Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 429–442

Conflicts of interest in drug development: The practices of Merck & Co., Inc.

Article

Abstract

Conflicts of interest are common and exist in academia, government, and many industries, including pharmaceutical development. Medical journal editors and others have recently criticized “the pharmaceutical industry,” citing concerns over investigator access to data, approaches to analysis of clinical trial data, and publication practices. Merck & Co., Inc. is a global, research-driven pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets a broad range of human and animal health products, directly and through its joint ventures. Although part of its mission is to provide a superior rate of return to its investors, Merck does not believe this creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest, particularly in activities concerning clinical drug development. We employ rigorous scientific methods to design, conduct, analyze, and report results of clinical trials in the development of innovative drugs and vaccines, with a focus on meeting unmet medical needs and with an ethic that puts the interests of the patient first. This article describes Merck’s approaches to potential conflicts of interest in drug development, particularly with regard to clinical trials. We believe that proprietary interests of the Company can be respected while observing objectivity and transparency in communicating clinical research results. The standards for the review of manuscripts reporting such trials for peer-reviewed publication should be the same, whether they are from Merck or elsewhere.

Keywords

conflict of interest pharmaceutical drug development publication data access bias investigator clinical research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Thompson, D.F. (1993) Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 329: 573–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith, R. (1998) Beyond conflict of interest: transparency is the key. Br Med J 317: 291–292.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen, J.J. (2001) Trust us to make a difference: ensuring public confidence in the integrity of clinical research. Acad Med 76: 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horton, R. (1997) Conflicts of interest in clinical research: opprobrium or obsession? Lancet 349: 1112–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith, R. (1994) Conflict of interest and the BMJ. Br Med J 308: 4–5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rennie, D. (1997) Thyroid storm. JAMA 277: 1238–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahn, J.O., Cherng, D.W., Mayer, K., Murray, H., Lagakos, S. for the 806 Investigator Team. (2000) Evaluation of HIV-1 immunogen, an immunologic modifier, administered to patients infected with HIV having 300 to 549 × 106/L CD4 cell counts. JAMA 284: 2193–2202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hrachovec, J.B., Mora, M., Wright, J.M., Perry, T.L., Bassett, K.L., Chambers, G. K., Silverstein, F., Simon, L., Faich, G. (2001) Reporting of 6-month vs 12-month data in a clinical trial of celecoxib. JAMA 286: 2398–2400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loder, E. (2002) Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability (letter to the editor). N Engl J Med 346: 291.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steneck, N.H. (2000) Assessing the integrity of publicly funded research — a background report for the November 2000 ORI Research Conference on Research Integrity. Accessed May 1, 2002, at http://www.ori.dhhs.gov/multimedia/acrobat/backg_int.pdf.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weiss, R. B., Rifkin, R.M., Stewart, F.M., Theriault, R.L., Williams, L.A., Herman, A.A., Beveridge, R.A. (2000) High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: an on-site review of the Bezwoda study. Lancet 355: 999–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Angell, M., Kassirer, J.P. (1994) Setting the record straight in the breast-cancer trials. N Engl J. Med 330: 1448–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kohn, A. (1986) False prophets: fraud and error in science and medicine. The brilliant John Darsee. Blackwell, Oxford, England: 84–88.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    DiMasi, J.A. (2001) Risks in drug development: approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69: 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DiMasi, J. (2001) Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development pegs cost of a new prescription medicine at $802 million. Press release Nov 30, 2001. Accessed May 15, 2002, at http://www.tufts.edu/med/csdd/Nov30CostStudyPressRelease.html.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Navia, M.A., Fitzgerald, P.M.D., McKeever, B.M., Leu, C.T., Heimbach, J.C., Herber, W.K., et al. (1989) Three-dimensional structure of aspartyl protease from human immunodeficiency virus HIV-1. Nature 337: 615–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeAngelis, C.D., Fontanarosa, P.B., Flanagin, A. (2001) Reporting financial conflicts of interest and relationships between investigators and research sponsors. JAMA 286: 89–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davidoff, F., DeAngelis, C.D., Drazen, J.M., Hoey, J., Højgaard, L., Horton, R., et al. (2001) Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. N Engl J Med 345: 825–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lewis, S., Baird, P., Evans, R.G., Ghali, W.A., Wright, C.J., Gibson, E., Baylis, F. (2001) Dancing with the porcupine: rules for governing the university-industry relationship. CMAJ 165: 783–785.