Why I Shouldn't Read Non-Systematic Review Articles: Special Pleadings and Undercover Authors

I usually resist looking at non-systematic review articles in medical journals, but because the title interested me, and things seem to be getting slow this holiday season, prompted by an update email from the American Journal of Medicine, I looked at Ram CVS. Beta-blockers in hypertension. Am J Cardiol 2010: 106: 1819-1825. (Link here.)

The Ram Article in Praise of Vasodilating Beta-Blockers

The article focused on the results of meta-analyses:

Concerns have also been raised by meta-analyses in which β blockers were reported to have a suboptimal effect on reducing stroke risk and increasing the risk for new-onset diabetes compared with other antihypertensive agents.

The article discussed several meta-analyses in which beta-blockers, [a specific class of blood pressure lowering drugs] but mostly atenolol (mostly sold generically), usually combined with a diuretic, were compared with other antihypertensive drugs, usually including angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and calcium channel blockers. But after discussing these comparative results, the author jumped to descriptions of another group of drugs which were not included in any of these comparative studies. This was the category of vasodilating beta-blockers, consisting of labetolol (mostly sold generically), carvedilol (Coreg, GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]), and nebivolol (Bystolic, Forest Laboratories. Based on physiologic studies of these drugs and trials in which they were compared with placebo, but not on studies which directly compared clinical outcomes of patients given these drugs or other kinds of antihypertensives, Dr Ram reached conclusions that they were a better alternative:

The review of the evidence provided herein confirms that there are valid reasons to question the utility of certain β blockers in treating hypertension. However, many of the perceptions about β blockers are derived from data obtained from studies of traditional agents or combinations of diuretics and β blockers. Evidence suggests, and the guidelines concur, that there are intrinsic differences among members of the β-blocker class. Indeed, the vasodilatory β-blockers, which have generally not been included in comparative meta-analyses, lower blood pressure to a similar degree as other antihypertensive drugs, may provide better central aortic pressure reductions than traditional β blockers, and are associated with neutral or favorable metabolic effects.

Special Pleading

Dr Ram's questioned the old-fashioned beta-blocker atenolol (perhaps only when added to a diuretic)  based on the results of meta-analyses which attempted to compare it to other drugs. Such meta-analyses could suggest that atentolol (again, perhaps only in combination with a diuretic) might be in some way less preferable than the other drugs to which it was compared. However, the meta-analyses did not address the vasodilating beta-blockers at all. Dr Ram concluded that they were preferable based on different kinds of and probably less definitive evidence. He did not seek to compare such studies done on the vasodilating beta-blockers to similar studies done on the conventional beta-blockers.  Thus it seems his conclusions were based on a double standard.

In the vocabulary of logical fallacies, this was an example of a special pleading:

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

Here was more reason not to bother reading a narrative review articles to learn how to better practice clinical medicine.  They often are based on idiosyncratic, if not biased evidence used to support illogical arguments.

But having read so far, I wondered why the authors of this article were so happy to use a double standard as the basis of their arguments.

Undercover Author

Those paying attention may also now be wondering why I referred to the authors in plural, when the citation lists only one author. The clue is at the end of the article:

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Tamalette Loh, ProEd Communications, Inc. (Beachwood, Ohio), for her editorial assistance and literature validation in the preparation of this report.

Sensitized as I have been to the many recent discussions of ghost-writing, I immediately wondered who Ms Loh is, and what sort of "editorial assistance and literature validation" she provided. So first I looked at what her company, ProEd Communications does, wondering if its business is to help syntactically challenged academics and professionals write better sentences and more organized papers.

The ProEd Communications web-site states:

ProEd Communications balances diverse perspectives—clinical, regulatory, marketing, and customer—to create compelling messaging to maximize a product's potential.

So it appears that ProEd Communications does not provide independent editorial services. Instead, it is a medical education and communications company (MECC) which works mainly to market its clients' products, and further, its clients are essentially only pharmaceutical companies:

Of the world's 50 largest pharmaceutical companies, ProEd has worked with 18 in the past 3 years and currently supports projects for 7 of the top 10 largest pharmaceutical companies, as ranked by MedAdNews (2008).

Furthermore, a few minutes on Google reveals that Ms Loh seems to specialize in papers on anti-hypertensives, particularly Coreg (carvedilol), one of the three drugs in the vasodilating beta-blocker group favored by Dr Ram. In fact, two other papers whose authors she assisted sounded hauntingly familiar.

Let me first display the quote above from the Ram paper:

Concerns have also been raised by meta-analyses in which β blockers were reported to have a suboptimal effect on reducing stroke risk and increasing the risk for new-onset diabetes compared with other antihypertensive agents.

Now see this quote from Frishman WH, Henderson LS, Lukas MA. Controlled-release carvedilol in the management of systemic hypertension and myocardial dysfucntion. Vasc Health Risk Management 2008; 4: 1387-1400.  (Link here):

However, concerns have been raised recently from hypertension meta-analyses regarding suboptimal outcomes with use of beta-blockers, specifically atenolol, compared with outcomes for other antihypertensive drug classes.

Also see this relatively similar quote from McGill JB. Optimal use of beta-blockers in high-risk hypertension: a guide to dosing equivalence. Vasc Health Risk Management 2010; 6: 363-372. (Link here):

Concerns about the use of β-blockers as first-line agents for hypertension have been raised because of a 2005 metaanalysis that found β-blockers do not significantly reduce
cardiovascular events, especially stroke, compared with other antihypertensive drug classes

Furthermore, read this discussion of Coreg by Ram:

Carvedilol is a nonselective β blocker with α1 receptor–blocking activity and no intrinsic sympathomimetic activity. Clinical data suggest that carvedilol reduces systemic vascular resistance in patients with hypertension.

Here is Frishman et al:

Carvedilol is a third-generation, vasodilatory beta-blocker that nonselectively blocks both the beta 1- and beta 2-adrenergic receptors.... vasodilatory beta-blockers can lower blood pressure by reducing systemic vascular resistance (SVR)

Both Frishman et al and McGill are very positive about Coreg.  Although the emphases of the three articles are different, they have organizational similarities.  Again, all three were written with the assistance of Ms Loh.

At the end of the Frishman article we again find:

The authors would like to thank Tamalette Loh, PhD, ProEd Communications, Inc.®, for her medical editorial assistance with this manuscript.

At the end of the McGill article we find:

Editorial assistance, specifically revisions to the final draft, was provided by Tamalette Loh, PhD, at ProEd Communications, Inc.®, whose services were also funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Loh’s revisions were reviewed and approved by Dr McGill.

Note that now it seems that Ms Loh has a doctoral degree, of unclear kind. Note also that now it seems that GSK, the manufacturer of Coreg, funded Dr Loh's work on the McGill article.

Dr McGill further disclosed:

Dr McGill is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline and a speaker for AstraZeneca and Forest Pharmaceuticals. Financial support for medical editorial assistance was provided by GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Finally, in another article, about angiotensin converting enzyme blockers combined with diuretics to treat hypertension (Egras AM, Ram CVS. Reduced cardiovascular risk and healthcare expenditures with angiotensin receptor blocker/ hydrochlorthiazide. Am J Pharmacy Benefits 2010; 2: 127-135. Lin here. ), Dr Ram acknowledged:

Dr Ram is in the speakers’ bureau pool of Cogenix, ProCom, and Genesis, which manage medical education programs for Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis.

The series of articles above demonstrated a phenomenon I have not seen explored before. All articles were written with some sort of assistance from an employee of a MECC, perhaps partly funded by a company which marketed a drug which was the subject of all the articles. The assistance was openly acknowledged.  The three articles had some remarkable similarities not explained by an overlap among their listed authors.  This suggested that the ostensible editorial assistant they had in common was substantively involved in the content of the papers, that is, was truly an author. Her presence was not ghost-like. However, the substance of her contribution may have been downplayed.  So let's call her an "undercover author."  (If someone has a better term, please leave a comment to that effect.)

Summary

So the reasons I rarely read narrative review articles except to make teaching points about health care dysfunction are:
- They often are based on idiosyncratic, if not biased selections of data
- They may employ logical fallacies to make their points
- They may be written by people with conflicts of interest, that is, with financial arrangements with companies seeking to market products, particularly drugs and devices.

My conclusions for health care professionals are: be very skeptical of non-systematic review articles, look for evidence that they are parts of stealth marketing campaigns, and do not assume all conflicts of interest are disclosed and all authorship roles revealed.

My conclusions for journal editors are: strictly demand more complete disclosure of conflicts of interest, or risk losing the trust of your readers.

My conclusions in general: until we start to sweep away the pervasive web of conflicts of interest that is draped over medicine and health care, expect further discombobulation.

"This is Really Going to Set People's Hair on Fire" - the Justice Department Indicts a Pharmaceutical Company Vice President and Associate General Counsel

We have been posting nearly every week about the parade of legal settlements, sometimes including guilty pleas to criminal charges, made by health care organizations.  The settlements have involved charges of kickbacks, fraud, conspiracy, and other colorful offenses. Most of these settlements entailed fines or other payments by the organizations that may seem huge, but were fractions of the amounts made by the practices that lead to the charges that were settled.  Almost never have the cases involved penalties for any individuals who authorized, directed, or implemented the misbehavior.  We have also been saying (seemingly endlessly, but most recently here) that such settlements may be viewed by organizations as merely the costs of doing business, and so until the actual people who were involved in the bad behavior suffer some negative incentive or penalty, expect the behavior to continue. 

