A national survey of provisions in clinical-trial agreements between medical schools and industry sponsors.

BACKGROUND Concerned about threats to the integrity of clinical trials in a research environment increasingly controlled by private interests, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has issued revised guidelines for investigators' participation in the study design, access to data, and control over publication. It is unclear whether research conducted at academic institutions adheres to these new standards. METHODS From November 2001 through January 2002, we interviewed officials at U.S. medical schools about provisions in their institutions' agreements with industry sponsors of multicenter clinical trials. A subgroup of the respondents were also asked about coordinating-center agreements for such trials. RESULTS Of the 122 medical schools that are members of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 108 participated in the survey. The median number of site-level agreements executed per institution in the previous year was 103 (interquartile range, 50 to 210). Scores for compliance with a wide range of provisions--from ensuring that authors of reports on multicenter trials have access to all trial data (1 percent [interquartile range, 0 to 21]) to addressing the plan for data collection and monitoring (10 percent [interquartile range, 1 to 50])--demonstrated limited adherence to the standards embodied in the new ICMJE guidelines. Scores for coordinating-center agreements were somewhat higher for most survey items. CONCLUSIONS Academic institutions routinely engage in industry-sponsored research that fails to adhere to ICMJE guidelines regarding trial design, access to data, and publication rights. Our findings suggest that a reevaluation of the process of contracting for clinical research is urgently needed.

[1]  R. Sade Research on stored biological samples is still research. , 2002, Archives of internal medicine.

[2]  F. Rivara,et al.  Publication bias: the problem and some suggestions. , 2002, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[3]  C. Naylor Early Toronto experience with new standards for industry-sponsored clinical research: a progress report. , 2002, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[4]  J. Hrachovec,et al.  Reporting of 6-month vs 12-month data in a clinical trial of celecoxib. , 2001, JAMA.

[5]  R. Horton,et al.  Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  K. Welsh-Bohmer,et al.  How Proxies Make Decisions about Research for Patients with Alzheimer's Disease , 2001, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[7]  A. Flanagin,et al.  Reporting financial conflicts of interest and relationships between investigators and research sponsors. , 2001, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

[8]  R. Califf,et al.  Monitoring and ensuring safety during clinical research. , 2001, JAMA.

[9]  B. Lo,et al.  Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  C B Anderson,et al.  A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  C. Deangelis Conflict of interest and the public trust. , 2000, JAMA.

[12]  E. Boyd,et al.  Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry: A case study. , 2000, JAMA.

[13]  Drummond Rennie,et al.  Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities. , 2000, JAMA.

[14]  T. Bodenheimer,et al.  Uneasy alliance--clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  D. DeMets,et al.  The agonising negative trend in monitoring of clinical trials , 1999, The Lancet.

[16]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. , 1997, JAMA.

[17]  N. Kass,et al.  Trust, The fragile foundation of contemporary biomedical research. , 1996, The Hastings Center report.

[18]  S. Rosenberg,et al.  Secrecy in medical research. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  J P Kassirer,et al.  The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  B Kinosian,et al.  Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  I Chalmers,et al.  Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. , 1990, JAMA.

[22]  K. Dickersin The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. , 1990, JAMA.