Reflections on the Future of Pharmaceutical Public-Private Partnerships: From Input to Impact

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are multiple stakeholder partnerships designed to improve research efficacy. We focus on PPPs in the biomedical/pharmaceutical field, which emerged as a logical result of the open innovation model. Originally, a typical PPP was based on an academic and an industrial pillar, with governmental or other third party funding as an incentive. Over time, other players joined in, often health foundations, patient organizations, and regulatory scientists. This review discusses reasons for initiating a PPP, focusing on precompetitive research. It looks at typical expectations and challenges when starting such an endeavor, the characteristics of PPPs, and approaches to assessing the success of the concept. Finally, four case studies are presented, of PPPs differing in size, geographical spread, and research focus.

Related collections

Most cited references 104

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

Joel Lexchin, Lisa Bero, Benjamin Djulbegovic … (2003)

To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support. Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus. 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality. Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.

0 comments Cited 468 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D

Wesley M. Cohen, Richard R. Nelson, John Walsh (2002)

0 comments Cited 367 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

Justin E Bekelman, Cary Gross, Yan. Li (2003)

Despite increasing awareness about the potential impact of financial conflicts of interest on biomedical research, no comprehensive synthesis of the body of evidence relating to financial conflicts of interest has been performed. To review original, quantitative studies on the extent, impact, and management of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (January 1980-October 2002), the Web of Science citation database, references of articles, letters, commentaries, editorials, and books and by contacting experts. All English-language studies containing original, quantitative data on financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions were included. A total of 1664 citations were screened, 144 potentially eligible full articles were retrieved, and 37 studies met our inclusion criteria. One investigator (J.E.B.) extracted data from each of the 37 studies. The main outcomes were the prevalence of specific types of industry relationships, the relation between industry sponsorship and study outcome or investigator behavior, and the process for disclosure, review, and management of financial conflicts of interest. Approximately one fourth of investigators have industry affiliations, and roughly two thirds of academic institutions hold equity in start-ups that sponsor research performed at the same institutions. Eight articles, which together evaluated 1140 original studies, assessed the relation between industry sponsorship and outcome in original research. Aggregating the results of these articles showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions (pooled Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio, 3.60; 95% confidence interval, 2.63-4.91). Industry sponsorship was also associated with restrictions on publication and data sharing. The approach to managing financial conflicts varied substantially across academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals. Financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.

0 comments Cited 217 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Daan J. A. Crommelin:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0216-5039

d.j.a.crommelin@uu.nl

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Pharm Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Pharm. Res

Title: Pharmaceutical Research

Publisher: Springer US (New York )

ISSN (Print): 0724-8741

ISSN (Electronic): 1573-904X

Publication date (Electronic): 6 June 2017

Publication date PMC-release: 6 June 2017

Publication date (Print): 2017

Volume: 34

Issue: 10

Pages: 1985-1999

Affiliations

[1 ]Lygature, Utrecht, The Netherlands

[2 ]ISNI 0000000120346234, GRID grid.5477.1, Department of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, UIPS, , Utrecht University, ; Utrecht, The Netherlands

Author information

Daan J. A. Crommelin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0216-5039

Article

Publisher ID: 2192

DOI: 10.1007/s11095-017-2192-5

PMC ID: 5579142

PubMed ID: 28589444

SO-VID: 0796ef61-7136-41d6-97b6-9a8a39020fc3

License:

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

History

Date received : 22 March 2017

Date accepted : 23 May 2017

Funding

Funded by: Utrecht University

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine

Keywords: key drivers,performance evaluation,public-private-partnerships,r&d business models

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine

Keywords: key drivers, performance evaluation, public-private-partnerships, r&d business models

Reflections on the Future of Pharmaceutical Public-Private Partnerships: From Input to Impact

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science

Most cited references 104

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D

Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 113

Cited by 16

Most referenced authors 969