Maybe things are changing.  In the New York Times, Duff Wilson wrote:

In a rare move, the Justice Department on Tuesday announced that it had charged a former vice president and top lawyer for the British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline with making false statements and obstructing a federal investigation into illegal marketing of the antidepressant Wellbutrin for weight loss.

Specifically,

The indictment accuses the Glaxo official, Lauren C. Stevens of Durham, N.C., of lying to the Food and Drug Administration in 2003, by writing letters, as associate general counsel, denying that doctors speaking at company events had promoted Wellbutrin for uses not approved by the agency. Ms. Stevens 'made false statements and withheld documents she recognized as incriminating,' including slides the F.D.A. had sought during its investigation, the indictment stated.

An Associated Press story provided more detail about the allegedly false statements:

The Department of Justice alleges that in 2002, Lauren Stevens of Durham, N.C., signed several letters to the Food and Drug Administration denying that her company had promoted an antidepressant drug for unapproved uses. But Stevens knew that the company had paid numerous physicians to give talks touting unapproved uses of the drug, including weight loss,....

Also,

In one instance, prosecutors say Stevens withheld slides used by physicians promoting the company's drug, even though the FDA had asked specifically for the materials. Stevens claimed that the company's response to the FDA was 'final' and 'complete,' according to the indictment.

Stevens also falsely denied that Glaxo had paid doctors to attend special sessions where medical experts discussed unapproved uses of Wellbutrin, according to the Department of Justice.

'Attendees were not paid, reimbursed or otherwise compensated to attend these events,' Stevens wrote in a 2003 letter to the FDA. But prosecutors say attendees received gifts, entertainment and other compensation in return for attending the events.

During 2001 and 2002, Glaxo paid two expert physicians to speak about 500 times each about Wellbutrin, including how to use the drug to treat obesity.

In addition, a CBS News story suggested that Ms Stevens was made aware of the nature of the information withheld:

In March of 2003, the indictment alleges, Stevens received a memo from other lawyers at GlaxoSmithKline analyzing the pros and cons of turning over the slides to the FDA. One of the cons listed in that memo was that turning over the slides would provide 'incriminating evidence about potential off-label promotion of [the drug] that may be used against [the corporation] in this or in a future investigation.'

An indictment of an individual, particularly a high-ranking corporate executive, seems to have gotten people's attention, e.g., as Duff Wilson wrote in the Times:

The indictment grabbed the attention of pharmaceutical executives who have been bracing for a long-promised government crackdown on company officials — rather than the corporations themselves — in drug-fraud cases that have resulted in billions of dollars in fines and payments.

'This is absolutely precedent-setting — this is really going to set people’s hair on fire,' said Douglas B. Farquhar, a Washington lawyer who recently presided at a panel on law enforcement during a drug industry conference where federal officials warned they were focusing on individuals. 'This is indicative of the F.D.A. and Justice strategy to go after the very top-ranking managing officials at regulated companies.'

My response is, of course, that the threat of this sort of action is absolutely what is needed to deter future bad behavior by health care organizations. As long as health care leaders could act with impunity, the fraud, kickbacks, conspiracy etc were continuing. Worse, given their impunity, why would anyone but an idealistic fool attempt to swim against the tide of rising sleaze in health care?  How could skeptics and critics of the status quo in health care gain any traction?

Now maybe this sort of action may finally lead self-satisfied, unreflective health care executives to think about what they are doing and its ethical and moral aspects. The NY Times article included this statement in defense of Ms Stevens:

Brien T. O’Connor, a lawyer with Ropes & Gray, said in a statement, 'Lauren Stevens is an utterly decent and honorable woman. She is not guilty of obstruction or of making false statements. Everything she did in this case was consistent with ethical lawyering and the advice provided her by a nationally prominent law firm retained by her employer specifically because of its experience in working with F.D.A.'

I actually would guess that Ms Stevens believes she did nothing wrong. I would guess that most of the numerous health care leaders who have been caught up in bad behavior also thought they did nothing wrong. After all, they were all very well paid, lived in nice houses in nice neighborhoods, drove fancy cars (when they did not have a paid car and driver), were respected in their communities, did charitable works, etc. How can fine people who look so respectable do anything wrong? But, of course, the veneer of respectability does not prevent unethical or immoral behavior. Making one's numbers, getting one's bonuses, all from doing the big boss' wishes do not certify one's actions as ethical or moral. Perhaps making corporate health care leaders actually accountable for their actions will lead them to think about whether their actions are really as upstanding as their accoutrements of social status make them feel.

My final comment is that it may be significant that this case involved a lawyer. On one hand, attorneys have been at the forefront of what little movement there is to improve the accountability, integrity, and transparency of health care organizations. On the other hand, the leadership of many health care organizations have lawyered up to defend their actions. Organizational lawyers have been known to sweet-talk, obfuscate or intimidate those who dare to criticize the organizational leaders' actions. Anyone who is a vocal skeptic of the powers that be in health care must know there is a constant risk of some corporate counsel or hired firm threatening a libel, slander, or tortious interference action. Any individual who dares to be skeptical must be worried that the leaders of large health care organizations can use a lot of other peoples' money to pay for lawyers to push such actions, while individual skeptics facing threats of suits for huge amounts of damages are not likely to have enough money of their own to keep fighting. So I hope that the current case will also push attorneys who make a lot of money protecting the status quo in health care to reflect on the ethics and morality of what they are doing.

ADDENDUM (10 November) - Also see comments by Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

GlaxoSmithKline Subsidiary Pleads Guilty to Manufacturing Adulterated Drugs: Three Strikes and ...?

Paxil

First there was Paxil (Seroxat in the UK, or paroxetine), the anti-depressant whose marketing lead GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to settle allegations of fraud brought by then New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer in 2004.  That case included allegations of suppression and manipulation of clinical research, and was discussed in great detail in the book Side Effects by Alison Bass.  We posted about various aspects of this case, e.g., more recently here, here, and here. 

Avandia

Then there was Avandia (rosiglitazone), the anti-diabetic drug whose use was just restricted by the US Food and Drug Administration.  This GlaxoSmithKline product inspired a "spin cycle" which provided us with endless grist for the Health Care Renewal mill.  A good summary of the case appeared in September in the British Medical Journal (Cohen D. Rosiglitazone: what went wrong: Brit Med J 2010; 341: 530-534.  Link here)  Once again, it appears that research was suppressed and manipulated (e.g., see here), Avandia critics were attacked by "experts" whose financial relationships with GSK were not always obvious (e.g., see here), and there were allegations that GSK executives tried to intimidate those who disagreed with them (e.g., see here and here). 

Adulterated Drugs

And now it is adulterated drugs.  Here is the version from Bloomberg:

GlaxoSmithKline Plc, the U.K.’s largest drugmaker, will pay $750 million to settle a U.S. whistleblower lawsuit over the sale of defective drugs.

Glaxo and the U.S. Justice Department announced the agreement yesterday, resolving a false-claims lawsuit first filed in 2004 by Cheryl D. Eckard, a former global quality assurance manager for the London-based company.

'This is not something I wanted to do, but because of patient safety it was necessary,' Eckard, 51, told reporters following a Justice Department press conference in Boston. As a whistleblower, she will receive $96 million from the settlement money.

Glaxo was accused in court papers of selling tainted drugs under false pretenses. The medicines, made at a Glaxo plant in Cidra, Puerto Rico, were misidentified as a result of product mix-ups, according to papers filed in federal court in Boston. The affected drugs included the antidepressant Paxil CR and the diabetes treatment Avandamet. [Note that this is a combination drug that includes Avandia - ed]

The settlement includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling $150 million and a $600 million civil settlement under the False Claims Act and related state claims, the Justice Department said in a statement.

'We will not tolerate corporate attempts to profit at the expense of the ill and needy in our society -- or those who cut corners that result in potentially dangerous consequences to consumers,' Carmen M. Ortiz, the U.S. Attorney in Boston, said at yesterday’s news conference.

SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc., a Glaxo unit, agreed to plead guilty to charges relating to the manufacture and distribution of adulterated drugs made at the now-shuttered plant, the Justice Department said. Glaxo said in July it had agreed in principle with the U.S. to pay 500 million pounds ($791 million) to resolve the investigation.

'We regret that we operated the Cidra facility in a manner that was inconsistent with current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements and with GSK’s commitment to manufacturing quality,' PD Villarreal, a Glaxo senior vice president, said in an e-mailed statement.

Eckard’s take is the largest ever for a single whistleblower, said Patrick Burns, spokesman for Taxpayers Against Fraud, a nonprofit Washington group that publicizes the use of legal means to combat fraud against the U.S. The federal government will receive $436.4 million from the settlement and participating states will split as much as $163.6 million, the Justice Department said.

Other drugs made at the plant include Kytril, an anti- nausea medication, and Bactroban, an ointment used to treat skin infections, the Justice Department said.

