scholarly journals Clinical Research and the Pharmaceutical Industry

2009 ◽  
Vol 221 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Knut Rasmussen
1984 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-61
Author(s):  
Michael A. Riddiough

There are two major issues that have potential for positive interactions between the industry and clinical pharmacy. These are drug selection and reimbursement, and clinical research. The first issue embodies the drug prescribing process, which has been, until recently, almost the sole purview of physicians. For this reason, pharmaceutical manufacturers have marketed their products primarily to this group. Changes are occurring; other licensed practitioners, including clinical pharmacists, are gaining prescribing authority. Schools of pharmacy have trained several thousand clinical pharmacists over the past decade, while the pharmacology component of medical education and the time devoted to clinical therapeutics either has stagnated or declined during the same period. Meanwhile, drug information has increased and the need to monitor drug selection to curtail costs has widened the opportunities for clinical pharmacists to exert an influence. The pharmaceutical industry needs to recognize the role clinical pharmacists play in drug selection. Drug selection decisions obviously influence drug reimbursement decisions, which influence drug sales, which influence profits. Clinical research is the backbone of a company's financial success and is becoming technologically sophisticated. Companies are becoming aware that many clinical pharmacists are able to collect and analyze clinical drug data as well as, or possibly better than, physicians. Clinical pharmacists can play a significant role in monitoring the safety and efficacy of marketed drugs. Good postmarketing surveillance data collection systems need to be developed.


1990 ◽  
Vol 47 (11) ◽  
pp. 2446-2448
Author(s):  
Ira Cohen ◽  
John Bender ◽  
Don Cilla ◽  
Michelle Texter ◽  
Lisa McCormick

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne M. Regnante ◽  
Lola Fashoyin-Aje ◽  
Ellen Miller Sonet ◽  
Quita Highsmith ◽  
Melissa Gonzales ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (22) ◽  
pp. 4145-4150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezekiel J. Emanuel ◽  
Lowell E. Schnipper ◽  
Deborah Y. Kamin ◽  
Jenifer Levinson ◽  
Allen S. Lichter

Purpose: Physicians frequently receive payment for enrolling subjects onto clinical trials. Some view these payments as conflicts of interest. Others contend that these payments are necessary reimbursements for conducting clinical research. We evaluated the clinical and nonclinical hours and costs associated with conducting a mock phase III clinical research trial. Methods: We collected data from representatives of 21 clinical sites, on the numbers of hours associated with 13 activities necessary to the conduct of clinical research. The hours were based on enrolling 20 patients in a 12-month randomized placebo-controlled trial of a new chemotherapeutic agent. The outcome measures were disease progression and quality-of-life reports. These costs were evaluated for both government and pharmaceutical industry–sponsored trials. Results: On average, 4,012 hours (range, 1,512 to 13,319 hours) were required for a government-sponsored trial, and 3,998 hours (range: 1735 to 15,699) were required for a pharmaceutical industry–sponsored trial involving 20 subjects with 17 office visits, or approximately 200 hours per subject. Thirty-two percent of the hours were devoted to nonclinical activities, such as institutional review board submission and completion of clinical reporting forms. On average, excluding overhead expenses, it cost slightly more than $6,094 (range, $2,098 to $19,285) per enrolled subject for an industry-sponsored trial, including $1,999 devoted to nonclinical costs. Conclusion: Based on the results of our mock trial, the time required for nontreatment trial activities is considerable, and the associated costs are substantial.


1993 ◽  
Vol 27 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 904-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel P. Wermeling ◽  
Ada Sue Selwitz

OBJECTIVE: Our principal objective is to make readers aware of conflicting demands placed on investigators and the pharmaceutical industry regarding inclusion of women and minorities in clinical research. Tremendous pressures have been placed to expedite the drug approval process. Moreover, during the last decade certain segments of society, particularly women and minorities, have demanded greater participation in clinical drug trials and earlier access to investigational drug therapies. Regulations that have served the clinical research community (pharmaceutical industry, investigators, institutional review boards) as guidelines for safe conduct of human clinical trials are being challenged by social and political change. This article provides an overview of some of the controversy relative to federal regulations governing clinical trials; scientific concerns; social, political and legal trends; and ethical principles applied to human clinical research. DATA SOURCES: Literature for this paper was retrieved from a variety of sources including the nonmedical press, editorials, peer-reviewed journals, Department of Health and Human Services regulations, National Institutes of Health policy, the Belmont Report, and regulations of the Food and Drug Administration. DATA SYNTHESIS: Scientists evaluating new therapeutic agents ask specific research questions to assess safety, efficacy, and the mechanism(s) of action. Because of concerns for scientific validity, safety, liability, and convenience, many early evaluations of new drugs involve patient populations that may not represent the ultimate users of a new drug. Federal regulations and ethical principles allow certain groups of people to be excluded from early research proposals because they are thought to be putting themselves at greater risk by participating than are other groups. However, women, minorities, and other populations are demanding greater access to investigational drugs. The focus has changed from protection from research risks and burdens to the potential benefits a person or class of people may obtain by participating in a study. CONCLUSIONS: Scientists, the pharmaceutical industry, regulators, and society must agree on a safe and efficient mechanism for new drug development that permits more equitable participation of subjects in the various phases of research.


1989 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Albert Edwards

The article describes the role of a pharmacist practicing in the area of clinical research for a major food additive company. The article also discusses clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry and includes information on what elements of a pharmacy background are useful and relevant in clinical research, as well as what a pharmacist can expect in this area. The future growth of job opportunities is also discussed. Some information is also given on the clinical research process and the underlying scientific method.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document