ライフサイエンスコーパス: pharmaceutical company

1 rom an in-house screening library of a major pharmaceutical company.

2 al jealously and the marketing campaign of a pharmaceutical company.

3 uticals, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company.

4 een demonstrated on the example of a Spanish pharmaceutical company.

5 arisons of two drugs in studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

6 t, and protons were developed by a number of pharmaceutical companies.

7 nd contact with study authors and device and pharmaceutical companies.

8 cal trials were systematically identified by pharmaceutical companies.

9 disclosure of payments made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies.

10 s of $100 or more were made to physicians by pharmaceutical companies.

11 f intensive research both in academia and in pharmaceutical companies.

12 cientific meetings and contacted experts and pharmaceutical companies.

13 tracts; and contacting authors, experts, and pharmaceutical companies.

14 current perception at the majority of large pharmaceutical companies.

15 CR5 antagonists identified by five different pharmaceutical companies.

16 tself has stimulated the interest of several pharmaceutical companies.

17 published trials, contacting researchers and pharmaceutical companies.

18 ns to the US Food and Drug Administration by pharmaceutical companies.

19 to patients, managed care organizations and pharmaceutical companies.

20 due to insufficient return on investment for pharmaceutical companies.

21 2009, primarily led by involvement of small pharmaceutical companies.

22 et, despite considerable investment by major pharmaceutical companies.

23 d Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, and pharmaceutical companies.

24 from 14 European-based medium-sized to large pharmaceutical companies.

25 ears, but which had met with opposition from pharmaceutical companies.

26 tists are trusted advisors to government and pharmaceutical companies.

27 r-profit chains of primary care clinics, and pharmaceutical companies.

28 doption of decentralized trial operations by pharmaceutical companies.

29 development, and few are sponsored by large pharmaceutical companies.

30 development, and few are sponsored by large pharmaceutical companies.

31 compared to 18% by medical doctors and 2% by pharmaceutical companies.

32 most congested and challenging enterprise of pharmaceutical companies.

33 data from completed studies sponsored by 13 pharmaceutical companies.

34 therapeutics under investigation in various pharmaceutical companies.

35 combinations through collaborations with 18 pharmaceutical companies.

36 (NGDO) support, and donations of drugs from pharmaceutical companies.

37 d academic scientists hoping to partner with pharmaceutical companies.

38 tor ligands from discovery programs in major pharmaceutical companies.

39 en intensely pursued both in academia and in pharmaceutical companies.

40 eved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies.

41 egard they have attracted much interest from pharmaceutical companies.

42 attention from the scientific community and pharmaceutical companies.

43 Trials funded by pharmaceutical companies (26 of 47 [55.3%]) were more li

44 d no disclosure (43%) or did not mention the pharmaceutical company (40%).

45 er the federal government (75/117; 64.1%) or pharmaceutical companies (46/117; 39.3%) to perform gene

46 ntibacterial research shifts away from large pharmaceutical companies, a wave of biotechnology compan

47 The 13 (4%) cases against pharmaceutical companies accounted for $3.6 billion (39%

48 Marketing to health care professionals by pharmaceutical companies accounted for most promotional

49 As pharmaceutical companies adapt their business models, a

50 rt interfering RNAs (siRNA), researchers and pharmaceutical companies alike have devoted immense time

51 Researchers in the field and pharmaceutical companies also were contacted to try to i

52 The survey was distributed by 13 pharmaceutical companies and 1 clinical research organiz

53 rnational collaboration of academic centres, pharmaceutical companies and a private foundation, to di

54 Data from pharmaceutical companies and abstracts of conferences/me

55 marizes the collective experience of several pharmaceutical companies and academic collaborations tha

56 number of FXR ligands have been developed by pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions, and

57 f recent national meetings, and contact with pharmaceutical companies and content experts.

58 e the literature for individual researchers, pharmaceutical companies and funding agencies.

