The US-based Pew Charitable Trusts is funding a campaign called the Prescription Project to reduce the influence of pharmaceutical industry marketing on physicians,

2007 ◽  
Vol &NA; (1579) ◽  
pp. 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
&NA;
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
The Us

scholarly journals Adolescent Depression Screening: Not So Fast

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-69
Author(s):  
Edmund C. Levin
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Adolescent Depression ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
The Us ◽  
National Organizations ◽  
The Uk

Background: Screening adolescents for depression has recently been advocated by two major national organizations. However, this practice is not without controversy. Objective: To review diagnostic, clinical, and conflict of interest issues associated with the calls for routine depression screening in adolescents. Method: The evaluation of depression screening by the US Preventive Services Task Force is compared and contrasted with those of comparable agencies in the UK and Canada, and articles arguing for and against screening are reviewed. Internal pharmaceutical industry documents declassified through litigation are examined for conflicts of interest. A case is presented that illustrates the substantial diagnostic limitations of self-administered mental health screening tools. Discussion: The value of screening adolescents for psychiatric illness is questionable, as is the validity of the screening tools that have been developed for this purpose. Furthermore, many of those advocating depression screening are key opinion leaders, who are in effect acting as third-party advocates for the pharmaceutical industry. The evidence suggests that a commitment to marketing rather than to science is behind their recommendations, although their conflicts of interest are hidden in what seem to be impartial third-party recommendations.

scholarly journals The Pharmaceutical Industry in 2019. An Analysis of FDA Drug Approvals from the Perspective of Molecules

Molecules ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatriz G. de la Torre ◽  
Fernando Albericio
Keyword(s):  
Natural Products ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Small Molecules ◽  
Chemical Structure ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Antibody Drug Conjugates ◽  
Drug Conjugates ◽  
The Us ◽  
New Chemical Entities ◽  
Antibody Drug

During 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 48 new drugs (38 New Chemical Entities and 10 Biologics). Although this figure is slightly lower than that registered in 2018 (59 divided between 42 New Chemical Entities and 17 Biologics), a year that broke a record with respect to new drugs approved by this agency, it builds on the trend initiated in 2017, when 46 drugs were approved. Of note, three antibody drug conjugates, three peptides, and two oligonucleotides were approved in 2019. This report analyzes the 48 new drugs of the class of 2019 from a strictly chemical perspective. The classification, which was carried out on the basis of chemical structure, includes the following: Biologics (antibody drug conjugates, antibodies, and proteins); TIDES (peptide and oligonucleotides); drug combinations; natural products; and small molecules.

The Economics of the Biopharmaceutical Industry

2011 ◽  
pp. 519-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia M. Danzon
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Research And Development ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Neglected Diseases ◽  
Market Demand ◽  
Global Issues ◽  
Insurance Reimbursement ◽  
Development Costs ◽  
The Us ◽  
Differential Pricing

This article summarizes the literature, and considers the issue of paying for research and development. It reviews research and development costs, regulation, productivity and incentives for innovation. It discusses market demand and pricing, effects of insurance, reimbursement regulation, alternatives to patents, and generics. Further, it reviews trends in promotion, regulation of promotion and its effects. It discusses global issues, including differential pricing and R&D for neglected diseases. The focus is on the US, as the home of the largest number of multinational pharmaceutical and smaller biotech companies. This article notes the important differences in regulatory and reimbursement systems in other countries. Finally it suggests that although there is large and growing literature on the pharmaceutical industry that has produced valuable information, important issues remain for future research.

Evaluation of downstream integration in the US pharmaceutical industry

2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Simonet
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Vertical Integration ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Drug Market ◽  
Competitive Advantages ◽  
Strategic Decisions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
The Us ◽  
Integration Strategies

PurposeThis paper aims to review the vertical or quasi‐vertical integration that characterized the pharmaceutical industry in the mid‐1990s. The acquisitions and vertical partnerships that linked pharmacy benefits managers and drug manufacturers modified the structure of the market at that time. What were the motivations of those agreements? Did they induce any distortion on competition in the drug market? And why did they fail to achieve their desired strategic advantages?Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses established theoretical perspectives, such as the resource‐based view and the theory of contestable markets, as the basis for a descriptive analysis, documenting strategic decisions of vertical integration using supporting literature in marketing and strategy.FindingsVertical integration did not obtain the intended results (e.g. acquisition of competitive advantages). This perspective provides a framework to examine vertical integration strategies, applicable to other industries.Originality/valueThe paper reviews the objectives of vertical integration strategies of US drug firms in the 1990s and their hidden agendas.

R&D investment behavior of US pharmaceutical firms

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michal Jirásek
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Investment Behavior ◽  
Theoretical Assumption ◽  
Industry Studies ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Pharmaceutical Firms ◽  
The Us ◽  
Single Industry ◽  
D Investment

Purpose The behavioral theory of the firm (BTOF) has been used to explain the research and development (R&D) investment behavior of firms in numerous multi industry studies. However, their partially contradictory results point to the possible need for a single industry perspective that would reduce heterogeneity of business trends, models and other characteristics. This study aims to test this theoretical assumption within the challenging context of the US pharmaceutical industry. Design/methodology/approach The research uses data from 20 firms, which number among the largest in the US pharmaceutical industry, over the period 2002-2014. These data are analyzed using fixed- and random-effect panel models. Findings The findings generally support the need for a thorough understanding of the industry under study and its specific characteristics. The firms analyzed in this research behave slightly differently from theoretical assumptions, and it is argued that this is caused by industry specific factors. Moreover, the use of two separate aspiration measures – for historical and social aspirations – is supported as it provides more in-depth insight into the firms’ behavior. Originality/value This paper, which is based on research presented at the 4th International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, represents the first inquiry into the R&D investment behavior of pharmaceutical firms using the BTOF. It also represents an argument for conducting single-industry rather than multi industry studies when using this theory.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document