Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Auswirkungen von Interessenkonflikten auf Arzneimittelstudien

  • Chapter
Interessenkonflikte in der Medizin

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

Weiterführende Literatur

  • Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, Institut of Medicine (2009) Chapter 4: Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. In: Lo B, Field MJ (Hrsg) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. National Academies Press, Washington DC, S 97–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson LA, Bekelman JE, Gross CP (2008) Empirical data on conflicts of interest. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA et al (Hrsg): Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. The Oxford University Press, New York, S 767–779

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U et al (2010a) The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107: 279–285. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0279

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U et al (2010b) The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107: 295–301. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0295

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo S, Doucet M (2010) Publication ethics and the ghost management of medical publication. Bioethics 24: 273–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.01702.x

    Google Scholar 

Andere zitierte Literatur

  • Altus MS (2009) AMWA’s Ethics FAQs: http://www.amwa.org/default.asp?id = 466. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbeitsgruppe Glossar im DNEbM e. V. (2008) EbM-Glossar: Publikationsbias. Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V. Stand: 16. März 2008. http://www.ebm-netzwerk.de/grundlagen/glossar#publik. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML et al (2003) Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 183: 498–506. doi: 10.1192/bjp.183.6.498

    Google Scholar 

  • Baucus M, Grassley CE, Committee on Finance, United States Senate (2010) Schreiben an Margaret A. Hamburg, Commissioner, U. S. Food and Drug Administration. Washington, 12. Juli 2010. http://freepdfhosting.com/9c1ed4142e.pdf. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289: 454–465. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.4.454

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois FT, Murthy S, Mandl KD (2010) Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Ann Intern Med 153: 158–166. doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-153-3-201008030-00006

    Google Scholar 

  • Bührlen B, Georgieff P, Vollmer HC (2010) Stand und Bedingungen klinischer Forschung in Deutschland und im Vergleich zu anderen Ländern unter besonderer Berücksichtigung nichtkommerzieller Studien. TAB-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 135. Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag; Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen D (2010) Rosiglitazone: what went wrong? BMJ 341: c4848. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4848

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, Institut of Medicine (2009) Chapter 4: Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. In: Lo B, Field MJ (Hrsg) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. National Academies Press, Washington DC, S 97–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Finance, United States Senate (2007) The intimidation of Dr. John Buse and the diabetes drug Avandia. Committee staff report to the chairman and ranking member. November 2007. http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/download/?id = 883e903d-f973-4a74-8432-3c651c71b4b4. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 292: 1363–1364. doi: 10.1001/jama.292.11.1363

    Google Scholar 

  • EMA (2004) Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products indicated for the treatment of psoriasis. London, 18. November 2004. http://www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/245402en.pdf. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • EMA (2010) European Medicines Agency policy on the handling of conflicts of interests of Scientific Committee members and experts. London, 13. Oktober 2010 http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2010/10/WC500097905.pdf. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • EMA (2011) EudraCT Public Web Report for December 2010. Sector Information and Communications Technology. London, 04. Januar 2011: https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/docs/statistics/EudraCT_Statistics_December.pdf. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyding D, Lelgemann M, Grouven U et al (2010) Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ 341: c4737. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4737

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleurence RL, Spackman DE, Hollenbeak C (2010) Does the funding source influence the results in economic evaluations? A case study in bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. Pharmacoeconomics 28: 295–306. doi: 10.2165/11530530-000000000-00000

    Google Scholar 

  • Fugh-Berman A, Dodgson SJ (2008) Ethical considerations of publication planning in the pharmaceutical industry. Open Med 2 (4): 33–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Fugh-Berman AJ (2010) The haunting of medical journals: how ghostwriting sold „HRT“. PLoS Med 7: e1000335. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000335

    Google Scholar 

  • Garattini L, Koleva D, Casadei G (2010) Modeling in pharmacoeconomic studies: funding sources and outcomes. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 26: 330–333. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310000322

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartlehner G, Morgan L, Thieda P, Fleg A (2010) The effect of study sponsorship on a systematically evaluated body of evidence of head-to-head trials was modest: secondary analysis of a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 63: 117–125. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.019

    Google Scholar 

  • Gesetz zur Neuordnung des Arzneimittelmarktes in der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (Arzneimittelmarktneuordnungsgesetz – AMNOG) (2010). Vom 22. Dezember 2010. Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I, Nr. 67: 2262–2277

    Google Scholar 

  • GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register (2005) AVA-177: Avandia® in daily practice (Study No: 49653/177(AVA-177/2000)). Stand: 22. Dezember 2005. http://download.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com/files/2669.pdf. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampson LA, Bekelman JE, Gross CP (2008) Empirical data on conflicts of interest. In: Emanuel EJ, Grady C, Crouch RA et al (Hrsg): Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. The Oxford University Press, New York, S 767–779