59 analysis (MMPA), we combined data from three pharmaceutical companies and generated ADMET rules, avoi

60 loyed at early stages of drug development by pharmaceutical companies and is considered by regulators

61 s are still under clinical trials at various pharmaceutical companies and laboratories around the wor

62 re the recipients of nearly $78 million from pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturer

63 Pharmaceutical companies and other trial sponsors must s

64 as consistently posed a huge burden for both pharmaceutical companies and patients.

65 ed HAE expert physicians, representatives of pharmaceutical companies and representatives of HAE pati

66 basis for study protocol discussions between pharmaceutical companies and the FDA in advancing the de

67 commitment to patient care and the desire of pharmaceutical companies and their representatives to se

68 ermittent dosing or between trials funded by pharmaceutical companies and those independently funded.

69 stinct potential pollution sources such as a pharmaceutical company and a golf court.

70 ONO Pharmaceutical Company and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

71 Here I describe how partnering works in a pharmaceutical company and offer advice on how to make a

72 uticals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company), and Seagen.

73 ollaborations between patient organisations, pharmaceutical companies, and academic researchers will

74 dentified on MEDLINE, inquiry of experts and pharmaceutical companies, and data presented at recent n

75 ty and side effects, distrust in the MOH and pharmaceutical companies, and lack of support from relig

76 haring with physicians, medical researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and law enforcement and willin

77 s, development of commercial vaccines by the pharmaceutical companies, and participation of many pati

78 gencies, policy-setting bodies, governments, pharmaceutical companies, and philanthropic organization

79 and Current Content, inquiry of experts and pharmaceutical companies, and preliminary data presented

80 lished evidence was from trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, and publication bias may have

81 medical and scientific databases, approached pharmaceutical companies, and reviewed citations of rele

82 ves from the NHLBI, patient advocacy groups, pharmaceutical companies, and the U.S. Food and Drug Adm

83 DEX, websites of drug licensing agencies and pharmaceutical companies, and trial registries.

84 a research project with representatives of a pharmaceutical company, and they propose a model for tea

85 After pharmaceutical companies announced effective COVID-19 va

86 For these reasons, investigators and pharmaceutical companies are actively exploring novel st

87 During this period, pharmaceutical companies are allowed to set their list p

88 By contrast, other pharmaceutical companies are developing microbial vector

89 nies, federal payers, medical societies, and pharmaceutical companies are increasingly utilizing heal

90 As a result, many large pharmaceutical companies are leaving the area of pain me

91 At the same time, big pharmaceutical companies are losing interest in new anti

92 academic groups as well as biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies are on the verge of bringing th

93 At the present time five pharmaceutical companies are planning or conducting clin

94 Pharmaceutical companies are reducing their investments

95 cs, why academic researchers and biotech and pharmaceutical companies are so excited, and what the ob

96 environment, and insufficient investments by pharmaceutical companies are some of the clear reasons b

97 Major pharmaceutical companies are strategically shifting gear

98 Pharmaceutical companies are targeting adipocyte metabol

99 ly worldwide and is being widely accepted by pharmaceutical companies as a drug development tool.

100 r persons ineligible for such subsidies, and pharmaceutical company assistance may be a better altern

101 tures; they realized a superior savings with pharmaceutical company assistance programs.

102 Compared with pharmaceutical company assistance, Medicare drug discoun

103 tion participation, positive phase II trial, pharmaceutical company-based trials, and shorter time pe

104 As pharmaceutical companies bring more fully humanized ther

105 Clinicians, patients, and pharmaceutical companies can report adverse drug reactio

106 ity of the C-CASA ratings and agreement with pharmaceutical company classification were estimated.

107 etween a voluntary health organization and a pharmaceutical company, complemented by academic investi

108 compounded by the fact that there are fewer pharmaceutical companies conducting research to discover

109 Furthermore, larger pharmaceutical companies continue to abandon the field,

110 second shows how they restricted to whom the pharmaceutical company could market its transdermal nico

111 ion of brain striatal signaling, and several pharmaceutical companies currently investigate PDE10A in

112 Multiple pharmaceutical companies currently test CDK4/6 inhibitor

113 that few medicinal chemists, and even fewer pharmaceutical companies, dare to undertake.

