Información del artículo
Resumen
:El término conflicto de intereses se aplica, entre otras, a aquellas situaciones en que la validez e integridad de la investigación puede estar influida por un interés secundario, típicamente un beneficio económico, pero también un posicionamiento ideológico u otros intereses personales o profesionales. En este trabajo se describen y discuten algunas de las formas de conflicto de intereses —particularmente el relacionado con la publicación de trabajos de investigación clínica y epidemiológica financiados por la industria— y los intentos de regulación de este problema por parte de las revistas médicas, incluyendo referencias a la situación en España.
El conflicto de interés no es sinónimo de fraude científico ni malpraxis en investigación, pero en la literatura médica existe suficiente evidencia para considerarlo una importante fuente de sesgos. La forma usual de enfrentar el conflicto de intereses es hacerlos públicos, de forma que los lectores puedan juzgar por sí mismos su importancia. Las políticas editoriales de las revistas españolas se hallan, en general, lejos de darle importancia al conflicto de intereses, aspecto que podría favorecer una actitud de los investigadores —para mantener la financiación u obtener nuevos contratos— innecesariamente supeditada a los intereses de las empresas.
Palabras clave:
Conflicto de intereses
Financiación de la investigación
Sesgo de publicación
Abstract
Abstract
:The term conflict of interests is applied to those situations in which the research validity and integrity may be influenced by a secondary interest, typically an economic benefit, but also an ideological, personal or professional interest. In this work we describe some ways of conflict of interests —particularly those related with the publication of clinical and epidemiological research supported by the industry— and the regulation of this problem from medical journals, including references to the situation in Spain.
The conflict of interest is not synonymous of scientific fraud neither malpraxis in research, but in the medical literature there exists enough evidence to consider it as an important source of biases. The usual form of facing the conflict of interests is to make it public, so that readers can judge its importance. The editorial policies of the Spanish journals are, in general, far from giving importance to this problem, an aspect which could favor an attitude of the investigators, to maintain funding or to obtain new contracts, unnecessarily subordinated to the interests of the companies.
Key words:
Conflict of interest
Research support
Publication bias
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
D.F. Thompson.
Understanding financial conflicts of interest.
N Engl J Med, 329 (1993), pp. 573-576
[2.]
P.J. Easterbrook, J.A. Berlin, R. Gopalan, D.R. Matthews.
Publication bias in clinical research.
Lancet, 337 (1991), pp. 867-872
[3.]
K. Dickersin, Y.I. Min.
Publication bias and the editorial process.
J Am Med Assoc, 267 (1992), pp. 2891-2892
[4.]
K. Dickersin, Y.I. Min, C.L. Meinert.
Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two instutional review boards.
J Am Med Assoc, 267 (1992), pp. 374-378
[5.]
E. Hemminki.
Study information submitte by drug companies to licensing authorities.
Br Med J, (1980), pp. 833-836
[7.]
I. Roberts, A. Li Wan Po, I. Chalmers.
Intellectual property, drug licensing, freedom of information and public health.
Lancet, 352 (1998), pp. 726-729
[8.]
J. Abraham, G. Lewis.
Secrecy and transparency of medicines licensing in the E.U..
Lancet, 352 (1998), pp. 480-482
[9.]
I. Chalmers.
Underreporting research is scientific misconduct.
J Am Med Assoc, 263 (1990), pp. 1405-1408
[10.]
L.A. Bero, A. Galbraith, D. Rennie.
The publication of sponsored symposiums in medical journals.
N Engl J Med, 327 (1992), pp. 1135-1140
[11.]
M.K. Cho, L.A. Bero.
The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings.
Ann Intern Med, 124 (1996), pp. 485-489
[12.]
L.A. Bero, A. Galbraith, D. Rennie.
Sponsored symposia on environmental tobacco smoke.
J Am Med Assoc, 271 (1994), pp. 612-617
[13.]