'The false claims arose out of chronic, serious deficiencies in the quality assurance function at the Cidra plant and the defendants’ ongoing serious violations of the laws and regulations designed to ensure the fitness of drug products for use,' the government said in court papers.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2005 seized some Paxil CR lots after it was discovered that the pills sometimes split inappropriately, according to court papers. Some of the pills lacked an active ingredient.

It seems that not only questions about GSK sponsored clinical research about and GSK marketing of Paxil and Avandia, but the company has problems even supplying tablets that contain the pure drugs at the right dose.
Summary and Discussion

First, this is another dreary marcher in the parade of legal settlements that we have now been chronicling for years. This case has some particular features. It included a guilty plea to a crime. Although the allegations included fraud, the fundamental problem seemed to be the selling of adulterated, impure drugs.

So my first comment is that this is the latest instance of a major pharmaceutical company not being able to fulfill its most basic responsibility and reason for being, the manufacture of pure, unadulterated drugs. We previously discussed problems with adulterated drugs made by Baxter International and Johnson and Johnson. We have discussed, seemingly endlessly, how big health care corporations, including but certainly not limited to pharmaceutical companies, have engaged in various sophisticated deceptions involving marketing and clinical research to sell more products at higher prices. Now it seems that while these companies have put so much of their resources into marketing and public relations, not necessarily in honest ways, they have neglected to put the necessary expertise and resources into their most basic manufacturing functions.

So while drug industry sycophants prattle on endless about life-saving innovations, not only have industry marketing and research become less trustworthy, but now we cannot even trust the companies to supply the drug that is on the label in a pure form at the labelled dose.

My next comment is that this is the third big case involving GlaxoSmithKline reported in the last few years. (Although, like the previous cases, the events that lead to recent relevations actually occurred over the last 10+ years.) This would suggest that there is a serious problem with the culture, leadership, and governance at this corporation.

Maybe one reason such problems are allowed to fester is that in the current case, like the last two involving GSK, and as is typical for the legal settlements and crimes we have discussed before, no individuals who authorized, directed, or implemented the problematic behavior seem to have suffered any negative consequences or paid any penalty. In fact, the Guardian just pointed out:

Five of the six senior GlaxoSmithKline executives cited by a whistleblower as part of a cover-up of contamination problems at the group's Puerto Rico factory are understood to still be employed by the pharmaceuticals company.

Cheryl Eckard, who was sacked by the company as a quality control manager in 2003 after repeatedly raising her concerns with a series of GSK executives, received a $96m (£61m) reward this week as part of a $750m criminal and civil settlement between US regulators and the company.

Her evidence stated that she believed company executives refused to acknowledge the gravity of the production violations – which included the wrong strength of pills being shipped – because it would delay the approval of two new drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The court documents allege that Eckard, who had recommended the factory be shut until the issues were resolved, communicated the quality violations at the plant in Cidra to David Pulman, president of global manufacturing and supply; Janice Whitaker, senior vice president of global quality; Peter Savin, vice president of global quality assurance; Diane Sevigny, director of global quality assurance, risk management and compliance; and Jonathan Box, vice president of manufacturing and supply for North America.

All five executives are believed to be still working for the London-listed company, while Pulman is also a member of the company's 18-strong corporate executive team, which includes chief executive Andrew Witty.

As we have said endlessly, penalties that only appear to be (relatively small) costs of doing business are unlikely to deter future bad behavior. Until the people who actually authorized, directed and implemented the bad behavior have to suffer some negative consequences, expect the bad behavior to continue. 

When it comes to health care's leadership, society seems to have acceded to defining deviancy down. Until we start holding health care leaders to high standards, expect their organizations not to uphold high standards.  Further, expect organizations that did not uphold high standards in one instance to fail to uphold them in other instances.

See also comments on the Postscript blog.

The Avandia Spin Cycle Continues Even After the FDA Safety Hearings

We have posted multiple times about Avandia (rosiglitazone), GlaxoSmithKline's star-crossed glucose-lowering drug.  While Avandia has received considerable media coverage, we focused on two questions: 1 - what are the benefits and harms of rosiglitazone as a treatment of type 2 diabetes, and therefore for which patients under what circumstances should this drug be used? 2 - what barriers have prevented physicians and patients from getting the best possible answer to the first question, and what can be done about them?  (See recent post here.) 

In particular, the Avandia case has illustrated how those with vested interests in the success of a health care product have done their best to obscure information that might threaten its success, even when doing so obscures the information that physicians and patients need to make the best possible decisions.  At one point, (in 2007, no less) we called this the "Avandia spin cycle."

Avandia once again has been in the news after the US Food and Drug Administration's hearings on the safety of the drug.  These hearings were so well covered in the media that a lengthy summary would be superfluous.  However, their main points demonstrated the persistence of the Avandia spin cycle:
- An FDA reviewer felt that "the company's misreadings of the ... Record trial ... were so profound, he concluded, that they 'suggest serious flaws with trial conduct.'" (per Gardiner Harris writing in the New York Times)
-A former FDA reviewer "withheld from regulators a study showing its Avandia diabetes drug may cause heart attacks." (per Bloomberg News)
- GlaxoSmithKline's forerunner SmithKline Beecham "secretly began a study to find out if its diabetes medicine, Avandia, was safer for the heart than a competing pill, Actos, made by Takeda."  However, "the study also provided clear signs that it [Avandia] was riskier to the heart.  But instead of publishing the results, the company spent the next 11 years trying to cover them up." (per Gardiner Harris writing in the New York Times.
- "Government experts and a panel of medical advisers repeatedly voiced skepticism on Tuesday about the trustworthiness of GlaxoSmithKline, which makes the controversial diabetes drug Avandia." (per Gardiner Harris again writing in the New York Times.)

So the Avandia saga has brought to the front pages the concerns we have had with suppression and manipulation of clinical research, especially when pursued by health care organizations with vested interests in the results of specific research projects coming out a certain way, and how they have been enabled by those with conflicts of interest.  Doctors thus should be worried whether those of us who try to practice evidence-based medicine have been fooled into practicing pseudo-evidence-based-medicine.

Those commenting on the story focused on the need for transparency when clinical research is funded and run by the corporations whose products are being evaluated.
-  "GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Avandia, can't be trusted to report adverse clinical results fairly.  The company must be watched like a hawk as additional trials that it sponsors go forward."  (NY Times editorial)
-  "What America should demand in return for ... [generous patent] protection is that the FDA be able to make an honest evaluation of the efficacy of drugs.  When drug companies make this impossible by suppressing test results, not only do they violate their fundamental obligation of honesty with the public, their customers and their regulator, but they also break the bargain they have struck in return for the protection of their intellectual capital."  (Former NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in Slate.)

Instead, as I have written before, maybe we ought to consider whether those with vested interests in drugs or devices ought to be running clinical research meant to evaluate their own products.

 Ironically, while this discussion of how the Avandia spin cycle first began to revolve were going on, others were still trying to add revolutions (per minute).  In particular, a Reuters story noted:

Three influential groups of doctors who treat diabetes urged patients not to stop taking Avandia, saying on Thursday that while news about the controversial drug may be frightening, it would be worse to suddenly stop taking it.

That is odd, given that Avandia has never been shown to improve clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes, and that there are many other drugs that control blood sugar which appear to be safer. But wait, there is more,

The Endocrine Society, American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists worried that patients may be afraid to take Avandia.

'Patients should continue taking all currently prescribed medications unless instructed otherwise by their health care provider,' Dr. Robert Vigersky of the Endocrine Society said in a statement.

'Stopping diabetes medications can cause significant harm and result in higher levels of blood glucose that may cause severe short term health problems and could increase the risk of diabetes-related complications in the long term.'

Would not it make more sense to advise patients still on Avandia to consult with their doctors urgently about possible alternatives?  Meanwhile, it does not seem irrational to be afraid of taking Avandia, given the increasing evidence about its harms, and increasing evidence that what we know about its harms may be an under-estimate.

So I wondered why these august medical societies seemed so unaffected about the doubts about Avandia's safety, and about the evidence offered to support its use that the latest news ought to generate. It turns out that all three of the medical societies get financial support from, -- wait for it --, GlaxoSmithKline.

The Endocrine Society lists GSK as one of its Corporate Liaison Board Members. The American Diabetes Association lists GSK as one of its Banting Circle Supporters, that is, those that give at least $1,000,000 a year. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists lists GSK as a member of its Corporate AACE Partnership. (I was not able to find out the total amount contributed by GSK to either the Endocrine Society or the AACE.)

So once again, the loudest voices in support of the product come from those used to, and perhaps dependent on financial support from its manufacturer. As a physician, I have been particularly disappointed that our medical societies, whose missions are ostensibly to support our professional values, seem to act more and more like marketers for the companies whose contributions, rather than members' dues increasingly support them.

The cycle keeps spinning.

For further thoughts on the latest in the Avandia case, see this post by Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, and this by Alison Bass on the Alison Bass Blog.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

HAPPY TIMES AT NIMH

Two weeks ago I discussed a Commentary in JAMA by Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health. Over on Danny Carlat’s blog, Dr. Insel took exception to my linking him with Charles Nemeroff, and appeared to be putting distance between himself and Dr. Nemeroff. So, I did some checking, and a correction to one of my statements is in order.