    Google Scholar 

  • Healy D, Cattell D (2003) Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. Br J Psychiatry 183: 22–27. doi: 10.1192/bjp.183.1.22

    Google Scholar 

  • Heres S, Davis J, Maino K et al (2006) 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 163: 185–194. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.2.185

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrandt M, Ludwig W-D (2003) Clinical research and industrial sponsoring: avenues towards transparency and credibility. Onkologie 26: 529–534. doi: 10.1159/000074146

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2009) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: conflicts of interest. Stand: 2009. http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2010) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Updated: April 2010. http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) Research & Development Working Group (2010) Feasibility and challenges of independent research on drugs: the Italian medicines agency (AIFA) experience. Eur J Clin Invest 40: 69–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02226.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17: 1–12. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang S, Chae YK, Haddad T, Majhail NS (2010) Conflict of interest in economic analyses of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121: 273–279. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-0870-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Landefeld CS, Steinman MA (2009) The Neurontin legacy – marketing through misinformation and manipulation. N Engl J Med 360: 103–106. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0808659

    Google Scholar 

  • Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326: 1167–1170. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieb K, Klemperer D, Koch K et al (2011) Mit Transparenz Vertrauen stärken: Ein Vorschlag zur Deklaration von Interessenkonflikten. Dtsch Arztebl 108: A 256–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC (2010) Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue – cohort study. PLoS Med 7: e1000354. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000354

    Google Scholar 

  • McHenry LB, Jureidini JN (2008) Industry-sponsored ghostwriting in clinical trial reporting: a case study. Account Res 15: 152–167. doi: 10.1080/08989620802194384

    Google Scholar 

  • MEZIS e. V. (2007): http://www.mezis.de/. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357: 1191–1194. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Naldi L, Svensson A, Zenoni D et al (2010) Comparators, study duration, outcome measures and sponsorship in therapeutic trials of psoriasis: update of the EDEN Psoriasis Survey 2001–2006. Br J Dermatol 162: 384–389. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09515.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissen SE (2010) The rise and fall of rosiglitazone. Eur Heart J 31: 773–776. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq016

    Google Scholar 

  • No Free Lunch (2008): http://www.nofreelunch.org/. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman AD, Guyatt GH (1991) Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 44: 1271–1278. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B

    Google Scholar 

  • Psaty BM (2009) Conflict of interest, disclosure, and trial reports. JAMA 301: 1477–1479. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.466

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose SL, Krzyzanowska MK, Joffe S (2010) Relationships between authorship contributions and authors’ industry financial ties among oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 28: 1316–1321. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6606

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U et al (2010a) The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107: 279–285. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0279

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U et al (2010b) The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 2: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on authorship, access to trial data, and trial registration and publication. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107: 295–301. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0295

    Google Scholar 

  • Schott G, Pachl H, Ludwig W-D (2010c) Publikationsbias in Abhängigkeit von der Art der Finanzierung bei klinischen Studien. ZEFQ 104: 314–322. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2010.03.029

    Google Scholar 

  • Sismondo S, Doucet M (2010) Publication ethics and the ghost management of medical publication. Bioethics 24: 273–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.01702.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Somerville MA (2002) A postmodern moral tale: the ethics of research relationships. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1: 316–320. doi: 10.1038/nrd773

    Google Scholar 

  • World Medical Association (2008) Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. Adopted by the 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, October 2008. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf. Zugegriffen: 10. März 2011

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft, Herbert-Lewin-Platz 1, 10623, Berlin, Deutschland

    Gisela Schott & Wolf-Dieter Ludwig

  2. Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Untere Zahlbacher Str. 8, 55131, Mainz, Deutschland

    Klaus Lieb

  3. Klinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Tumorimmunologie, HELIOS Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Schwanebecker Chaussee 50, 13125, Berlin, Deutschland

    Wolf-Dieter Ludwig

Authors
  1. Gisela Schott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Klaus Lieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolf-Dieter Ludwig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Untere Zahlbacher Str. 8, 55131, Mainz

    Klaus Lieb

  2. Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin Fakultät Angewandte Sozialwissenschaften, Hochschule Regensburg, Seybothstraße 2, 93053, Regensburg

    David Klemperer

  3. Klinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Tumorimmunologie, HELIOS Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Schwanebecker Chaussee 50, 13125, Berlin

    Wolf-Dieter Ludwig

  4. Arzneimittelkommission der deutschen Ärzteschaft, Herbert-Lewin-Platz 1, 10623, Berlin

    Wolf-Dieter Ludwig

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schott, G., Lieb, K., Ludwig, WD. (2011). Auswirkungen von Interessenkonflikten auf Arzneimittelstudien. In: Lieb, K., Klemperer, D., Ludwig, WD. (eds) Interessenkonflikte in der Medizin. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19842-7_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19842-7_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19841-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19842-7

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation