Ferramentas do usuário

Ferramentas do site

Writing /export/var/www/antropi/data/cache/5/546e51af17dde80dfb0dea92b84bbc6e.i failed
Unable to save cache file. Hint: disk full; file permissions; safe_mode setting.
Writing /export/var/www/antropi/data/cache/5/546e51af17dde80dfb0dea92b84bbc6e.metadata failed

rationale_for_an_international_cooperation_comprehensive_program_on_hiv_aids
Writing /export/var/www/antropi/data/cache/e/eece47e5a2d113461146c732933bbea8.i failed
Unable to save cache file. Hint: disk full; file permissions; safe_mode setting.
Writing /export/var/www/antropi/data/cache/e/eece47e5a2d113461146c732933bbea8.xhtml failed

Diferenças

Aqui você vê as diferenças entre duas revisões dessa página.

Link para esta página de comparações

rationale_for_an_international_cooperation_comprehensive_program_on_hiv_aids [2008/05/07 01:42]
root criada
rationale_for_an_international_cooperation_comprehensive_program_on_hiv_aids [2008/05/07 01:43] (atual)
root
Linha 54: Linha 54:
  
 Many authorities have been suggesting mechanisms to regulate the relationship between industry and academy in order to reduce these systematic differences between for-profit and academy-sponsored research. These mechanisms include centrally registered clinical trials and regular reporting of outcomes, regardless whether they are favorable or not. Bodenheimer argues in favor of enhancing independence of investigators to conduct and publish their research. It is hard to believe that industry-sponsored research would be in favour of more researcher independence and autonomy only because of academic members requests. Montaner and co-workers give several relevant suggestions to regulate industry-sponsored and academy research, including rules for publication, reporting conflict of interest, and efficacy and safety data. But all these measures are certainly not enough, specially if one considers drug research. We are also concerned about the limited impact of these measures on a public health agenda. Even if the systematic differences between industry and academy research could be reduced, the resulting of advance knowledge will not automatically be used in all relevant public health clinical issues.  Many authorities have been suggesting mechanisms to regulate the relationship between industry and academy in order to reduce these systematic differences between for-profit and academy-sponsored research. These mechanisms include centrally registered clinical trials and regular reporting of outcomes, regardless whether they are favorable or not. Bodenheimer argues in favor of enhancing independence of investigators to conduct and publish their research. It is hard to believe that industry-sponsored research would be in favour of more researcher independence and autonomy only because of academic members requests. Montaner and co-workers give several relevant suggestions to regulate industry-sponsored and academy research, including rules for publication, reporting conflict of interest, and efficacy and safety data. But all these measures are certainly not enough, specially if one considers drug research. We are also concerned about the limited impact of these measures on a public health agenda. Even if the systematic differences between industry and academy research could be reduced, the resulting of advance knowledge will not automatically be used in all relevant public health clinical issues. 
- +
 There are several orphan drugs and related orphan-diseases, most of them representing relevant problems to public health policies that deserve research investments. We also see many “orphan public health issues” that should also need further studies. These clinical issues will never be fulfilled by market-driven research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. More than that, most of the arguments demanding closer partnerships between industry and academy are grounded on the aspect that more evidence is needed. The crucial point that we should emphasize here is that, regarding drug development within a public health perspective, only providing more evidence is not enough. The main point of that discussion is: what kind of evidence do we need? In another words, what are the main clinical issues that must be thoroughly investigated in order to actually address drug development from a public health perspective.  There are several orphan drugs and related orphan-diseases, most of them representing relevant problems to public health policies that deserve research investments. We also see many “orphan public health issues” that should also need further studies. These clinical issues will never be fulfilled by market-driven research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. More than that, most of the arguments demanding closer partnerships between industry and academy are grounded on the aspect that more evidence is needed. The crucial point that we should emphasize here is that, regarding drug development within a public health perspective, only providing more evidence is not enough. The main point of that discussion is: what kind of evidence do we need? In another words, what are the main clinical issues that must be thoroughly investigated in order to actually address drug development from a public health perspective. 
  
rationale_for_an_international_cooperation_comprehensive_program_on_hiv_aids.txt · Última modificação: 2008/05/07 01:43 por root