114 cly accessible clinical trial registries and pharmaceutical companies' databases.

115 ents were not released to the public because pharmaceutical companies designated them as trade secret

116 As pharmaceutical companies develop fewer truly novel agent

117 On the basis of these data, pharmaceutical companies developed many Met inhibitors,

118 sychiatry from the lens of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies developing and deploying new dr

119 Three pharmaceutical companies developing CDI treatments came

120 a pharmacological perspective, with several pharmaceutical companies developing NR2B subtype-selecti

121 We contacted pharmaceutical companies, drug regulatory authorities, a

122 d considerable attention from scientists and pharmaceutical companies due to its antioxidant, anticoa

123 Sepsis has been called the graveyard of pharmaceutical companies due to the numerous failed clin

124 attracted intense interest by academics and pharmaceutical companies due to their potential to hit c

125 In 2017, the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly announced it would stop

126 , dexketoprofen, deflazacort) handled by the pharmaceutical company employees in the making of tablet

127 , manufacturing and controls challenges that pharmaceutical companies face in the use of novel lipid

128 Pharmaceutical companies find drug development programs

129 atology conferences and contacted respective pharmaceutical companies for additional studies.

130 tudy describes financial penalties levied on pharmaceutical companies for illegal activities by type

131 esearch institutions, reliance on for-profit pharmaceutical companies for subsequent development and

132 Pharmaceutical companies frequently seek approval of ant

133 ledge into clinical practice has discouraged pharmaceutical companies from investing in pain medicine

134 to progress and discourages researchers and pharmaceutical companies from investing resources to dev

135 e statements for accuracy, determine whether pharmaceutical companies from which the authors received

136 from newspaper and online sources about all pharmaceutical company-funded medication studies publish

137 g on medication studies often fail to report pharmaceutical company funding and frequently refer to m

138 tors who indicate that their articles report pharmaceutical company funding; the percentage of editor

139 tions of safe and effective drugs by several pharmaceutical companies, funds for delivering these don

140 a safe, effective vaccine accessible to all, pharmaceutical companies, governments, and international

141 ess, interest in natural products from major pharmaceutical companies has decreased even as genomics

142 molecules claimed in patent records by major pharmaceutical companies has dramatically decreased, whi

143 In contrast, since 2000, pharmaceutical companies have become increasingly profit

144 Many pharmaceutical companies have been active in the search

145 Reported transfers of value (TOV) from pharmaceutical companies have been associated with great

146 Several academic groups and pharmaceutical companies have been developing a series o

147 opulations that might have adverse outcomes, pharmaceutical companies have been reluctant to use a st

148 Pharmaceutical companies have considerable flexibility i

149 During the past 15 years, most large pharmaceutical companies have decreased the screening of

150 g pocket on the protein surface, and several pharmaceutical companies have developed compounds and pe

151 Pharmaceutical companies have developed many novel inhib

152 Many pharmaceutical companies have expended huge efforts on b

153 Multiple pharmaceutical companies have exploited the physiologica

154 greatly expanded as clinical researchers and pharmaceutical companies have focused their efforts on d

155 quent dissolutions of in-house facilities by pharmaceutical companies have had media channels pronoun

156 ry focuses on human health, many traditional pharmaceutical companies have historic roots in human he

157 Studies from both academia and pharmaceutical companies have identified compounds that

158 Litigation documents reveal that pharmaceutical companies have paid physicians to promote

159 computational chemistry groups within large pharmaceutical companies have realized growth in the num

160 In the past decade, pharmaceutical companies have reduced their natural prod

161 Several large pharmaceutical companies have selectively downsized thei

162 influence of physicians' practice patterns, pharmaceutical companies, health maintenance organizatio

163 The authors urge clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, health maintenance organizatio

164 Pharmaceutical companies hope to find new and useful pol

165 ntagonists is under investigation by several pharmaceutical companies in an effort to identify novel

166 These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

167 challenging to engage Wall Street and large pharmaceutical companies in radiopharmaceutical opportun

168 considerable interest from both academia and pharmaceutical companies in the discovery and developmen

169 offer an important tool for researchers and pharmaceutical companies in the field of drug developmen

170 ograms have been terminated at several major pharmaceutical companies in the past decade.

