Healthy Skepticism Library item: 8681

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Newcombe JP, Kerridge IH.
Assessment by human research ethics committees of potential conflicts of interest arising from pharmaceutical sponsorship of clinical research.
Intern Med J 2007 Jan; 37:(1):12-7
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01234.x

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest arising from pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of clinical research have the potential to bias research outcomes and ultimately prejudice patient care. It is unknown how Australian Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC) assess and manage such conflicts of interest. We aimed to gain an understanding of how HREC approach the problem of potential conflicts of interest arising from pharmaceutical sponsorship of clinical research.

METHOD: We conducted a survey of HREC chairpersons in New South Wales.

RESULTS: HREC vary widely in their approaches to conflicts of interest, including in their use of National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines, which were often misinterpreted or overlooked. Many committees rely primarily on researchers disclosing potential conflicts of interest, whereas a majority of HREC use disclosure to research participants as the primary tool for preventing and managing conflicts of interest. Almost no HREC place limitations on researcher relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

CONCLUSION: These findings suggest reluctance on the part of HREC to regulate many potential conflicts of interest between researchers and pharmaceutical sponsors, which may arise from uncertainty regarding the meaning or significance of conflicts of interest in research, from ambiguity surrounding the role of HREC in assessing and managing conflicts of interest in research or from misinterpretation or ignorance of current National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines. Further review of policies and practices in this important area may prove beneficial in safeguarding clinical research and patient care while promoting continuing constructive engagement with the pharmaceutical industry.

Keywords:
Publication Types: Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH Terms: Clinical Trials/economics Clinical Trials/ethics* Conflict of Interest* Data Collection Disclosure/ethics Drug Industry*/ethics Ethics Committees, Research*/organization & administration Guidelines Human Experimentation/ethics New South Wales Research Personnel/ethics Research Support/ethics*