DÄ internationalArchiveReferences
References

Original article

The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and Its Consequences

Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010; 107(16): 279-85. DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0279

Schott, G; Pachl, H; Limbach, U; Gundert-Remy, U; Ludwig, W; Lieb, K

1. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, et al.: The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000; 356: 635–8. MEDLINE
2. 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: 1453–7. MEDLINE
3. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, Minaker KL, et al.: A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 157–63. MEDLINE
4. Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J: The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract 2001; 18: 565–8. MEDLINE
5. Bero LA, Rennie D: Influences on the quality of published drug studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996; 12: 209–37. MEDLINE
6. Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB, Phillips SG, Pace BP, Lundberg GD, et al.: Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998; 280: 222–4. MEDLINE
7. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289: 454–65. MEDLINE
8. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167–70. MEDLINE
9. Ressing M, Blettner M, Klug SJ: Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses: part 6 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications [Systematische Übersichtsarbeiten und Metaanalysen: Teil 6 der Serie zur Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen]. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2009; 106: 456–63. VOLLTEXT
10. Sismondo S: Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 2008; 29: 109–13. MEDLINE
11. Golder S, Loke YK: Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 66: 767–73. MEDLINE
12. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al.: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1–12. MEDLINE
13. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH: Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 1271–8. MEDLINE
14. Freedman B: Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 141–5. MEDLINE
15. EMA, CHMP: Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man (CPMP/EWP/205/95 Rev. 3) on haematological malignancies. London, 20. November 2008; Doc. Ref. EMEA/CHMP/EWP/520088/2008. Zuletzt geprüft: 8. Februar 2010.
16. Apolone G, Joppi R, Bertele’ V, Garattini S: Ten years of marketing approvals of anticancer drugs in Europe: regulatory policy and guidance documents need to find a balance between different pressures. Br J Cancer 2005; 93: 504–9. MEDLINE
17. Bertele’ V, Banzi R, Capasso F, Tafuri G, Trotta F, Apolone G, et al.: Haematological anticancer drugs in Europe: any added value at the time of approval? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63: 713–9. MEDLINE
18. Johnson JR, Williams G, Pazdur R: End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 1404–11. MEDLINE
19. van Luijn JC, Gribnau FW, Leufkens HG: Availability of comparative trials for the assessment of new medicines in the European Union at the moment of market authorization. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63: 159–62. MEDLINE
20. Trotta F, Apolone G, Garattini S, Tafuri G: Stopping a trial early in oncology: for patients or for industry? Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 1347–53. MEDLINE
21. Ludwig W-D, Fetscher S, Schildmann J: Teure Innovationen in der Onkologie – für alle? Der Onkologe 2009; 15: 1004–14.
e1. Peppercorn J, Blood E, Winer E, Partridge A: Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Cancer 2007; 109: 1239–46. MEDLINE
e2. Booth CM, Cescon DW, Wang L, Tannock IF, Krzyzanowska MK: Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5458–64. MEDLINE
e3. Ridker PM, Torres J: Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000–2005. JAMA 2006; 295: 2270–4. MEDLINE
e4. Tungaraza T, Poole R: Influence of drug company authorship and sponsorship on drug trial outcomes. Br J Psychiatry 2007; 191: 82–3. MEDLINE
e5. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL: Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003; 290: 921–8. MEDLINE
e6. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC: Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006; 333: 782–5. MEDLINE
e7. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA: Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2007; 335: 1202–5. MEDLINE
e8. Gilstad JR, Finucane TE: Results, rhetoric, and randomized trials: the case of donepezil. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56: 1556–62. MEDLINE
e9. Barden J, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Moore RA: Bias from industry trial funding? A framework, a suggested approach, and a negative result. Pain 2006; 121: 207–18. MEDLINE
e10. Buchkowsky SS, Jewesson PJ: Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38: 579–85. MEDLINE
e11. Tulikangas PK, Ayers A, O’Sullivan DM: A meta-analysis comparing trials of antimuscarinic medications funded by industry or not. BJU Int 2006; 98: 377–80. MEDLINE
e12. Katz KA, Karlawish JH, Chiang DS, Bognet RA, Propert KJ, Margolis DJ: Prevalence and factors associated with use of placebo control groups in randomized controlled trials in psoriasis: a cross-sectional study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006; 55: 814–22. MEDLINE
e13. Waldinger MD, Schweitzer DH: Premature ejaculation and pharmaceutical company-based medicine: the dapoxetine case. J Sex Med 2008; 5: 966–97. MEDLINE
e14. Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM: The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 251–8. MEDLINE
e15. Procyshyn RM, Chau A, Fortin P, Jenkins W: Prevalence and outcomes of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials involving clozapine, risperidone, or olanzapine. Can J Psychiatry 2004; 49: 601–6. MEDLINE
e16. Yuen SY, Pope JE: Learning from past mistakes: assessing trial quality, power and eligibility in non-renal systemic lupus erythematosus randomized controlled trials. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008; 47: 1367–72. MEDLINE
e17. Perlis CS, Harwood M, Perlis RH: Extent and impact of industry sponsorship conflicts of interest in dermatology research. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 52: 967–71. MEDLINE
e18. Montgomery JH, Byerly M, Carmody T, Li B, Miller DR, Varghese F et al.: An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. Control Clin Trials 2004; 25: 598–612. MEDLINE
e19. Nieto A, Mazon A, Pamies R, Linana JJ, Lanuza A, Jimenez FO, et al.: Adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids in funded and nonfunded studies. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167: 2047–53. MEDLINE
e20. Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, Rosenheck RA, Woods SW: Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 2003; 183: 498–506. MEDLINE
e21. Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, Lee K: Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e184. MEDLINE
e22. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D, Montori VM, Schunemann H, Sprague S, et al.: Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 2004; 170: 477–80. MEDLINE
e23. Etter JF, Burri M, Stapleton J: The impact of pharmaceutical company funding on results of randomized trials of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. Addiction 2007; 102: 815–22. MEDLINE
e24. Finucane TE, Boult CE: Association of funding and findings of pharmaceutical research at a meeting of a medical professional society. Am J Med 2004; 117: 842–45. MEDLINE
e25. Fries JF, Krishnan E: Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development. Arthritis Res Ther 2004; 6: R250-5. MEDLINE
e26. Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, Jetzinger E, Kissling W, Leucht S: Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 185–94. MEDLINE
e27. Kelly RE, Jr., Cohen LJ, Semple RJ, Bialer P, Lau A, Bodenheimer A, et al.: Relationship between drug company funding and outcomes of clinical psychiatric research. Psychol Med 2006; 36: 1647–56. MEDLINE
e28. Liss H: Publication bias in the pulmonary/allergy literature: effect of pharmaceutical company sponsorship. Isr Med Assoc J 2006; 8: 451–4. MEDLINE
e29. Moncrieff J: Clozapine v. conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment-resistant schizophrenia: a re-examination. Br J Psychiatry 2003; 183: 161–6. MEDLINE
e30. Perlis RH, Perlis CS, Wu Y, Hwang C, Joseph M, Nierenberg AA: Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 1957–60. MEDLINE
e31. Vlad SC, LaValley MP, McAlindon TE, Felson DT: Glucosamine for pain in osteoarthritis: why do trial results differ? Arthritis Rheum 2007; 56: 2267–77. MEDLINE