171 Additionally, pharmaceutical companies, in light of promising early-st

172 Pharmaceutical companies increased DTC marketing about d

173 By contrast, R&D intensity of large pharmaceutical companies increased from 16.6% to 19.3%,

174 The industry's activities reflect the pharmaceutical companies' interests.

175 This article describes why pharmaceutical companies invest in antimicrobial steward

176 Due to the continual decline of pharmaceutical companies investing in new antibiotic dev

177 crobiome-focused biotechnology companies and pharmaceutical company investment in the research and de

178 fragmented market that may discourage major pharmaceutical company investment.

179 lly from 2002 - 2009, primarily led by small pharmaceutical company involvement.

180 Understanding the profitability of pharmaceutical companies is essential to formulating evi

181 Currently, a major focus of pharmaceutical companies is to develop ever more potent

182 undertake the task of picking up where large pharmaceutical companies left off have failed to survive

183 ls, Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited.

184 more common when authors have FCOIs with the pharmaceutical company marketing that drug.

185 Data on the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies may be relevant to formulating

186 nterest in antibacterial discovery and large pharmaceutical companies may look to these as a source o

187 reening strategies and target panels used by pharmaceutical companies may vary substantially.

188 nsortium, comprising MIT and 13 chemical and pharmaceutical company members.

189 Rheumatologists and pharmaceutical companies might work together to develop

190 of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none.

191 even in some brand name products from major pharmaceutical companies not of natural oyster shell der

192 tio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51-0.63) and funding by pharmaceutical companies (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.54

193 ird case, we show how subsidiary tobacco and pharmaceutical companies of a parent company collaborate

194 examined industry-wide trends in spending by pharmaceutical companies on direct-to-consumer advertisi

195 raising concerns regarding the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the choice of medication by

196 tals, and summarise advice from patients and pharmaceutical companies on what the NHS could learn fro

197 edication research has received funding from pharmaceutical companies or how frequently news articles

198 which has led to disputes with international pharmaceutical companies over prices and patents.

199 espiratory diseases remains the goal of many pharmaceutical companies over the past 20 years.

200 ding experts in academia, clinical practice, pharmaceutical companies, patient representatives, and r

201 Intact animal data contradict pharmaceutical company policies that routinely test drug

202 available P2RX7 knock-out mice generated by pharmaceutical companies possess certain splice variants

203 urred without assistance and with the use of pharmaceutical company programs for the cohort and FPL c

204 re population without prescription coverage, pharmaceutical company programs offered considerable sav

205 greement was observed between the C-CASA and pharmaceutical company ratings, with the C-CASA reportin

206 Many pharmaceutical companies recognise the advantages of rev

207 Foundation of China, and China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzho

208 icians, academics, researchers, employees of pharmaceutical companies, regulatory bodies representati

209 have remained stable, R&D intensity of large pharmaceutical companies remained relatively unchanged,

210 From 2000 to 2018, 35 large pharmaceutical companies reported cumulative revenue of

211 ture and US Food and Drug Administration and pharmaceutical company reports on these therapies.

212 ed medications were obtained directly from a pharmaceutical company representative.

213 The effects of health economics research on pharmaceutical company revenue make drug investigations

214 that drug, and, under the current system, a pharmaceutical company's appraisal of SADRs may be influ

215 hat have been reported by Merck and Shionogi pharmaceutical companies, served as model ADK leads.

