• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

禁止还是“管理”利益冲突?对三个欧洲药品监管机构的政策和程序的审查。

Prohibiting or 'managing' conflict of interest? A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies.

机构信息

York University, Toronto, Canada.

出版信息

Soc Sci Med. 2010 Mar;70(5):643-7. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.002. Epub 2009 Sep 24.

DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.002
PMID:19782458
Abstract

In light of debates about the relationship between interests and scientific expert judgments, and the potential for declarations of conflict of interest (COI) to minimize corporate bias, we reviewed the approach to COI in 3 European drug regulatory bodies. These bodies were the Irish Medicines Board, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the United Kingdom and the European Medicines Agency in the European Union. Official statements about COI laws and codes of practice in the 3 contexts suggest that COIs are prohibited. In practice, the approaches to COI in the 3 drug regulatory agencies presuppose and promote the ideas that COIs cannot and need not be eliminated as the risk of bias can be managed. Because the evidence about if and how COI affects micro-level decision-making in drug regulatory authorities is neither complete nor comprehensive, we advocate a precautionary principle model. Under this model COI would be prohibited on the grounds that it might influence the outcome of regulatory decisions.

摘要

鉴于关于利益与科学专家判断之间关系的争论,以及利益冲突声明(COI)可能最小化企业偏见的潜力,我们审查了 3 个欧洲药物监管机构中的 COI 处理方法。这些机构是爱尔兰药品委员会、英国的药品和保健产品监管局以及欧盟的欧洲药品管理局。3 种情况下关于 COI 法律和实务准则的官方声明表明,COI 是被禁止的。实际上,这 3 个药物监管机构中的 COI 处理方法假设并促进了以下观点,即 COI 不能也不需要被消除,因为可以管理偏见的风险。由于关于 COI 是否以及如何影响药物监管机构的微观决策的证据既不完整也不全面,我们主张采用预防原则模型。根据该模型,COI 将被禁止,理由是它可能影响监管决策的结果。

相似文献

1
Prohibiting or 'managing' conflict of interest? A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies.禁止还是“管理”利益冲突?对三个欧洲药品监管机构的政策和程序的审查。
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Mar;70(5):643-7. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.002. Epub 2009 Sep 24.
2
On the prohibition of conflicts of interest in pharmaceutical regulation: precautionary limits and permissive challenges. A commentary on Sismondo (66:9, 2008, 1909-14) and O'Donovan and Lexchin.论药品监管中利益冲突的禁止:预防性限制与许可性挑战。对西斯蒙多(《科学史与科学哲学研究》66:9,2008,1909 - 1914)以及奥多诺万和莱克辛的评论
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Mar;70(5):648-51. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.059. Epub 2009 Dec 26.
3
European medicines agency: riddled with conflicts of interest.欧洲药品管理局:充斥着利益冲突。
Prescrire Int. 2012 Nov;21(132):278.
4
New arrangements for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.药品和医疗保健产品监管局的新安排。
BMJ. 2005 Apr 23;330(7497):917. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7497.917.
5
An official American Thoracic Society Policy statement: managing conflict of interest in professional societies.美国胸科学会官方政策声明:管理专业学会中的利益冲突
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009 Sep 15;180(6):564-80. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200901-0126ST.
6
Managing conflicts of interest in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines programme: qualitative study.英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所(NICE)临床指南项目中利益冲突的管理:定性研究
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 26;10(3):e0122313. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122313. eCollection 2015.
7
Medicines Control Agency must be more open.药品管理局必须更加公开透明。
BMJ. 2003 Jan 18;326(7381):119. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7381.119/a.
8
Food for thought? Potential conflicts of interest in academic experts advising government and charities on dietary policies.引人深思?学术专家在为政府和慈善机构提供饮食政策建议时可能存在的利益冲突。
BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 5;16:735. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3393-2.
9
The innovative medicines initiative: a European response to the innovation challenge.创新药物倡议:欧洲对创新挑战的回应。
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Mar;91(3):418-25. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2011.321. Epub 2012 Feb 8.
10
The European Medicines Agency: a public health European agency?欧洲药品管理局:一个欧洲公共卫生机构?
Med Law. 2012 Mar;31(1):25-42.

引用本文的文献

1
Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in DSM-5-TR: cross sectional analysis.DSM-5-TR 中的未披露财务利益冲突:横断面分析。
BMJ. 2024 Jan 10;384:e076902. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-076902.
2
New drug submissions in Canada and a comparison with the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency: Cross-sectional analysis.加拿大新药申报及其与美国食品药品监督管理局和欧洲药品管理局的比较:横断面分析。
PLoS One. 2023 Jun 15;18(6):e0286802. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286802. eCollection 2023.
3
Psychiatrization of Resistance: The Co-option of Consumer, Survivor, and Ex-patient Movements in the Global South.
抗争的精神医学化:全球南方消费者、幸存者及 former 患者运动的被收编
Front Sociol. 2022 Mar 8;7:784390. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2022.784390. eCollection 2022.
4
Regulators, Pivotal Clinical Trials, and Drug Regulation in the Age of COVID-19.监管机构、关键临床试验与新冠疫情时代的药品监管
Int J Health Serv. 2021 Jan;51(1):5-13. doi: 10.1177/0020731420979824.
5
Transnational pharmacogovernance: emergent patterns in the jazz of pharmaceutical policy convergence.跨国药物治理:药物政策趋同爵士乐中的新兴模式。
Global Health. 2018 Aug 22;14(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12992-018-0402-5.
6
Regulating prescription drugs for patient safety: does Bill C-17 go far enough?为保障患者安全规范处方药:C-17法案力度够吗?
CMAJ. 2014 May 13;186(8):E287-92. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.131850. Epub 2014 Mar 10.
7
A comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 panel members' financial associations with industry: a pernicious problem persists.DSM-IV 和 DSM-5 专家组委员与行业间财务关联的比较:一个有害问题仍然存在。
PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001190. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001190. Epub 2012 Mar 13.