[From the design of use study to the assessment of the benefit: with or without pharmaceutical industry?].
The financing of clinical studies by the pharmaceutical industry is a controversial topic both internationally and in here in Germany. The well-known unacceptable shortcomings require no further confirmation. It is, however, indisputable that the pharmaceutical industry and medical science are co-dependent. Neither the marketing of industrial products nor the research and education of clinical scientists could function without this cooperation. Therefore, all partners need suggestions concerning goal orientation and consensus. The aim of this discussion is to formulate just such suggestions. To structure this discussion, we have raised the following questions: Must we always be suspicious of the results of studies financed by the pharmaceutical industry? We have to keep in mind that in Germany all clinical trials leading to approval of a drug were supported by the industry. What, exactly, do we want to achieve with our explicit and often justified criticism of these studies? What should be done to achieve a higher validity of the published data if we avoid answering the decisive question of whether we accept the challenge of continuing to let research and teaching be financed by the pharmaceutical industry or reject this kind of cooperation and support altogether.
Klinische Ökonomik, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany. Franz.Porzsolt@uniklinik-ulm.de
Franz
F
Porzsolt
D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000191:economics*; D016265:Conflict of Interest; D032921:Consensus; D003299:Cooperative Behavior; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004345:Drug Industry; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D033183:Interdisciplinary Communication; D009313:National Health Programs / Q000191:economics*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design; D012109:Research Support as Topic / Q000191:economics*
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Feb 22;170(4):356-62
20177039
Br J Cancer. 2003 Oct 20;89(8):1405-8
14562007
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Mar 09;11(1):e8
19275984
Minn Med. 2008 Jun;91(6):46-7
18616022
Nature. 1995 Nov 9;378(6553):116
7477301
Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1999 Mar;25(3):137-44
10093019
Br J Dermatol. 2010 Feb 1;162(2):384-9
19785620
BMJ. 2002 Sep 7;325(7363):528-31
12217994
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2002 Mar 15;59(6):509, 514
11908243
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010 Apr;107(16):277-8
20467552
BMJ. 2006 Oct 14;333(7572):782
17028106
Stroke. 1999 Oct;30(10):1995-8
10512897
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010 Apr;107(17):295-301
20490338
J Law Med Ethics. 2009 Fall;37(3):451-60, 396
19723256
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010 Apr;107(16):279-85
20467553
JAMA. 2006 Jun 21;295(23):2759-64
16788131
JAMA. 2009 Sep 2;302(9):969-76
19724044
Account Res. 2005 Jul-Sep;12(3):163-91
16634168
Sci Eng Ethics. 2003 Jan;9(1):29-41
12645227
Medscape J Med. 2008;10(9):211
19008973
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;198(5):579.e1-4
18455539
Med Klin (Munich). 2010 May;105(5):345-50
20503009
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Dec;4(12):1445-51
17101295
Oncologist. 2008 Sep;13(9):925-9
18794216
Arthritis Res Ther. 2004;6(3):R250-5
15142271
Clin Cancer Res. 2007 May 15;13(10):2823-4
17504978