I had said, “ … that Insel appointed Nemeroff as an advisor soon after he (Insel) moved to NIMH.” That was my recollection. It turns out what I recalled was instead Insel showcasing Nemeroff in the NIMH Director’s 7th Annual Research Roundtable June 10, 2003, a few months after Insel moved from Emory University to NIMH. Let the record stand corrected.

At that gala meeting, held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Dr. Insel characterized Nemeroff as one of the “real stars of NIMH’s research community…” Nemeroff used the occasion to pimp GlaxoSmithKline’s drug paroxetine (Paxil), showing data on change in platelet stickiness after Paxil in patients with heart disease and depression. This highlighting of Paxil by Nemeroff focused on the surrogate outcome of platelet function, and contained no evidence that Paxil modified any important clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, Nemeroff speculated liberally about the place of antidepressant drugs in managing heart disease. This is the sort of stuff Insel described at the Roundtable as “ … an excellent sampling of the Institute’s exciting research endeavors.”

My general point two weeks ago was that Dr. Insel, the Director of an NIH Institute, downplayed the seriousness of the ethics issues surrounding the seven academic psychiatrists he mentioned in his Commentary in JAMA. Though he spoke in platitudes about the need for transparency, the spirit of transparency did not move him to disclose his own close ties with Dr. Nemeroff, who is one of the seven. Lest there be any remaining doubt about those ties, here is Dr. Nemeroff lauding Dr. Insel at the 201st meeting of the National Advisory Mental Health Council September 13, 2002 in the presence of the NIH Director, Elias Zerhouni, MD. From the Minutes: Dr. Charles Nemeroff, Reunette W. Harris Professor and Chair, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, commended Dr. Zerhouni’s selection of Dr. Insel as the next NIMH Director and added that Dr. Insel is the epitome of courage defined as grace under pressure. Dr. Nemeroff added that Dr. Insel will leave his current position as a most beloved professor, a respected scientist, and a great person.

In the comments on Danny Carlat’s blog I called Dr. Insel’s objections to my linking him with Nemeroff disingenuous. I still think that. Dr. Insel and Dr. Nemeroff are closer than Insel now seems comfortable acknowledging. Their record of talking up each other is hard to ignore. The irregularities identified by Senator Grassley involving Nemeroff’s reporting to NIH, his conflict of interest, and his conflict of commitment occurred on Insel’s watch. Considering the appearance of cronyism in their relationship, is it even possible for Dr. Insel to investigate Dr. Nemeroff’s performance in areas like the Emory-GlaxoSmithKline-NIMH Collaborative Mood Disorders Initiative?

Bernard Carroll

Bring Back the DSI*? - the Avandia Case as Spy Novel

Starting in 2007, we posted quite a bit about the "Avandia case," which centered on whether Avandia (rosiglitazone, by GlaxoSmithKline), a glucose lowering drug for type 2 diabetes, presented excess cardiovascular risks, and how evidence about these risks was handled. 

Summary

The Nissen and Wolski meta-analysis [Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effects of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 2007; 356, online here] was to be the first published article to combine data from all relevant clinical trials of rosiglitazone then available.  Although two major trials of Avandia had been published, its manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, had performed many other smaller trials of the drug which remained unpublished.  These results eventually appeared on a web-site run by GSK. However, this web-site was relatively obscure.  It had not been created voluntarily, but in response to a settlement of legal action that alleged GSK had suppressed clinical research about its antidepresant paroxetine (Paxil). (See Steinbrook R. Registration of clinical trials - voluntary of mandatory. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1820-1822, link here and our post here).

Nissen and Wolski found the site, compiled the results of trials on Avandia it contained, and combined their results with those of the few published trials in their meta-analysis. It is to the credit of Nissen and Wolski that they were able to figure out how to do this. It is not to the credit of GSK that they sat on the data from these trials, only put it on this web-site when compelled to do so, did not make any effort to publicize the web-site, and did not publish a meta-analysis done by company scientists that showed qualitatively similar results to that eventually done by Nissen and Wolski (see post here).
 
I originally thought the case raised two questions:  1 - what are the benefits and harms of rosiglitazone as a treatment of Type 2 diabetes, and therefore for which patients under what circumstances should this drug be used?  2 - what barriers have prevented physicians and patients from getting the best possible answer to the first question, and what can be done about them?
 
But the immediate response to the Nissen and Wolski meta-analysis was a spin cycle that seemed to obfuscate these questions, and the answers to him (see posts here, here, here, and here)
 
A Reconsideration
 
In the last few weeks, several articles about Avandia have appeared in the media, and in medical journals, that reconsider the issues, and in particular, the "Avandia Spin Cycle."  First was a commentary in the European Heart Journal by Dr Steven E Nissen, the first author of the meta-analysis [Nissen SE. The rise and fall of rosiglitazone. Eur Heart J 2010: published online here.]  Dr Nissen provided a narrative history of the Avandia case from his viewpoint, and summarized it thus:

What were the key mistakes and lessons learned from the rosiglitazone affair?

1. The FDA rushed to approve rosiglitazone because of hepatotoxicity concerns about troglitazone, resulting in failure to consider the ‘signals’ suggesting cardiovascular toxicity.
2. An early critic of rosiglitazone was intimidated by company representatives and effectively silenced, a process antithetical to the principals of open scientific discourse.
3. Although early warnings were issued for the risk of heart failure, these warnings went largely unheeded in the face of aggressive marketing and promotion suggesting cardiovascular benefits.
4. No well-designed cardiovascular outcome trials were ever conducted for rosiglitazone, despite evidence suggesting increased cardiovascular risks. The only cardiovascular outcome trial was an open label study driven by a soft endpoint (hospitalization) with low adherence to randomized medications, seriously underpowered, and not completed until 10 years following launch.
5. Although both the FDA and the company were aware of evidence of an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, certainly by 2005, neither warned physicians nor the public.
6. When a meta-analysis of rosiglitazone was eventually submitted for publication, the company subverted the editorial review process by stealing a copy of the manuscript and used this advance knowledge inappropriately to unblind an ongoing randomized trial.
7. Approval of diabetes drugs based exclusively upon their glycaemic effects has been short-sighted and scientifically unwise. Drugs that lower blood sugar may have other adverse effects that overcome any inherent benefits.
8. The failure of  50 other PPARs, many for adverse cardiovascular effects, went largely unreported because of negative publication bias. Such knowledge might have warned the medical community about the potential risk of these agents.

Meanwhile, the New York Times published conclusions of some internal US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, and of an investigation by the US Senate Finance Committee. FDA safety officials suggested that Avandia should be taken off the market. Some key points from the Senate investigation were:

The bipartisan multiyear Senate investigation — whose results are expected to be released publicly on Monday but which were also obtained by The Times — sharply criticizes GlaxoSmithKline, saying it failed to warn patients years earlier that Avandia was potentially deadly.

'Instead, G.S.K. executives attempted to intimidate independent physicians, focused on strategies to minimize or misrepresent findings that Avandia may increase cardiovascular risk, and sought ways to downplay findings that a competing drug might reduce cardiovascular risk,' ....

In combination, the Nissen commentary, and the Senate report nicely summarized what I called the "Avandia spin cycle" above.  It appears that research was suppressed, marketing was deceptive, and critics and whistleblowers were intimidated. 

Finally, Dr Harlan Krumholz published a commentary about the thiazolidinedione drugs (a group that includes rosiglirazone) in Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes [Krumholz HM. A perspective on the American Heart Association Presidential Commission Advisory on thiazolidenedione drugs. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010; 3 available online, link here], and an op-ed in Forbes. The latter sums it all up nicely:

I want to believe in America's pharmaceutical companies. I want to believe that people in these companies believe that the best strategy for success is to do what is best for patients. I want to believe that they are interested in scientific truth and eager to know of any safety issues and ready to share that information with the public.

This week I was disappointed again.

Over the years GlaxoSmithKline ( GSK - news - people ) has repeatedly reassured the public about the safety of its blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia. But this weekend the Senate Finance Committee released a report revealing that inside the company Glaxo's own experts and advisors were raising concerns about whether the drug could cause heart problems all along.

The report, based on more than 250,000 internal documents, provides a rare and unsettling glimpse into the decision by company executives to deflect safety issues--even as their own experts agreed with conclusions of outside researchers who were warning the public about possible harms.

The documents reveal that company researchers were deeply concerned about the cardiovascular safety of the drug as far back as 2003. The pages of the Senate report read like a spy novel: Glaxo receiving confidential documents leaked by a sympathetic academic who consulted for the company; the company embarking on a campaign to intimidate critics who warned about potential safety issues with the drug; and executives pulling strings to release data early from a scientific study that was supposedly controlled by an 'independent' committee of researchers.

So,

The story here is less about the drug--the Senate report breaks no new ground about Avandia's safety issues (even among experts there remains some controversy)--and more about the ethical behavior of a company. What is clear: Glaxo failed to disclose its own concerns even as it sought to discredit outside researchers who were raising questions about the drug.


This type of behavior is eroding the public trust in the pharmaceutical industry.

Policy Implications

Finally, Dr Krumholz concludes with some solutions with which I heartily agree:

The fix is simple: Once a drug is approved, all data relevant to drug safety should be placed in the public domain and independent investigators across the country should be able to use it. There should be big financial penalties for withholding relevant information. Drug studies sponsored by industry must be truly independent--outside of company control. Companies should give outside investigators independence over every aspect of the study. There are too many examples of companies wresting control of clinical studies from their consultant investigators for reasons that seem more related to product promotion than clinical science.

