Disclosure is Inadequate as a Solution to Managing Conflicts of Interest in Human Research

Ethics Along the Continuum of Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness

Interest in disorders of consciousness (DoC) has grown substantially over the past decade and has illuminated the importance of improving understanding of DoC biology; care needs (use of monitoring, performance of interventions, and provision of emotional support); treatment options to promote recovery; and outcome prediction. Exploration of these topics requires awareness of numerous ethics considerations related to rights and resources. The Curing Coma Campaign Ethics Working Group used its expertise in neurocritical care, neuropalliative care, neuroethics, neuroscience, philosophy, and research to formulate an informal review of ethics considerations along the continuum of research involving persons with DoC related to the following: (1) study design; (2) comparison of risks versus benefits; (3) selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) screening, recruitment, and enrollment; (5) consent; (6) data protection; (7) disclosure of results to surrogates and/or legally authorized representatives; (8) translation of research into practice; (9) identification and management of conflicts of interest; (10) equity and resource availability; and (11) inclusion of minors with DoC in research. Awareness of these ethics considerations when planning and performing research involving persons with DoC will ensure that the participant rights are respected while maximizing the impact and meaningfulness of the research, interpretation of outcomes, and communication of results.

Are Corporations Re-Defining Illness and Health? The Diabetes Epidemic, Goal Numbers, and Blockbuster Drugs

While pharmaceutical industry involvement in producing, interpreting, and regulating medical knowledge and practice is widely accepted and believed to promote medical innovation, industry-favouring biases may result in prioritizing corporate profit above public health. Using diabetes as our example, we review successive changes over forty years in screening, diagnosis, and treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes, which have dramatically expanded the population prescribed diabetes drugs, generating a billion-dollar market. We argue that these guideline recommendations have emerged under pervasive industry influence and persisted, despite weak evidence for their health benefits and indications of serious adverse effects associated with many of the drugs they recommend. We consider pharmaceutical industry conflicts of interest in some of the research and publications supporting these revisions, and in related standard-setting committees and oversight panels. We raise concern over the long-term impact of these multifaceted involvements. Rather than accept industry conflicts of interest as normal, needing only to be monitored and managed, we suggest challenging that normalcy, and ask: what are the real costs of tolerating such industry participation? We urge the development of a broader focus to fully understand and curtail the systemic nature of industry's influence over medical knowledge and practice.

Disclosure of Interests and Management of Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines and Guidance Statements: Methods From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians

One of the hallmarks of a trustworthy clinical guideline or guidance statement is a comprehensive process for disclosure of interests (DOI) and management of conflicts of interest (COIs). The American College of Physicians (ACP) Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) aims to disclose all health care-related interests and manage conflicts in a manner that is transparent, proportional, and consistent. Any person involved in the development of an ACP clinical guideline or guidance statement must disclose all financial and intellectual interests related to health care from the previous 3 years. Persons complete disclosures at the start of their participation and are required to update them over the course of their involvement with the CGC, including before each CGC meeting. A DOI-COI Review and Management Panel reviews the disclosures; flags potential conflicts; grades the COI as low-, moderate-, or high-level; and manages the person's participation accordingly. A high-level COI results in recusal from authorship, voting, and all committee discussions. Participants with a moderate-level COI are recused from authorship and voting for clinically relevant topics but may participate in all discussions. A low-level COI results in no role restrictions. All disclosures and COI management decisions are publicly reported.

Conflicts of interest in infection prevention and control research: no smoke without fire. A narrative review

Conflicts of interest (COIs) do occur in healthcare research, yet their impact on research in the field of infection prevention and control (IPC) is unknown. We conducted a narrative review aiming to identify examples of COIs in IPC research. In addition to well-known instances, we conducted PubMed and Google searches to identify and report case studies of COIs in IPC and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which were chosen arbitrarily following consensus meetings, to illustrate different types of COIs. We also searched the Retraction Watch database and blog to systematically identify retracted IPC and/or infectious disease-related papers. Our review highlights COIs in academic research linked to ties between industry and physicians, journal editors, peer-reviewed journals' choice for publication, and guideline committees participants and authors. It explores how COIs can affect research and could be managed. We also present several selected case studies that involve (1) the chlorhexidine industry and how it has used marketing trials and key opinion leaders to promote off-label use of its products; (2) the copper industry and how reporting of its trials in IPC have furthered their agenda; (3) the influence of a company developing "closed infusion systems" for catheters and how this affects networks in low- and middle-income countries and guideline development; (4) potential perverse incentives hospitals may have in reporting healthcare-associated infection or AMR rates and how government intervention may restrict AMR research for fear of bad publicity and subsequent negative economic consequences. Finally, the analysis of reasons for the retraction of previously published papers highlights the fact that misconduct in research may have other motivations than financial gain, the most visible form of COIs. COIs occur in the field of research in general, and IPC and AMR are no exceptions. Their effects pervade all aspects of the research and publication processes. We believe that, in addition to improvements in management strategies of COIs, increased public funding should be available to decrease researchers' dependency on industry ties. Further research is needed on COIs and their management.

The Shadows of Sunlight: Why Disclosure Should Not Be a Priority in Addressing Conflicts of Interest

This article argues that positioning disclosure as a primary remedy in addressing the ethical problems posed by conflicts of interest (‘COIs’) in medicine and health is an error. Instead, bioethical resources should be devoted to the problems associated with sequestration, defined as the elimination of relationships between commercial industries and health professionals in all cases where it is remotely feasible. The argument begins by arguing that adopting Andrew Stark’s conceptual framework for COIs leads to advantages in understanding COIs and in ordering priorities for intervention. The article then draws on prior work establishing that COIs are, under ordinary epidemiologic standards, properly regarded as population health hazards. This justifies attention to possible remedies, of which disclosure generates by far the most analysis. Such primacy is unwarranted given the extensive evidence suggesting that disclosure as a remedy for COIs is at best ineffective. ‘At best’ is justified because the evidence also shows that disclosure may have a perverse effect, intensifying biased behaviors. Expending significant attention on an ineffective or even deleterious intervention is unjustified and also crowds out devotion of resources to the real problems that attend sequestration. Therefore, disclosure ought to be regarded as a lower priority among possible COI interventions.