L.A. Bero, S.A. Glantz, D. Rennie.
Publication bias and public health policy on environmental tobacco smoke.
J Am Med Assoc, 272 (1994), pp. 133-136
[14.]
D.E. Barnes, L.A. Bero.
Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research.
J Health Politics Policy Law, 21 (1996), pp. 515-542
[15.]
D.E. Barnes, L.A. Bero.
Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions.
J Am Med Assoc, 279 (1998), pp. 1566-1570
[16.]
M. Egger, G. Davey Smith.
Misleading in meta-analysis.
Br Med J, 310 (1995), pp. 752-754
[17.]
P. Wise, M. Drury.
Pharmaceutical trials in general practice: the first 100 protocols. An audit by the clinical research ethics commitee of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
Br Med J, 313 (1996), pp. 1245-1248
[18.]
A.H. Bardy.
Bias in reporting clinical trials.
Br J Pharmacol, 46 (1998), pp. 147-150
[19.]
THS Dent, S. Hawke.
Too soon to market: doctors and patients need more information before drugs enter routine use.
Br Med J, 315 (1997), pp. 1248-1249
[20.]
K. Lauritsen, T. Kavelund, L.S. Larsen, J. Rask-Madsen.
Withholding unfavourable results in drug company sponsored clinical trials.
Lancet, i (1987-1091),
[21.]
D.S. Liebeskind, C.S. Kidwell, J.I. Saber.
Empiric evidence of publication bias affecting acute stroke clinical trials.
Stroke, 30 (1999), pp. 268
[22.]
D. Rennie.
Thyroid storm.
J Am Med Assoc, 277 (1997), pp. 1238-1243
[23.]
R.A. Deyo, B.M. Psaty, G. Simon, E.H. Wagner, G.S. Omenn.
The messenger under attack — intimidation of researchers by specialinterest groups.
N Engl J Med, 336 (1997), pp. 1176-1180
[24.]
R.A. Davidson.
Source of founding and outcome of clinical trials.
J Gen Intern Med, 1 (1986), pp. 155-158
[25.]
P.A. Rochon, J.H. Gurwiitz, R.W. Simms.
A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflamatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis.
Arch Intern Med, 154 (1994), pp. 157-163
[26.]
P. Dieppe, J. Chard, D. Tallon, M. Egger.
Funding Clinical Research.
Lancet, 353 (1999), pp. 1626
[27.]
L.A. Bero, D. Rennie.
Influences on the quality of published drug studies.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 12 (1996), pp. 209-237
[28.]
P.A. Rochon, P.B. Berger, M. Gordon.
The evolution of clinical trials: inclusion and representation.
Can Med Assoc J, 1 (1998), pp. 373-374
[29.]
H.K. Johansen, P.C. Gotzsche.
Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analysis.
J Am Med Assoc, 282 (1999), pp. 1752-1759
[30.]
M. Friedberg, B. Saffran, T.J. Stinson, W. Nelson, C.L. Bennett.
Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs in oncology.
J Am Med Assoc, 282 (1999), pp. 1453-1457
[31.]
P.A. Dieppe, S.J. Frankel, B. Toth.
Is research into the treatment of osteoarthritis with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs misdirected?.
Lancet, 341 (1993), pp. 867-872
[32.]
C. Warlow, P. Sandercock, M. Dennis, J. Wardlaw.
Research Funding.
Lancet, 353 (1999), pp. 2250
[33.]
J. Maddox.
Conflict of interest declared.
Nature, 360 (1992), pp. 205-207
[34.]
B.J. Dong, W.W. Hauck, J.G. Gambertoglio, L. Gee, J.R. White, J.L. Bubp, et al.
Bioequivalence of generic and brand-name Levothyroxine products in the treatment of hypothyroidism.
J Am Med Assoc, 277 (1997), pp. 1205-1213
[35.]
G.H. Mayor, T. Orlando, N.M. Kurtz.