And on all sides there should be a commitment to protect against the intimidation of academics who are willing to raise questions about the safety and effectiveness of company products. The free flow of information about the effects of drugs and medical devices will best serve the public's interest.

Here in the US, the debate over health care reform has reached a new phase. Today the President is hosting an attempt to get bipartisan discussion of reform going again. Now that there is a new opportunity for discussion, I submit that would be health care reformers ought to think about the underlying causes of our continuing problems with rising costs, declining access, stagnant quality, and demoralized health care professionals.

One set of causes that is rarely discussed has to do with the distortion of clinical research by commercial research sponsors with vested interests in the results turning out in favor of their products, and the further distortion of clinical discourse and decision making by the deceptive marketing practices of these same organizations. If we started introducing steps like those suggested by Dr Krumholz into health care reform, maybe we really could decrease costs, increase access, improve quality, and renew professionalism.

*Bring Back the DSI?
To lighten things up a bit, and to explain the title...

When I was in school in the 1960s, I first became a fan of the Hardy Boys mysteries, then the slightly more mature Tod Moran series.  While on the Neiuw Amsterdam (the 1938 version) one day out of Kingston, Jamaica, I viewed Dr No, the first James Bond movie, a sophisticated spy thriller, not a spoof like some later entries in the series.  I later read all the classics, like those by Agatha Christie, Earl Stanely Gardner, Rex Stout, Ellery Queen, etc.  So it should be no surprise that I, like many other schoolboys and girls, collaborated to form an amateur detective and intelligence agency.  But this was the sophisticated 1960s, so we called it the Department of Scientific Investigation (DSI).  We skulked around New York City and its suburbs looking for spies, saboteurs, and common criminals.  Luckily, we never really found any.  As more realities intruded, I gave up any ideas about becoming an investigator or intelligence agent (although I still read mysteries, spy novels, and thrillers to this day, but mainly on airplanes.)  Once I became a physicians, those days in the DSI seemed very remote (although the title does now seem like it ought to be part of the NIH ;-) ).

However, after reading Dr Krumholz's article above, maybe we need to resurrect the DSI.  At least, maybe we health professionals ought to consider how we can become better and more organized watchdogs for the kind of problems revealed in the Avandia case, and in many other cases discussed on Health Care Renewal.

But if any of my old DSI colleagues want to set up a reunion, it would be fine with me. 

ADDENDUM (25 February, 2010) - see also comments by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.

More Evidence for Suppression of Research: the Case of Lamictal for Depression

We recently discussed the severe challenges to evidence-based medicine presented by manipulation and suppression of clinical research to serve vested interests.  I recently (and unfortunately belatedly) came upon yet another example of suppression of research that was unfavorable to a research sponsor's vested interests, suggesting that such suppression may be more prevalent than heretofore believed. 

This example appeared in the journal Evidence-Based Mental Health [Gahemi SN. The failure to know what isn't known: negative publication bias with lamotrigine and a glimpse inside peer review.  Evidence Based Mental Health 2009; 12: 65-68.  Link here.]

The author was able to use the database of clinical trials provided by GlaxoSmithKline as part of a settlement of a suit by former New York state Attorney General Elliot Spitzer that charged that the company had suppressed information about the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor paroxetine (Paxil).  His interest was the use of lamotrigine (Lamictal) in depression.  His main findings were:

Of the nine lamotrigine related bipolar disorder studies posted on the website (see table 1), two were positive and published supporting the FDA approved indication for delay of relapse in the long term treatment for bipolar disorder patients. A negative study in rapid cycling bipolar disorder and another in acute bipolar depression were published but both emphasised positive secondary outcomes as opposed to the negative primary outcomes. Five other negative studies involving rapid cycling bipolar disorder, acute bipolar depression and acute mania have not been published and are only available on the GSK website.

Failure to adequately publish these negative studies led to the creation of a clinical impression that lamotrigine is an 'antidepressant,' a view innocently expressed to me as recently as last week by an academic colleague. This mistaken impression occurred partly because the prophylactic benefits of lamotrigine for depressive episodes were confused with a presumed acute benefit. Partly it was due to the publication of one apparently positive study, and the non-publication of several negative studies.

The clinical relevance of the lamotrigine studies is notable: taking the negative outcomes into account, as of now, one might say that this agent is reasonably effective in maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder, particularly in prevention of depression. It is proven ineffective in acute mania, rapid cycling disorder and acute bipolar depression.

Note that Dr Ghaemi and colleagues had published a summary of the suppressed negative articles in Medscape Journal of Medicine in late 2008.  [Ghaemi SN, Shirzadi AA, Filkowski M. Publication bias and the pharmaceutical industry: the case of lamotrigine in bipolar disorder. Medscape J Med 2008; 10(9):211.  Link here.]  That earlier article also documented the group's failed attempts to discover whether negative trials of other drugs for depression had been suppressed.

Dr Ghaemi's newer made some additional important points about suppression of clinical research.  The first is that it is occurring with the acquiescence of government regulators. In particular,

It is worth mentioning that the [US] FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has encouraged this state of affairs, by viewing negative studies as uninformative, due to the possibility of being 'failed' rather than truly negative (ie, the sample may have simply been unresponsive, or dosing might have been too low and so on). Thus drugs could have two positive studies, and 10 or so negative ones (as did a number of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors),8 and the FDA not only allowed approval but it did not require that the pharmaceutical industry publish its negative results. The pharmaceutical industry did the minimum necessary; the FDA set the minimum far below what should have been the acceptable scientific standard.

Furthermore, even though the FDA is supposed to allow access to information about all studies for drugs for which it provides an indication, in fact it still does not allow access to raw data from industry sponsored studies, which are viewed as confidential and proprietary. Rather, in my experience and those of colleagues who have attempted to access such studies, Freedom of Information Act requests are met with abstracted summary results. While summary results are better than no results, full access to scientific data should be the standard at the FDA.

The second is that medical journal reviewers and editors do not seem enthused about publishing articles about how research has been suppressed (an apparent example of the anechoic effect, or perhaps the anechoic effect squared, i.e., discussion of our failure to discuss research studies whose results did not please their sponsors is simply not done.)

In the course of trying to investigate and publicise these negative findings, we ran into numerous roadblocks, as I discussed in an interview for the Carlat Report last year

Instead of repeating what I have said before about the evils of suppressing clinical research, I will offer some concluding quotes from Dr Ghaemi.

Evidence based medicine—or, more simply put, the science of medicine—cannot be taken seriously, and is certainly not valid, if the evidence base is only partial. The scientific literature currently is like an under cooked meal which we think is ready to eat. We never know whether what we see in the evidence is correct or biased in one direction or the other. Meta-analyses of large published datasets are not as meaningful as they seem when unpublished data languish elsewhere.

Manipulation and suppression of clinical research has likely misled doctors and patients into using and paying too much for minimally effective, ineffective, or even harmful drugs and devices.  Manipulation and suppression of research is thus probably a major reason that health care costs much more than its value and accessibility warrants.  To truly reform health care, we should not let those with vested interests in selling health care products or services control the clinical research that purports to evaluate what they are selling.

Suppression of Clinical Trials of Sumatriptan

Correspondence to the Lancet two weeks ago revealed another instance in which clinical research studies that failed to provide results favorable to a sponsor's product were suppressed. [Tfeft-Hansen  PC. Unpublished clinical trials of sumatriptan. Lancet 2009; 374: 1501-2.  Link here.]

Sumatriptan, sold as Imitrex by GlaxoSmithKline, and now available generically, is a commonly used treatment for acute migraine headaches.  A Cochrane review from 2003 concluded that multiple clinical trials versus placebo showed that the drug is a safe and effective treatment of acute migraine [link here.]  A comparison of multiple guidelines for headache treatment noted considerable variability in how guidelines were developed, but that a number recommended sumatriptan as a first-line agent based apparently mainly on trials against placebo, while noting a lack of head-to-head comparisons among sumatriptan (and other triptans) and older, simpler treatments, like non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).  [Schuurmans A, van Weel C. Pharmacologic treatment of migraine: comparison of guidelines. Can Fam Physician 2005; 51: 838-843.  Link here.]

Tfelt-Hansen had written a review of treatment of migraine with a combination of ergotamine and caffeine, which included a single trial comparing that combination to sumatriptan.  He noted that the results of this trial appeared on "the homepage of the Swedish Medical Agency," but were not published in a peer-reviewed journal.  The trial suggested that sumatriptan was inferior to the combination. 

Tfelt-Hansen looked up this trial in the GlaxoSmithKline trial register.  Recall that this database was the source of information on unpublished trials of Avandia (rosiglitazone, GSK) that Dr Steven Nissen and colleagues meta-analyzed to suggest that Avandia may produce adverse cardiovascular effects (see post here).   Recall also that the registry was created as part of a settlement of a lawsuit by then New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer that accused GSK of concealing clinical research unfavorable to its drug paroxetine (Paxil, GSK).  [Steinbrook R. Registration of clinical trials - voluntary or mandatory? N Engl J Med 2004; 351:1820-1822.  Link here.]

