Conflicts of interest in drug development: The practices of Merck & Co., Inc.
- 128 Downloads
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.
Keywordsconflict of interest pharmaceutical drug development publication data access bias investigator clinical research
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Smith, R. (1998) Beyond conflict of interest: transparency is the key. Br Med J 317: 291–292.Google Scholar
- 5.Smith, R. (1994) Conflict of interest and the BMJ. Br Med J 308: 4–5.Google Scholar
- 9.Loder, E. (2002) Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability (letter to the editor). N Engl J Med 346: 291.Google Scholar
- 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
- 13.Kohn, A. (1986) False prophets: fraud and error in science and medicine. The brilliant John Darsee. Blackwell, Oxford, England: 84–88.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 27.Davidson, R.A. (1986) Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Int Med 1: 155–158.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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