Limitations of levothyroxine bioequivalence evaluation: analysis of an attempted study.
Am J Ther, 2 (1995), pp. 417-432
[36.]
D. Blumenthal, E.G. Campbell, M.S. Anderson, N. Causino, K.S. Louis.
Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty.
J Am Med Assoc, 277 (1997), pp. 1224-1228
[37.]
B.M. Psaty, S.R. Heckbert, T.D. Koepsell, D.S. Siscovick, T.E. Raghunathan, N.S. Weiss, et al.
The risk of myocardial infarction associated with antihypertensive drug therapies.
J Am Med Assoc, 274 (1995), pp. 620-625
[39.]
H.T. Stelfox, G. Chua, K. O'Rourke, A.S. Detsky.
Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists.
N Engl J Med, 338 (1998), pp. 101-106
[40.]
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
Conflict of interest.
Lancet, 341 (1993), pp. 742-743
[41.]
D.G. Kern, R.S. Crausman, KTH Durand, A. Nayer, C. Kuhn.
Flock Worker's Lung: Chronic Interstitial Lung Disease in the Nylon Flocking Industry.
Ann Int Med, 129 (1998), pp. 261-272
[42.]
D.G. Kern.
Confidentiality agreements and scientific independence.
Med Decis Making, 18 (1998), pp. 239
[43.]
D.G. Kern.
The unexpected result of an investigation of an outbreak of occupational lung disease.
Int J Occup Med Environ Health, 4 (1998), pp. 19-32
[44.]
M. Schuchman.
Secrecy in science: the flock worker's lung investigation.
Ann Intern Med, 129 (1998), pp. 341-344
[46.]
N.F. Olivieri, G.M. Brittenham, D. Matsui, M. Berkovitch, L.M. Blendis, Rg Cameron, et al.
Iron-chelation therapy with oral deferiprone in patients with talassamia major.
N Engl J Med, 332 (1995), pp. 918-922
[47.]
N.F. Olivieri, G.M. Brittenham.
Iron-chelating therapy and the treatment of thalassemia.
Blood, 89 (1997), pp. 739-761
[48.]
N.F. Olivieri, G.M. Brittenham, C.E. McLaren, D.M. Templeton, R.G. Cameron, R.A. McClelland, et al.
Long-term safety and effectiveness of iron-chelation therapy with deferiprone for thalassemia major.
N Engl J Med, 339 (1998), pp. 417-423
[49.]
S.B. Mossad, M.L. Macknin, S.V. Medendorp, P. Mason.
Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Ann Intern Med, 125 (1996), pp. 81-88
[50.]
A.S. Relman.
Economic incentives in clinical investigation.
N Engl J Med, 320 (1989), pp. 933-934
[51.]
B. Healy, L. Campeau, R. Gray.
Conflict-of-interest guidelines for a multicenter clinical trial of treatment after coronary-artery bypass-graft surgery.
N Engl J Med, 320 (1989), pp. 949-951
[53.]
B.M. Farr, F.G. Hayden, J. Gwaltney.
Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold.
Ann Intern Med, 126 (1997), pp. 738
[54.]
Zinc gluconate lozenges for treating the common cold.
Ann Intern Med, 126 (1997), pp. 739
[57.]
A.S. Relman.
The new medical-industrial complex.
N Engl J Med, 303 (1980), pp. 963-970
[58.]
D. Blumenthal, M. Gluck, K.S. Louis, D. Wise.
Industrial support of university research in biotechnology.
Science, 231 (1986), pp. 242-246
[59.]
D. Blumenthal, M. Gluck, K.S. Louis, M.A. Stoto, D. Wise.
University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university.
Science, 232 (1986), pp. 1361-1366
[60.]
Council on Scientific Affairs and Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.
Conflicts of interest in medical center/industry research relationships.
J Am Med Assoc, 263 (1990), pp. 2790-2793
[61.]