Tfelt-Hansen's main finding was that there were six trials comparing sumatriptan to other treatments, including paracetamol (acetaminophen) plus metaclopamide (2 trials), buclizine chloride, paracetamol and codeine (2 trials), ergotamine tartrate, cyclizine HCl, caffeine (1 trial), and ergotamine tartrate plus caffeine (1 trial).  In 3 trials, sumatriptan treated patients were not significantly more likely to have relief of their headaches within 2 hours.  In 1 trial, there was a non-significant trend favoring sumatriptan.  In two trials, sumatriptan was superior to the comparison.  In 4 trials, the rate of relief after sumatriptan treatment was 50% or less. 

Tfelt-Hansen concluded:

It is easy to understand why these RCTs were never published when sumatriptan was introduced: in only one of the oral trials did more than 50% of patients have headache relief (the primary efficacy measure) after sumatriptan 100 mg for the first attack treated (table), and in the RCT with rectal sumatriptan, the drug was found inferior to ergotamine. These findings would at the time have spoiled the very positive picture of sumatriptan as a new wonder drug for migraine.

Of course, this points out that health care corporations may regard clinical trials more as marketing tools than as science. We have discussed numerous instances in which trials that did not show commercial sponsors' products in a favorable light were suppressed by these sponsors.

Individual trials only at best produce approximations of the truth about the drugs or devices they compare. Trials may be positive due to chance alone when the test or treatment under study actually has no good effects. Post-hoc suppression of "negative" trials therefore may exaggerate the benefits (and safety) of tests or treatments. Physicians and patients who try to uphold the ideals of evidence-based medicine, and base decisions on the best possible evidence can be misled when evidence unfavorable to vested interests is systematically suppressed. Suppression of evidence unfavorable to vested interests may lead to excess use of tests and treatments that really are less beneficial or more risky than the published evidence suggested, and to willingness to pay exaggerated prices for such tests and treatments. Thus suppression of evidence can lead to excess costs and bad outcomes.

Also, as we have said before, suppression of results of clinical research that are unfavorable to the vested interests of research sponsors violates the trust of research subjects.  Research subjects are often assured that their participation is for the benefit of science and health care.  Suppressing results unfavorable to vested interests distorts science and makes health care more dysfunctional.

Evidence that is purposefully suppressed is by definition hard to find. Nonetheless, we have seen several recent examples in which suppressed evidence was later revealed, and when combined with existing evidence, showed that previously hyped treatments were really not as safe and effective as was thought.  In particular, the suppression by various drug companies of evidence unfavorable to new anti-depressants they were marketing has generated some discussion (see post here).

This parade of examples suggests that stronger measures are needed to assure that clinical research is not suppressed due to the vested interests of research sponsors.  One seemingly radical, but increasingly plausible approach would ban corporations that sell health care products or services from influencing clinical research done to evaluate those products.  Would be health care reformers who really want to improve outcomes, improve access and decrease costs might want to think about how to make the evidence available about the outcomes of health care interventions more honest.

Another Haunting Tale

Halloween is more than two months away, but the ghost stories just keep on coming. The latest version was reported by the Associated Press (with a hat tip to Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog). To quickly summarize,

Drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline used a sophisticated ghostwriting program to promote its antidepressant Paxil, allowing doctors to take credit for medical journal articles mainly written by company consultants, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press.

An internal company memo instructs salespeople to approach physicians and offer to help them write and publish articles about their positive experiences prescribing the drug.

Known as the CASPPER program, the paper explains how the company can help physicians with everything from 'developing a topic,' to 'submitting the manuscript for publication.'

The actual document is now available from the PharmaGossip blog here. Reviewing that document suggests that the CASPPER program was a bit different from other ghost-writing schemes (for example, see previous posts here.)

A typical ghost-writing scheme would entail ghost-writers employed by a medical education and communications company (MECC) drafting manuscripts of a scholarly-appearing review articles. The articles would be written to support the marketing of a product made by the (usually pharmaceutical) company which hired the MECC. Then, the MECC would recruit well-known medical academics as (guest) authors for the articles. The guest authors might make some minor revisions in the draft manuscripts, which would then be submitted to scholarly journals. The MECCs would handle the submission process, while maintaining the pretense that the articles were the work of the guest academic authors. The ultimate purpose of such schemes apparently would be to market the product in the guise of scholarly publication.

CASSPER, on the other hand, was meant to produce more modest articles, ostensibly written by practicing, rather than purely academic physicians. Review of the CASSPER document leads to some interesting conclusions about the project

- The project was purely a marketing project. "The objectives of CASSPER, from a publication standpoint, are to strengthen the product positioning and overcome competitive issues." The document clearly was written by marketers, and directed to pharmaceutical representatives ("drug reps.") It did not mention any involvement by GSK scientific or medical personnel. The closest it came to making a pretense about any scientific or clinical usefulness of the project was, "publication of such articles will benefit the sales force by expanding the database of published data to support PAXIL."

- It was as much about promoting closer relationships among pharmaceutical representatives ("drug reps") and doctors as about publishing articles. The project was to be implemented by drug reps, and "your participation will establish and/or strengthen your relationships with key physicians and thought leaders in the psychiatric field." The drug reps would handle, and presumably shape all communications between their physicians and the MECC.

- Articles were to arise from instigation by the drug reps, rather than from physicians' initiatives. For example, a scenario for recruiting authors began, "a physician tells you that he or she has had treatment success with PAXIL in certain indications or difficult-to-treat patient populations." Then, "ask the physician if any consideration has been given to publishing a case study based on this clinical experience."

- Although the document is somewhat ambiguous about the role of the putative author in the process, an extensive list of services available from the MECC (Complete Healthcare Communications [CHC] ) would have left little for the author to do. "The full range of editorial assistance that CASSPER can offer contributing physicians includes: developing a topic, coordinating the editorial review process, submitting to the target journal." The company's role would include "coordinating" manuscript preparation, which was defined as "development of an outline and first draft, editorial reviews, and revisions." The company would make available "published literature, available internal support, literature search results, and a database of journal submission criteria." Also, "the numerous details that CHC is prepared to coordinate ... [include] copy editing and proofreading, production of tables and graphics, preparation of the submission package, and follow-up."

So CASSPER seems to be a not really so friendly example of a newly recognized species of ghost-writing, targeted more at promoting relationships among drug reps and physicians than at producing ostensibly scholarly articles. Nonetheless, this example of the haunting of medicine is as fundamentally deceptive as previously described ghost-writing schemes. In the CASSPER project, physicians would be reduced to little more than ectoplasm, goaded by drug reps into token involvement in a writing process exclusively handled by the MECC, and mediated by the friendly appearing drug reps. I wonder whether physicians who participated escaped with any psychological independence from the drug reps who magically turned them into acclaimed "published authors?"

In any case, the disclosure of CASSPER, a ghost who was friendly only in appearance, adds more evidence about how deception and dishonesty now haunts our health care system. To achieve real health care reform, we will have to find a new group of ghost-busters. Who you gonnna call?

ADDENDUM (25 August, 2009) - See also comments by Dr Howard Brody in the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma Blog.

High Costs and Poor Outcomes - A Lesson About the Suppression of Research

Last week, blogger Alison Bass was one of the few to comment on a new article on the risks of antidepressant medications published electronically last week by the British Medical Journal.[1] The article adds to the clinical evidence about these specific drugs. However, it also should remind us about why our health care costs seem to continue to inflate disproportionate to any improvements in health care outcomes.

Background - Why Don't Doctors Diagnose and Treat Depression According to the Evidence?

Here is the background. Since the early 1990s, based on numerous published clinical trials that showed that the newer (mainly SSRI, that is, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressants seemed to be quite safe and effective, authoritative guidelines have urged physicians to screen patients for depression, and have a low threshold for beginning treatment, particularly with these then new drugs. (For example, see the 1993 AHCPR guidelines,[2] and the Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance Recommended Starter Set[3].) Such guidelines targeted primary care physicians as well as psychiatrists. As a primary care physician, I often felt guilty that I didn't screen all patients, including those who did not outwardly appear depressed, for depression, and was reluctant to be the primary prescriber of antidepressants for depressed patients. I was not alone. There was evidence that many primary care physicians failed to follow these apparently evidence-based guidelines.

Suspicions that SSRIs Were Not as Effective or Safe as Thought

However, in 2004, internal documents from one drug company (Glaxo Smith Kline), published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, suggested that the company had suppressed a study which failed to show its SSRI was effective for adolescent patients.[4] Also, then New York state attorney general Elliot Spitzer sued the company alleging it had suppressed such data.[5] Considerable anecdotal information thereafter came to light suggesting that drug companies may have suppressed data from clinical research (that is, studies done on patients, not in the laboratory) which tended to show the drugs were less effective, or more dangerous than previously thought. Many began to suspect that the drugs increased the risk of suicidal thoughts or behavior, even though one would think that if they were effective in treating depression, they should decrease such risks.

How Does Uncovering Suppressed Trials Change the Evidence About the Benefits and Harms of SSRIs?

Then, an analysis of trials of SSRIs given to adolescent patients, which included unpublished as well as published trials, did show they increased the risk of suicide.[6] But what about adult patients?

