Financial ties found among clinical trials

[Guest guest]

Financial ties found among clinical trials

More than a third of those overseeing studies report monetary links to

pharmaceutical or medical firms.

By Gellene, Times Staff Writer

November 30, 2006

More than one-third of experts charged with overseeing clinical trials at

medical schools and research hospitals have financial ties to companies that

sell pharmaceuticals and medical devices, according to survey results released

Wednesday.

The report found that nearly 7% of experts discussed or voted on clinical

studies sponsored by companies they had relationships with or by competitors of

those companies — a conflict of interest under federal rules.

The survey, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is the first

to provide a broad look at financial conflicts of interest among people who

sit on institutional review boards.

The review boards, whose members may include doctors, nurses and community

residents, are charged with ensuring the scientific validity of clinical

trials and protecting the safety of patients who participate in them.

Every institution that conducts human research and receives federal funds is

required to have an institutional review board.

The influence of industry on medical research is a growing concern, with

much of the recent scrutiny directed at physicians who conduct and report on

clinical trials in which they have a financial interest.

In July, the Journal of the American Medical Assn. tightened its disclosure

policies after several cases in which authors of research reports failed to

reveal their financial ties to drug companies.

For the latest study, researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital and

the University of Massachusetts sent surveys to 893 review board members at 100

institutions and got 574 responses.

The participants were anonymous.

Thirty-six percent said they had at least one financial relationship with a

company during the previous year.

Such relationships included corporate funding of research, consulting for a

company, receiving royalties for an invention, owning stock, and sitting on a

corporate board.

More than 85% of survey respondents said their colleagues' relationships

didn't influence their decisions.

One-third of review board members said either their institution did not have

a formal process for disclosing financial ties, or that they didn't know of

such a process.

G. , a health policy expert at Massachusetts General Hospital

and lead author of the study, said it wasn't possible to eliminate

relationships between academia and industry.

Scientists rely on companies for research funding, and companies rely on

academic centers to test new products.

Because of this, review boards need to strengthen their disclosure policies

and do a better job of policing conflicts, said.

The failure of some board members to recuse themselves when they had a

conflict of interest was worrisome, he added.

L. Rose, executive director of USC's Office for the Protection of

Research Subjects, said academic institutions had been reassessing their

policies

and discussing the need for mandatory disclosures.

Members of USC's review board disclose their conflicts at every meeting, but

the practice isn't required, she said.

" Mandatory disclosure is the gold standard, " said Rose, who was not involved

in the study.

In a related report in the journal, patients in cancer-research trials said

they would not have changed their minds about participating in the studies

had they known in advance about the financial ties between researchers and drug

companies.

Senior author Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel of the National Institutes of Health

said patients did not want the additional burden of sorting out conflicts of

interest and they assumed that an " oversight system " was in place to protect

their interests.

*

____________________________________

denise.gellene@...

[Guest guest]

This is no surprise and one reason I try to stay

away from drugs if possible and chose older

versions of drugs rather than the new stuff,

since the older things have been time tested. My

allergist gave me a Rx for 24 hour allergy

medicine, two a day since he said my allergies

were so bad, I should take 2 not one 12 hours

apart. However I never filled it, I went and

bought an over the counter medicine and now I

don't take that either, I avoid the things I'm

allergic to. I have a card file that I put all

the Rx's I get just in case I change my mind, but

once I put them in there, they usually stay

there.

I do take a Rx every day though but no doctor

Rxed it for me. I found it by participating in a

drug trial and it worked for me in 1984 and I

still take it. I have trouble getting it

sometimes from doctor who want to put me on

something else. It cost me 7.00 a month. It's

not for allergy or mold though.

Posted by: " snk1955@... " snk1955@...

snk1955

Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:02 pm (PST)

Financial ties found among clinical trials

More than a third of those overseeing studies

report monetary links to

pharmaceutical or