D. Blumenthal.
Academic-industry relationships in the life sciences: extent, consequences and management.
J Am Med Assoc, 268 (1992), pp. 3344-3349
[62.]
D. Blumenthal.
Growing pains for new academic/industry relationships.
Health Aff (Millwood), 13 (1994), pp. 176-193
[63.]
D. Blumenthal, N. Causino, E. Campbell, S.H. Louis.
Relationship between academic institutions and industry in the life sciences — an industry survey.
N Engl J Med, 334 (1996), pp. 368-373
[64.]
T. Bodenheimer.
Uneasy Alliance — Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry.
N Engl J Med, 342 (2000), pp. 1539-1544
[65.]
J.M. Eisenberg.
Doctor's decisions and the cost of medical care.
[66.]
R. Meneu.
Sistemas de pago a médicos ¿qué? ¿Cuánto? ¿Cómo?.
Var Pract Med, 6 (1995), pp. 1-3
[67.]
A.L. Hillman, M.V. Pauly, J.J. Kerstein.
How do financial incentives affect physicians' clinical decisions and the financial performance of health maintenance organizations?.
N Engl J Med, 321 (1989), pp. 86-92
[68.]
A.B. Bindman, K. Grumbach, K. Vranizan, D. Jaffe, D. Osmond.
Selection and exclusion of primary care physicians by managed care organizations.
J Am Med Assoc, 279 (1998), pp. 675-679
[69.]
S.A. Rosenberg.
Secrecy in medical research.
N Engl J Med, 334 (1996), pp. 392-394
[70.]
M. Larkin.
Whose article is it anyway?.
Lancet, 354 (1999), pp. 136
[71.]
A.S. Elstein.
MDM policy regarding financial support of authors.
Med Decis Making, 17 (1997), pp. 497-498
[72.]
A. Flanagin, L.A. Carey, P.B. Fontanarosa, S.G. Phillips, B.P. Pace, G.D. Lundberg, D. Rennie.
Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.
J Am Med Assoc, 280 (1998), pp. 222-224
[73.]
M. Larkin.
Whose article is it anyway.
Lancet, 354 (1999), pp. 136
[74.]
M. Angell.
Is academic medicine for sale?.
N Engl J Med, 342 (2000), pp. 1516-1518
[75.]
A.S. Relman.
Dealing with conflicts of interests.
N Engl J Med, 310 (1984), pp. 1182-1183
[76.]
A.S. Relman.
New «information for authors» —and readers.
N Engl J Med, 263 (1990), pp. 56
[77.]
R. Smith.
Conflict of interest and the BMJ. Time to take it more seriously.
Br Med J, 308 (1994), pp. 4-5
[78.]
J.E. Manson, G.A. Faich.
Pharmacotherapy for obesity — do the benefits outweigh the risks?.
N Engl J Med, 335 (1996), pp. 659-660
[79.]
M. Angell, J.P. Kassirer.
Editorials and conflict of interest.
N Engl J Med, 335 (1996), pp. 1055-1056
[80.]
J.E. Manson, G.A. Faich.
Conflict of interest — editorialist respond.
N Engl J Med, 335 (1996), pp. 1064-1065
[82.]
K.J. Rothman, C.I. Cann.
Judging words rather than authors.
Epidemiology, 8 (1997), pp. 223-225
[83.]
S.J. Welch.
Conflict of interest and financial disclosure: judge the science, not the author.
Chest, 112 (1997), pp. 865-867
[84.]
J. Rutter, R. Smith.
Publishing research supported by the tobacco industry. Journals should reverse ban on industry sponsored research.
Br Med J, 312 (1996), pp. 133-134
[85.]
C. Begg, M. Cho, S. Eastwood, R. Horton, D. Moher, I. Olkin, et al.
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials.
J Am Med Assoc, 276 (1996), pp. 637-639
[86.]
J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild.
Review articles and publication bias.
Drug Res, 42 (1992), pp. 587-591
[87.]