In 2008, Erick Turner and colleagues published a meta-analysis that included numerous trials of SSRIs and other antidepressants given to adult patients that had never been published, but whose results had been submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).[7] When those trials were included in the analysis, the drugs seemed less effective than was previously believed.

The new meta-analyis by Stone et al[1] suggested how adding evidence from the suppressed trials improves our knowledge about the possible harms of these drugs. Stone et al specifically addressed whether the drugs increased the risk of suicidal thoughts or actions for adult patients. It was based on data from 372 trials that included 99,231 patients. "Most of the studies were unpublished; those that had been published in some form seldom contained information concerning suicidality in the publication." Its main result was that SSRI drugs approximately doubled the risk of suicidal behavior for patients less than 25 years old, but decreased the risk for older patients.

Suppressing Trials Distorted the Evidence-Base

Thus, the combined results of several meta-analyses suggests that SSRIs are neither as safe nor as effective for adult patients as they were previously touted to be. The drugs used to appear to be more safe and effective because the drug companies that sponsored (paid for) clinical trials of their own products suppressed the publication of studies whose results did not show their products in a favorable light. The guidelines once thought to be so authoritative are probably much to enthusiastic about the use of drugs to treat depression. It may be that those physicians who resisted pressure from these guidelines and other efforts by would-be quality improvers to diagnose more depressed patients and treat them with SSRIs weren't so dumb.

Health Policy Implications

The recently published meta-analysis of the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior due to SSRIs for adult patients[1] adds not just to the clinical evidence about the treatment of depression, but to the evidence that suppression of research by those with vested interests in its results may not be rare. There is no reason to think that suppression of research about other medical interventions used for other clinical problems does not occur just as often.

This underscores why we as a society should not have handed over control of how new drugs and devices are evaluated to the companies that stand to profit by selling them. The apparent benefits and safety of most drugs and devices brought to the market in recent years may have been exaggerated by the ability of the corporations who sponsored the research to suppress those studies that were least favorable to their products. Thus, it is very likely that doctors have over prescribed newer (and more expensive) drugs and devices based on erroneous beliefs about their safety and effectiveness, beliefs supported by an evidence base which was distorted by suppression of studies whose results did not show the results their commercial sponsors wanted to see. Furthermore, we have likely collectively paid too much for these drugs and devices based on these same erroneous beliefs. Thus, the distortion of the clinical evidence base caused by putting the makers of medical products in charge of their evaluation has likely led to increased costs and worse outcomes for patients.

Health care reformers serious about wanting to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs ought to be at the forefront of a movement to make clinical research more honest. All clinical trials completed and submitted to government regulators ought to be published in some form, so that the data they contain is available to guide clinical decisions. Going forward, all studies should be published in some form in a timely manner to prevent future research suppression. There ought to be better regulation of research sponsored, and de facto run by companies who have vested interests in the results being favorable to their products. It would not be unreasonable to prevent companies with such vested interests from running or otherwise directly influencing clinical research meant to evaluate their own products.

But here in the States, we are probably too diverted by yelling at each other about whether a "public option" is vital or nefarious to worry about such issues.. Meanwhile, expect our health care to continue to get more expensive, less accessible, and less good for patients.

ADDENDUM (25 August, 2009) - Also, see the comments by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma Blog

References

1. Stone M, Laughren T, Jones ML et al. Risk of suicidality in clinical trials of antidepressants in adults: analysis of proprietary data submitted to US Food and Drug Administration. Brit Med J 2009; 339: b2880. Link here.
2. Depression Guideline Panel. Depression in Primary Care: Volume 2 - Treatment of Major Depression. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1993. Link here.
3. Ambulatory Care Quality Alliance. Recommended Starter Set: Clinical Performance Measures for Ambulatory Care. http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/aqastart.htm
4. Kondro W. Drug company experts advised staff to withhold data about SSRI use in children. Can Med Assoc J 2004; 170: 783. Link here.
5. Wadman M. Sptizer sues drug giant for deceiving doctors. Nature 2004; 429: 589. Link here.
6. Hammad T, Laughren T, Racoosin JA. Suicidality in pediatric patients treated with antidepressant drugs. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63:332-9. Link here.
7. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 252-260. Link here.

Disclosure of a Salesman - GlaxoSmithKline, Dr Frederick Goodwin, and "The Infinite Mind"

[See late addenda at the end of the post.]

Earlier this year, an article by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer, "Stealth Marketers: Are Doctors Shilling for Drug Companies on Public Radio" in Slate discussed how the host and panelists on a segment of the acclaimed radio show, "The Infinite Mind," broadcast on the US National Public Radio network, which minimized concerns about adverse effects of second-generation antidepressants had ties to companies that made such drugs. (See our post here.)

Last week, Gardiner Harris, writing in the New York Times, indicated that the show's host, Dr Frederick Goodwin, had even more extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies than were previously known.

An influential psychiatrist who was the host of the popular public radio program 'The Infinite Mind' earned at least $1.3 million from 2000 to 2007 giving marketing lectures for drugmakers, income not mentioned on the program.

The psychiatrist and radio host, Dr. Frederick K. Goodwin, is the latest in a series of doctors and researchers whose ties to drugmakers have been uncovered by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa. Dr. Goodwin, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, is the first news media figure to be investigated.

Dr. Goodwin’s weekly radio programs have often touched on subjects important to the commercial interests of the companies for which he consults. In a program broadcast on Sept. 20, 2005, he warned that children with bipolar disorder who were left untreated could suffer brain damage, a controversial view.

'But as we’ll be hearing today,' Dr. Goodwin told his audience, 'modern treatments — mood stabilizers in particular — have been proven both safe and effective in bipolar children.'

That same day, GlaxoSmithKline paid Dr. Goodwin $2,500 to give a promotional lecture for its mood stabilizer drug, Lamictal, at the Ritz Carlton Golf Resort in Naples, Fla. In all, GlaxoSmithKline paid him more than $329,000 that year for promoting Lamictal, records given to Congressional investigators show.

Even though Dr Goodwin's relationships to GSK were apparently substantial and prolonged, they were certainly not disclosed to listeners of "The Infinite Mind."

In an interview, Dr. Goodwin said that Bill Lichtenstein, the program’s producer, knew of his consulting but that neither thought 'getting money from drug companies could be an issue.'

'In retrospect, that should have been disclosed,' he said.

But Mr. Lichtenstein said that he was unaware of Dr. Goodwin’s financial ties to drugmakers and that, after an article in the online magazine Slate this year pointed out that guests on his program had undisclosed affiliations with drugmakers, he called Dr. Goodwin 'and asked him point-blank if he was receiving funding from pharmaceutical companies, directly or indirectly, and the answer was, 'No.''

Here we go again. This is yet the latest case in which an influential physician spoke or wrote favorably about drugs or devices without disclosing he was a well-paid consultant for a company that had commercial interests in those very same treatments.

In this case, Dr Goodwin spoke directly to the public, rather than to fellow practitioners or academics. While it may be hard for even trained professionals to detect undisclosed commercial bias in the lectures they attend or the articles they read, it should be even harder for lay-people to detect such bias. Furthermore, Dr Goodwin was broadcasting on National Public Radio, an organization that does not carry advertising, and prides itself in its independence and commitment to education. That reputation may have lulled listeners into even more confidence that what they were hearing was educational, not advertising. Note that Mr Harris wrote,

'The Infinite Mind' has won more than 60 journalism awards over 10 years and bills itself as 'public radio’s most honored and listened to health and science program.' It has more than one million listeners in more than 300 radio markets.

Make that "had listeners," since

Margaret Low Smith, vice president of National Public Radio, said NPR would remove 'The Infinite Mind' from its satellite radio service next week, the earliest date possible. Ms. Smith said that had NPR been aware of Dr. Goodwin’s financial interests, it would not have broadcast the program.

Although we wrote in May that one segment of "The Infinite Mind" seemed to be more about stealth marketing than independent, educational broadcasting, now it appears that what was infinite about this mind was its dedication to marketing rather than education. Is there any space in health care that isn't now permeated by the fog of deception and disinformation?

To begin to restore trust in health care, we must insist on total transparency, starting with full disclosure of all commercial and financial relationships that may influence clinical and health care policy decision making. Disclosing relationships, however, does not reduce their influence, or even make it possible to compensate for it. If physicians want to regain their leadership role in health care, they may have to declare that they will henceforth only serve patients, and, if they are academics, their students and science. As long as physicians work part-time for marketers, they risk being regarded as nothing better than fancy but not particularly honest carnival barkers.

ADDENDUM (24 November, 2008) - See also news coverage on the Pharmalot blog. Also, that blog and Postscript, the Prescription Project blog both discussed an ongoing investigation by Senator Charles Grassley (R - Iowa) into a consulting company called Best Practices LLC, which may have something to do with the "dissemination of 'off-label' information," and of which Dr Goodwin was a "founding consultant."

ADDENDUM (1 December, 2008) - See this segment from the NPR show "On the Media." Also see this post on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog.

ADDENDUM (3 April, 2009) - A correction of and apology for the content of the above segment of "On the Media" indicated that Mr Lichtenstein was in fact unaware of Dr Goodwin's financial arrangments, and that Dr Goodwin had, rather than telling Mr Lichtenstein about these arrangements, omitted disclosure because he did not think the arrangements constituted conflicts of interest.

