• Kevin P Weinfurt, Mark A Hall, N Chantelle Hardy, Joëlle Y Friedman, Kevin A Schulman, and Jeremy Sugarman.
• Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27715, USA. kevin.weinfurt@duke.edu
• J Gen Intern Med. 2010 May 1;25(5):460-4.

BackgroundStudies of conflicts of interest in clinical research have focused on academic centers, but most clinical research takes place in nonacademic settings.ObjectiveTo compare oversight and management of investigators' financial relationships in academic and nonacademic research settings.Design, Setting, And ParticipantsSurvey of officials at 199 sites that contributed participants to commercially sponsored phase 3 clinical trials published in JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 and 2007.Measurements And Main ResultsResponse rates were 66% for academic medical centers, 37% for nonacademic medical centers (inpatient), and 27% for outpatient nonacademic sites. Almost all academic medical centers (97%) and most nonacademic medical centers (87%) followed written conflict-of-interest policies, whereas 44% of outpatient nonacademic sites had written policies (P < 0.001). Academic and nonacademic medical centers relied mainly on internal institutional review boards (69% and 71%, respectively); outpatient nonacademic sites relied primarily on independent institutional review boards (59%; P < 0.001).ConclusionsNonacademic sites have substantially different approaches to the oversight and management of financial relationships in commercially sponsored clinical research than academic medical centers. These differences warrant more attention to how financial relationships are monitored in community research settings.

19 keywords...

hide…