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weintraub, W.S., Boccuzzi, S.B., Klein, J.L., Kosinski, A.S., King III, S.B., Ivanhoe, R., et al. for the Lovastatin Restenosis Trial Study Group. (1994) Lack of effect of lovastatin on restenosis after coronary angioplasty. N Engl J Med 331: 1331–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pitt, B., Poole-Wilson, P.A., Segal, R., Martinez, F.A., Dickstein, K., Camm, A.J., et al. for the ELITE II Investigators. (2000) Effect of losartan compared to captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial — the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II. Lancet 355: 1582–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Topol, E.J., Moliterno D.J., Herrmann, H.C., Powers, E.R., Grines, C.L., Cohen, D.J. et al. for the TARGET Investigators. (2001) Comparison of two platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, tirofiban and abciximab, for the prevention of ischemic events with percutaneous coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 344: 1888–1894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Navari, R.M., Reinhardt, R.R., Gralla, R.J., Kris, M.G., Hesketh, P.J., Khojasteh, A., et al. (1999) Reduction of cisplatin-induced emesis by a selective neurokinin-1-receptor antagonist. N Engl J Med 340: 190–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dickersin, K., Chan, S., Chalmers, T.C., (1987) Publication bias and clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 8: 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Easterbrook, P.J., Berlin, J.A., Gopalan, R., Matthews, D.R. (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337: 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G., Anderson, M.S., Causino, N., Louis, K.S. (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 277: 1224–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Davidson, R.A. (1986) Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Int Med 1: 155–158.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stelfox, H.T., Chua, G., O’Rourke, K., Detsky, A.S. (1998) Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 338: 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Kolfschooten, F. (2002) Conflicts of interest: can you believe what you read? Nature 416: 360–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rennie, D., Flanagin, A. (1994) Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters and the two-sided coin. JAMA 271: 469–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Flanagin, A., Carey, L.A., Fontanarosa, P.B., Phillips, S.G., Pace, B.P., Lundberg, G.D., and Rennie, D. (1998) Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 280:222–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    The CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. (1987) Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure. Results of the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS). N Engl J Med 316: 1429–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. (1994) Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Lancet 344: 1383–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Black DM, Thompson DE, Bauer DC, Ensrud K, Musliner T, Hochberg MC et al for the FIT Research Group. (2000) Fracture risk reduction with alendronate in women with osteoporosis: the Fracture Intervention Trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85: 4118–24. (Erratum J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001 86: 938).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McConnell, J.D., Bruskewitz, R., Walsh, P., Andriole, G., Lieber, M., Holtgrewe, H.L., et al. for the Finasteride Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study Group. (1998) The effect of finasteride on the risk of acute urinary retention and the need for surgical treatment among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 338: 557–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Downs, J.R., Clearfield, M., Weis, S., Whitney, E., Shapiro, D.R., Beere, P.A., et al. For the AFCAPS/TexCAPS Research Group. (1998) Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels. JAMA 279: 1615–1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bombardier, C., Laine, L., Reicin, A., Shapiro, D., Burgos-Vargas, R., Davis, B., et al. for the VIGOR Study Group. (2000) Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 343: 1520–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brenner, B.M., Cooper, M.E., De Zeeuw, D., Keane, W.F., Mitch, W.E., Parving, H-H., et al. for the RENAAL Study Investigators. (2001) Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 345: 861–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dahlöf, B., Devereux, R.B., Kjeldsen, S., Julius, S., Beevers, G., de Faire, U., et al. for the LIFE Study Group. (2002) Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 359: 995–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Juni, P., Rutjes, A. W.S., Dieppe, P. A. (2002) Are selective COX-2 inhibitors superior to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? Adequate analysis of the CLASS trial indicates that this may not be the case (editorial). Br Med J 324: 1287–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Drazen, J.M. and Curfman, G.D. (2002) Financial associations of authors (editorial). N Engl J Med 346: 1901–1902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smith, R. (2001) Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record — editors make a move (editorial). Br Med J 323: 588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Merck Research LaboratoriesRahwayUSA

Personalised recommendations