Was GSK Merely Incompetent About Medical Informatics, Or Is There a Management Directive To Avoid Specialists Who Might Find "Unacceptable" Problems?

At my post "GSK, Avandia and Medical Informatics: More on Why Pharma Fails" I outlined repeated rejection of Medical Informatics expertise by GSK, based on what I believed essentially to be the narrowminded and tunnel-visioned thinking of information technologists and others in pharma. I wrote:

It is my belief that a view [at GSK] of medical informatics professionals as "writers of algorithms to solve business problems" reflects a fundamentally narrow and mechanistic view of the field, or perhaps a mislabeling of the position as being one of Medical Informatics. The lack of a requirement for formal Medical Informatics education and training suggests the latter.

The U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences seems to agree with that assessment, as I pointed out in another post entitled "IOM gets it regarding Medical Informatics." The IOM recommends:

...that CDER [FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research] build internal epidemiologic and informatics capacity in order to improve the postmarket assessment of drugs. In recognition of the limitations in human resources in the current employment market to meet this role, a combination of advancing professional skills through continuing education and support for academic training programs is needed.

and that

Informatics experts should track progress on the national health-information infrastructure, look for opportunities to gather information about drug safety and efficacy after approval, coordinate partnerships with external groups to study the use of electronic health records for [drug] adverse event surveillance, participate in FDA’s already strong role in setting national standards and track the development of tools for data analysis in industry and academe, and encourage the incorporation of the tools into FDA practice where appropriate.

A story in today's Wall Street Journal raises additional questions about what appeared to simply be strategic missteps in talent management (recognition and acquisition of new and/or enhanced skills and emerging fields of value to an organization).

Perhaps these were not strategic missteps at all, but simply a manifestation of a calculated policy set at higher levels to avoid discovering - beyond a certain point and before a certain time - information that might adversely affect a new drug's FDA acceptance, marketing, and sales. This might be accomplished through what might be called "internal capabilities inhibition via talent mismanagement."

The WSJ story today reports on actual directed, purposeful attempts by GSK to suppress possible adverse effects information about Avandia, as well as silence a number of its clinician critics. Those critics had prescribed the drug in good faith to their patients and noted troubling responses in the form of heart failure and pulmonary hypertensive (high pressure in the arteries of the lungs) side effects.

Wall Street Journal
Nov. 19, 2008

Doctors Claim Glaxo Dismissed Worries on Avandia (subscription required)

Drug Maker Tried to Make Physician at Maryland Hospital Stop Talking About Concerns; Company Defends Its Effort

By ALICIA MUNDY

HAGERSTOWN, Md. -- Last year, after news broke that the diabetes drug Avandia was linked to a high risk of heart attacks, reports that the drug's maker had tried to stifle safety questions from a prominent Duke University researcher years earlier provoked a furor.

Now it turns out that the Duke researcher wasn't alone in suggesting a tie to heart problems. A doctor from a small Maryland hospital [Internist Mary Money of Hagerstown, Md.] linked Avandia to congestive heart failure in 2000, but the drug's maker, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, rejected her warning and tried to make her stop talking about it with other doctors and hospitals, according to documents and interviews.

... The Senate and House in 2007 began looking at whether Glaxo suppressed information and threatened the Duke researcher, charges that Glaxo has denied. Now the Senate probe, led by Chuck Grassley of Iowa, is investigating whether Glaxo's efforts to defend Avandia's safety led to intimidation against other doctors who were suggesting possible links to cardiac dangers. Mr. Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, has demanded documents from Glaxo and is expected to release a detailed report on Avandia soon, according to staffers.

Earlier in 2007, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that Avandia could raise the risk of heart attack by 43%. The FDA called for a black-box warning on the drug's label about the risk of congestive heart failure and heart attack.

Dr. Money talked recently about a patient who came to her in 1999 with congestive heart failure. "That fall, I had a woman patient with massive fluid overload and such shortness of breath that she had to sit up at night," she said.

The patient had begun taking Avandia two weeks earlier, and an echocardiogram showed high pressure in the arteries of the lungs. Dr. Money said she took the patient off the drug, and within a few days the symptoms almost disappeared.

In the next few months, Dr. Money and the head of the hospital's diabetes center, Stephen Lippman, found other patients who had similar symtoms.

Dr. Money alerted SmithKline Beecham, the name of the drug maker before a 2001 merger. The company met with her and Dr. Lippman at Washington County Hospital in Hagerstown in April 2000.

The two doctors presented data on 85 of their patients who had used Avandia, according to documents from the meeting. More than half of the patients had significant edema, or swelling, and about half of that group also had high pulmonary pressure and shortness of breath. Three had been hospitalized for congestive heart failure.

The meeting was a waste of time, Dr. Money said. "They came to tell us how wrong we were, not to listen," she said.

Meanwhile, a company consultant who called into the meeting from the University of Pennsylvania dismissed the Hagerstown doctors' echocardiograms as too poor to show anything useful.

"They suggested we were country bumpkins, and practically said, 'Don't worry your pretty heads. We have smarter people than you looking at this, and there's no problem,'" recalled Dr. Lippman, a physician who also holds a doctorate in molecular biology.

A GlaxoSmithKline spokeswoman, Mary Ann Rhyne, said Dr. Money's theories were "unsubstantiated" and she was misinterpreting journal articles to support her case.

The next month, two SmithKline executives wrote to the hospital's chief of staff, calling on him to stop Dr. Money from talking about her concerns to other hospital doctors.

"[W]e respectfully ask that your hospital not involve itself in the dissemination of information which has not been substantially verified, and that you take immediate steps to stop the dissemination of this unsubstantiated information to your medical staff," said the letter, signed by two SmithKline executives, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal.

In effect, GSK is saying that these clinicians had no "right" to report their "unsubstantiated" findings to anyone without the company's "approval." That is the height of corporate hubris, especially in a country where freedom of speech and freedom of opinion is constitutionally guaranteed.

Unless these clinicians were fabricating their findings with ill intent, they certainly had very right to report their findings to anyone they chose. It is up to those so informed to make up their own minds based on the evidence and on trust.

But I state the obvious.

The company acted in a manner that might be construed as interference with medical practice and communication, and it seems to me potential interference with employment, by going to these doctor's superior. One must ask, who, exactly, did the company believe was required to perform the "substantiation" of adverse events information before the private clinicians could speak to others?

GlaxoSmithKline's Ms. Rhyne said the letter was justified. "When GSK learns about statements by physicians that are inconsistent with the scientific data on its medicines, it has the responsibility to do what it can to correct these inaccuracies," she said.

Resonsibility to whom, exactly? Its shareholders seem high on that list. Where do patients fit in to the taxonomy of corporate responsibility ?

It would seem to me the company also has the responsibility to maximize its ability to identify adverse events as soon as possible and as scientifically as possible, and conduct its talent management activities in a manner to enhance that capability.

Glaxo upgraded the warnings on Avandia's label more than a dozen times between 1999 and the 2007 black box, the strongest level of warning. One change, in 2001, said the drug could lead to excessive edema, which in turn could lead to congestive heart failure.

Better late than never.

Or perhaps not so much. From Alison Bass's blog:

It was not until 2007, after The New England Journal of Medicine published a meta-analysis showing an increased risk of heart failure among patients taking Avandia, that the FDA put black box warnings on the drug. (It's worth noting that researchers would never have been able to do this meta-analysis if not for the New York State Attorney General's lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline for deceiving physicians and consumers about another of its drugs, the antidepressant Paxil; as part of settling that lawsuit, Glaxo agreed to post the findings of all its clinical trials, including those about Avandia).

Of one thing I am certain: diabetics did not need the additional problems caused by this drug before the black box warnings, when other proven, effective and less expensive therapies were readily available.

Perhaps that warning might have appeared sooner if GSK officials had not taken the stance that the value of Medical Informatics professionals is simply "to write algorithms to solve business problems." I wonder if a strategy of managing the narrative through questionable practices such as bullying and intimidation, while rejecting new fields of scientific endeavor, might be two sides of the same coin. (My own experiences are admittedly anecdotal, but formally trained medical informatics professionals are rare in pharma, and even at Merck I was kept an arm's length from adverse events informatics activities despite pointing out my expertise, for reasons never explained satisfactorily.)

My jobseeking experiences with SKB/GSK on informatics date back to 1996 or so. Rejections were the rule, even in one case in 2000 when I came highly recommended by their own senior internal recruiter after demonstrating the information system I built at a major hospital to detect drug and device adverse events in the field of invasive cardiology, and in 2004 when I again came highly recommended by their own retained British recruiter at Armstrong Craven Ltd.

I therefore raise the question:

Could my experiences and that of other informaticists with special competencies in building clinical IT to enhance adverse events data management have been a manifestation of a larger, somewhat unpublicized strategy? That is, a strategy meant to inhibit or suppress the employment and empowerment of individuals with formal training and expertise in newer scientific domains that might prematurely "endanger" the lifecycle of blockbuster drugs?

Perhaps the talent management activities, minutes, and hiring/layoff practices of relevant GSK departments and divisions should be scrutinized, in addition to the current Congressional scrutiny of specific instances of corporate arrogance as in today's WSJ article.

-- SS