R. Sykes.
Being a modern pharmaceutical company. Involves making information available on clinical trial programmes.
Br Med J, 317 (1998), pp. 1172
[88.]
I. Chalmers, D.G. Altman.
How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishing.
Lancet, 353 (1999), pp. 490-493
[89.]
G. Davey Smith.
Increasing the accesibility of data..
Br Med J, 308 (1994), pp. 1519-1520
[90.]
K. Schulman, D.P. Sulmasy, D. Roney.
Ethics, economics, and the publication policies of major medical journals.
J Am Med Assoc A, 272 (1994), pp. 154-156
[91.]
C. Marwick.
Pharmaeconomics: is a drug worth its costs?.
J Am Med Assoc, 272 (1994), pp. 1395-1398
[92.]
S. Krimsky.
Conflict of interest and cost-effectiveness analysis.
J Am Med Assoc, 282 (1999), pp. 1474-1475
[93.]
M.F. Drummond.
Jefferson TO and BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ.
Br Med J, 313 (1996), pp. 275-283
[94.]
A.L. Hillman, J.M. Eisenberg, M. Pauly, B.S. Bloom, H. Glick, B. Kinosian, et al.
Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
N Engl J Med, 324 (1991), pp. 1362-1365
[95.]
Ontario Ministry of Health.
Ontario guidelines for economic analysis of pharmaceutical products.
[96.]
R. Evans.
Manufacturing consensus, marketing truth: guidelines for economic evaluation.
Ann Intern Med, 123 (1995), pp. 59-60
[97.]
T. Jefferson, V. Demicheli.
Are guidelines for peer-reviewing economic evaluations necessary? A survey of current editorial practice.
Health Economics, 4 (1995), pp. 383-388
[98.]
J.P. Kassirer, M. Angell.
The Journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses.
N Engl J Med, 331 (1994), pp. 669-670
[99.]
P.J. Neumann.
Paying the piper for pharmaeconomic studies.
Med Dec Making, 18 (1998), pp. S23-S26
[100.]
Department of Health and Human Services— Public Health Service, National Science Foundation..
Objectivity in research. Investigatory financial disclosure policy: Final rule and notice..
pp. 35810-35819
[101.]
Department of Health and Human Services.
Food and Drugs Administration. Financial disclosure by clinical investigators.
Washington: Federal Register, 63 (1998), pp. 5233-5254
[102.]
R. Dal-Ré.
Declaración de intereses financieros de los investigadores de ensayos clínicos..
Med Clin (Barc), 113 (1999), pp. 743-745
[103.]
K.J. Rothman.
The ethics of research sponsorship.
J Clin Epidemiol, 44 (1991), pp. 25S-28S
[104.]
K.J. Rothman.
Conflict of interest. The new McCarthyism in Science.
J Am Med Assoc, 269 (1993), pp. 2782-2784
[105.]
S.R. Cummings, D.M. Black, D.E. Thompson, W.B. Applegate, E. Barrett-Connor, T.A. Musliner, et al.
Effect of alendronate on risk of fracture in women with low bone density but without vertebral fractures. Results from the Fracture Intervention Trial.
J Am Med Assoc, 280 (1998), pp. 2077-2082
[106.]
J. Camí.
Conflicto de intereses e investigación clínica..
Med Clin (Barc), 105 (1995), pp. 174-179
[107.]
E. Guallar, J. Conde, M.A. de la Cal, J.M. Martín-Moreno.
Guía para la evaluación de proyectos de investigación en ciencias de la salud. Grupo de Evaluación de la Actividad del Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias entre 1988 y 1995.
Med Clin (Barc), 108 (1997), pp. 460-471
[108.]
J.F. Olalla, J.J. Gervas.
Relaciones entre la industria farmacéutica y los profesionales sanitarios.
Gac Sanit, 3 (1989), pp. 389-391
Copyright © 2000. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
