001/jama.282.8.790CrossRefPubMed Temple R: Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular disease drugs? JAMA 1999, 282: 790-795. 10.1001/jama.282.8.790CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Psaty BM, Weiss NS, Furberg CD, Koepsell TD, Siscovick DS, Rosendaal FR, Smith NL, Heckbert SR, Kaplan RC, Lin D, et al.: Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA 1999, 282: 786-790. 10.1001/jama.282.8.786CrossRefPubMed Psaty BM, Weiss NS, Furberg CD, Koepsell TD, Siscovick DS, Rosendaal FR, Smith NL, Heckbert SR, Kaplan RC, Lin D, et al.: Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA 1999, 282: 786-790. 10.1001/jama.282.8.786CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Marshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, Adams C, Joy C, Fenton M: Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 2000, 176: 249-252. 10.1192/bjp.176.3.249CrossRefPubMed Marshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, Adams C, Joy C, Fenton M: Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 2000, 176: 249-252. 10.1192/bjp.176.3.249CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Safer DJ: Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. J Nerv Ment Dis 2002, 190: 583-592. 10.1097/00005053-200209000-00002CrossRefPubMed Safer DJ: Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. J Nerv Ment Dis 2002, 190: 583-592. 10.1097/00005053-200209000-00002CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Raju TN, Langenberg P, Sen A, Aldana O: How much 'better' is good enough? The magnitude of treatment effect in clinical trials. Am J Dis Child 1992, 146: 407-411.CrossRefPubMed Raju TN, Langenberg P, Sen A, Aldana O: How much 'better' is good enough? The magnitude of treatment effect in clinical trials. Am J Dis Child 1992, 146: 407-411.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Montaner JS, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT: Industry-sponsored clinical research: a double-edged sword. Lancet 2001, 358: 1893-1895. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06891-XCrossRefPubMed Montaner JS, O'Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT: Industry-sponsored clinical research: a double-edged sword. Lancet 2001, 358: 1893-1895. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06891-XCrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Gotzsche PC: Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials 1989, 10: 31-56. 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90017-2CrossRefPubMed Gotzsche PC: Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials 1989, 10: 31-56. 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90017-2CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Anonymous: A duty to publish [editorial]. Nat Med 1998, 4: 1089. Anonymous: A duty to publish [editorial]. Nat Med 1998, 4: 1089.
15.
go back to reference Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS: Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 1997, 277: 1224-1228. 10.1001/jama.277.15.1224CrossRefPubMed Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS: Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 1997, 277: 1224-1228. 10.1001/jama.277.15.1224CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003, 326: 1167-1170. 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003, 326: 1167-1170. 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The benefits and threats of research partnerships with industry
Author
Gordon DuVal
Publication date
01-08-2005
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Critical Care / Issue 4/2005
Electronic ISSN: 1364-8535
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3539

Other articles of this Issue 4/2005

Critical Care 4/2005 Go to the issue