216 ntre study independent from the influence of pharmaceutical companies should be commissioned to compa

217 Pharmaceutical companies spent US$1.8 billion on direct-

218 results were not significantly different in pharmaceutical company-sponsored (6/20 [30%]) vs nonprof

219 research centres with experience conducting pharmaceutical company-sponsored phase 2 and phase 3 stu

220 Pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies were less likel

221 When pharmaceutical company sponsorship ended at 8.4 years of

222 vidual studies, these findings indicate that pharmaceutical company sponsorship of economic analyses

223 en intensely pursued both in academia and in pharmaceutical companies, supported by the publication o

224 eeding trials, clinical studies conducted by pharmaceutical companies that are designed to seem as if

225 worth, NJ, USA), a large, globally operating pharmaceutical company that develops and markets both hu

226 s has been referred to as the "graveyard for pharmaceutical companies." That is now set to change, as

227 bridging the gap between academia and large pharmaceutical companies, the biotech firms have been ef

228 atient advocacy groups, medical oncologists, pharmaceutical companies, the US Food and Drug Administr

229 y or had at least 1 author affiliated with a pharmaceutical company; the remaining trials did not rep

230 Despite interest from academic groups and pharmaceutical companies, there are currently few approv

231 ith academia, health-care professionals, and pharmaceutical companies, this initiative aims to streng

232 e recent low annual output of new drugs from pharmaceutical companies, this review will provide a tim

233 prove drug development, as it would pressure pharmaceutical companies to become more innovative and a

234 ractions in their prescriptions and will aid pharmaceutical companies to design large-scale clinical

235 a strategy widely used in both academia and pharmaceutical companies to generate small-molecule prot

236 ent groups employ the marketing practices of pharmaceutical companies to improve clinical practice.

237 n synthesized by academia and, particularly, pharmaceutical companies to meet the need for novel chem

238 These limitations make it difficult for pharmaceutical companies to obtain full dissolution prof

239 is driven by four factors: the commitment of pharmaceutical companies to provide free drugs; the scal

240 One shows how tobacco companies pressured pharmaceutical companies to scale back their smoking ces

241 erial (or antibiotic) agents from the larger pharmaceutical companies to the entrepreneur-like small

242 Pharmaceutical companies typically perform prospective,

243 Every year pharmaceutical companies use significant resources to mi

244 d lowest when consent was not obtained and a pharmaceutical company used data for marketing (weighted

245 nificant differential profit margin favoring pharmaceutical companies was evidence of greater profita

246 rom 2000 to 2018, the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies was significantly greater than

247 The percentage of successful trials from pharmaceutical companies was significantly higher compar

248 Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds o

249 rmidable drug development resources of large pharmaceutical companies were deployed into Phase 3 tria

250 12 events originally labeled as suicidal by pharmaceutical companies were eliminated, which resulted

251 Only a few years ago pharmaceutical companies were excited about the potentia

252 tion) that were not originally identified by pharmaceutical companies were identified in the C-CASA,

253 Economic analyses that were funded by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to report favo

254 models, the median annual profit margins of pharmaceutical companies were significantly greater than

255 tended stays of academics at the campus of a pharmaceutical company, where they access the firm's res

256 nduct to be aligned to both the needs of the pharmaceutical company who own the asset and the expecta

257 tudy compared the annual profits of 35 large pharmaceutical companies with 357 companies in the S&P 5

258 currently under investigation by a number of pharmaceutical companies with only a few reaching early

259 cals, and pharmaceuticals; all international pharmaceutical companies with sales volumes similar to t

260 ides the promise of increased efficiency for pharmaceutical companies, with higher confidence in the

261 rojects are tightly controlled by originator pharmaceutical companies, with only a small percentage o

262 ous applications by many research groups and pharmaceutical companies worldwide.

263 on of methods for distinguishing biotech and pharmaceutical companies yields a dynamic, more accurate