Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 337–342 | Cite as

Conflict of interest as seen from a researcher’s perspective

  • Arrigo SchieppatiEmail author
  • Norberto Perico
  • Giuseppe Remuzzi
Article

Abstract

The continuous growth of the pharmaceutical industry is expected to require a considerable output of new drugs, with speedy development and approval processes. This profit-driven expansion of the drug market may broaden the already established erosion of the role of academia in favor of commercial clinical research organizations. Less and less control on the clinical trial design, its conduct and the resulting publication[s] is the likely consequence. Academic medicine and governments should find means to sustain the development of independent clinical research.

Keywords

conflict of interest academic research drug development and research clinical trial design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pharma2005: An industrial revolution in R&D. New York, NY: PriceWaterhouseCoopers; 1998. Available at http://www.pwcconsulting.com/us/pwccons.nsf/viewwebpages/PharmaPubSeries Accessibility verified May 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The new era of lifestyle drugs. BusinessWeek May 11, 1998. Available at http://www.businessweek.com/1998/19/topstory.htm. Accessibility verified May 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garattini S. (1997) Are me-too drugs justified? J Nephrol. 10: 283–94.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Montaner J.S., O’Shaughnessy M.V., Schechter M.T. (2001) Industry-sponsored clinical research: a double-edged sword, Lancet 358: 1893–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rochon P.A., Gurwitz J.H, Simms R.W., et al. (1994) A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med. 154: 157–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Margreiter R. (2002) Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus compared with ciclosporin microemulsion in renal transplantation: a randomised multicentre study. Lancet 359: 741–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perna A., Gotti E., de Bernardis E., Perico N., Remuzzi G. (1996) A logistic-regression model provides novel guidelines to maximize the anti-acute rejection properties of cyclosporine with a minimum of toxicity. J Am Soc Nephrol. 7: 786–91.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davidoff F., DeAngelis C.D., Drazen J.M., et al. (2001) Sponsorship, authorship and accountability. Lancet 358: 854–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parving H-H, Lehnert H., Bröchner-Mortensen J., Gomis R., Andersen S., Arner P. (2001) The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 345: 870–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brenner B.M., Cooper M.E., de Zeeuw D., et al. (2001) Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 345: 861–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis E.J., Hunsicker L.G., Clarke W.R., et al. (2001) Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 345: 851–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hostetter T.H. (2001) revention of End-Stage Renal Disease Due to Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 345: 910–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurtzman N.A. (2001) Drug companies should not have the final say in the design of clinical trials. Am J Kidney Dis 38: 1113–4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choudhry N.K., Stelfox H.T., Detsky A.S. (2002) Relationship between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 287: 612–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    About the 1999 WHO/ISH guidelines for the management of hypertension. Available at http://www.uib.no/isf/letter Accessibility verified May 2002.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hansson L., Zanchetti A., George Carruthers S., et al. (1998) Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 351: 1755–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quick J. (2001) Maintaining the integrity of the clinical evidence base. Bulletin of the WHO 79: 1093.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bodenheimer T. (2000) Uneasy alliance. N Engl J Med 342: 1539–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Angell M. (2000) Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med 342: 1516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Retting R.A. (2000) The industrialization of clinical research. Health Affairs 19: 129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morin K., Rakatanski H., Riddick F.A., et al. (2002) Managing conflict of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. JAMA 287: 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schieppati A., Garattini S., Remuzzi G. (2001) Modulating the profit motive to meet needs of the less-developed world. Lancet. 358: 1638–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arrigo Schieppati
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Norberto Perico
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Remuzzi
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.“Mario Negri” Institute for Pharmacological ResearchNegri Bergamo LaboratoriesBergamoItaly
  2. 2.Unit of Nephrology and DialysisAzienda Ospedaliera — Ospedali RiunitiBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations