			Home About us Contact

Own Products (own + products)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	50%

Selected Abstracts

P17 Allergic contact dermatitis from hydrolyzed wheat protein

CONTACT DERMATITIS, Issue 3 2004
Olivia Bordalo
Allergic Contact Dermatitis (ACD) from hydrolysed wheat protein (HWP) is rarely reported in the literature. We describe 2 cases of ACD to this new allergen. Case1- A 39-year-old non atopic woman presented with a dermatitis of the face, mainly eyelids and neck. She had been using a new cosmetic cream for 2 months. The lesions subsided with topical corticosteroids. Patch tests with the standard, cosmetic, fragrance series and with her own products gave positive reactions only to the new cosmetic cream. We also tested all the components of this cream and only HWP gave a doubtful reaction with occlusive tests and positive reaction with ROAT. Case 2 , A 48-year-old atopic woman presented with a dermatitis of the face and hands for 1 month. She had been using a new cosmetic cream for 11 months and kept using the product without any suspicion. The dermatitis subsided with cetirizine and topical corticosteroids. Patch tests with the standard, cosmetic, fragrance series and her own products revealed positive reactions to the cosmetic cream. Again, testing all the components of the cream, only HWP gave doubtful reactions with occlusive tests and positive reactions with ROAT. Discussion:, In recent years, a number of protein hydrolysates have been introduced into cosmetic manufacture. HWP is being used in cosmetic creams for its moisturizing properties. As far as we know, there is only one previously reported case of ACD induced by this allergen. More cases may be expected. [source]

Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION, Issue 2 2010
D. N. Lathyris
Eur J Clin Invest 2010; 40 (2): 172,182 Abstract Background, Most clinical trials on medical interventions are sponsored by the industry. The choice of comparators shapes the accumulated evidence. We aimed to assess how often major companies sponsor trials that involve only their own products. Methods, Studies were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov for trials registered in 2006. We focused on randomized trials involving the 15 companies that had sponsored the largest number of registered trials in ClinicalTrials.gov in that period. Results, Overall, 577 randomized trials were eligible for analysis and 82% had a single industry sponsor [89% (166/187) of the placebo-control trials, 87% (91/105) of trials comparing different doses or ways of administration of the same intervention, and 78% (221/285) of other active control trials]. The compared intervention(s) belonged to a single company in 67% of the trials (89%, 81% and 47% in the three categories respectively). All 15 companies strongly preferred to run trials where they were the only industry sponsor or even the only owner of the assessed interventions. Co-sponsorship typically reflected co-ownership of the same intervention by both companies. Head-to-head comparison of different active interventions developed by different companies occurred in only 18 trials with two or more industry sponsors. Conclusions, Each company generates a clinical research agenda that is strongly focused on its own products, while comparisons involving different interventions from different companies are uncommon. This diminishes the ability to understand the relative merits of different interventions for the same condition. [source]

The Role of Champions in the External Commercialization of Knowledge,

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2009
Ulrich Lichtenthaler
Besides applying knowledge in their own products or services, firms may externally commercialize their knowledge assets (e.g., by means of outlicensing). The literature on champions, however, has focused on internal innovation. This gap in prior research is particularly remarkable as the potential for promoting external knowledge exploitation is high. Some pioneering firms realize great benefits, whereas most others experience major managerial difficulties. This paper tests five hypotheses regarding the emergence and impact of champions of external knowledge exploitation with data from 152 firms across industries. The results of the questionnaire-based study demonstrate the relevance of champions of external knowledge exploitation. Championing constitutes an essential success factor and has strongly contributed to the recent increase in external knowledge commercialization. These findings help to explain the discrepancies between the few successful and the majority of unsuccessful firms. Beyond existing insights, the emergence of champions is affected by external determinants in addition to internal determinants. There is an inverted U-shaped relationship between championing and the internal determinants, that is, organizational climate and active strategy. Moreover, there is a negative relationship between championing and market imperfection and an inverted U-shaped relationship between championing and competitive intensity, which both constitute external determinants of championing. In contrast to the traditional understanding, champions tend to emerge in supportive environments, in which internal and external barriers are relatively low. This surprising finding calls for rethinking the role and motivation of champions. [source]

Interfirm Modularity and Its Implications for Product Development,

THE JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT, Issue 4 2005
Nancy Staudenmayer
Industries characterized by interfirm modularity, in which the component products of different firms work together to create a system, are becoming increasingly widespread. In such industries, the existence of a common architecture enables consumers to mix and match the products of different firms. Industries ranging from stereos, cameras, and bicycles to computers, printing, and wireless services are now characterized by interfirm modularity. While the increasing presence of this context has been documented, the implications for the product development process remain underdeveloped. For the present study, in-depth field-based case studies of seven firms experiencing an environment of interfirm modularity were conducted in order to deepen understanding of this important phenomenon. What unique challenges did this context pose and why? What solutions did firms experiment with, and which seemed to work? Based on an inductive process of data analysis from these case studies, three primary categories of challenges raised by this environment were identified. First, firms were frustrated at their lack of control over the definition of their own products. The set of features and functions in products were constrained to a great extent by an architecture that the firm did not control. Second, while an environment of interfirm modularity should in theory eliminate interdependencies among firms since interfaces between products are defined ex-ante, the present study found, ironically, that interdependencies were ubiquitous. Interdependencies continually emerged throughout the product development process, despite efforts to limit them. Third, firms found that the quantity and variegated nature of external relationships made their management exceedingly difficult. The sheer complexity was daunting, given both the size of the external network as well as the number of ties per external collaborator. Partners with whom control over the architecture was shared often had divergent interests,or at least not fully convergent interests. The solutions to these challenges were creative and in many cases counter to established wisdom. For instance, research has suggested many ways for a firm to influence architectural standards. While the firms in the present sample followed some of this advice, they also focused on a more neglected aspect of architecture,the compliance and testing standards that accompany modules and interfaces. By concentrating their efforts in a different area, even smaller firms in this sample were able to have some influence. Instead of focusing on the elimination of interdependencies, it was found that firms benefited from concentrating on the management of interdependencies as they emerged. Finally, while layers of management and "bureaucracy" are often viewed as unproductive, these firms found that adding structure, through positions such as Relationship Manager, was highly beneficial in handling the coordination and control of a wide range of external relationships. [source]