How Marketing Mixes Into Medical School Curricula - an Example from Canada

Misery loves company, so here is an interesting case reported by the Canadian Press, via CTV News, about how students in a pain management course at the University of Toronto complained that marketing seemed to have been mixed into their curriculum:

The complaint centered around students being provided a book on managing chronic pain that was funded and copyrighted by the maker of the prescription pain killer OxyContin. The book had been brought in by a non-faculty lecturer with financial ties to the drug company.

It turned out that:

From 2002 to 2006, the pain course was funded by donations, included $117,000 in unrestricted educational grants from four drug companies -- Merck-Frosst, Purdue Pharma, Pharmacia Canada and Pfizer -- although they had no input into course content. Since 2007, the program has been funded solely from faculty budgets.

[Dean of Dentistry Dr David] Mock said Purdue's copyrighted book on pain management had been brought in by Dr. Roman Jovey, an unpaid guest lecturer and co-author of the book who left copies 'for anyone to take.' Jovey, medical director for a chain of clinics called the Centres for Pain Management, is a member of Purdue's speakers' bureau, paid by the company to conduct workshops and lectures.

Dr Jovey defended handing out the free book produced by his part-time employer:

Jovey confirmed he had left copies of the 371-page book, entitled 'Managing Pain: The Canadian Health Care Professionals Reference,' for students.

'It was a gift from Purdue. I'm not at all embarrassed or ashamed. I think it's a darn good book.

"If we all want to be politically correct and have the appearance of being politically correct, then I guess I get it, that nothing that has any kind of pharma logo or name or ownership should be given out to medical students,' he said Wednesday.

'But the losers are the medical students because I think it's a high-quality book, it's very readable and they're deprived of it this year because of this controversy. And I guess they will be in the future.'

However, it appeared that the "darn good" book's content was biased in favor of Purdue's product, Oxycontin:

Dr. Irfan Dhalla said he has concerns about the content of the book, which a medical student taking the course brought to his attention.

'There are definitely things that are not consistent with the evidence,' said Dhalla, a staff physician at St. Michael's Hospital and a lecturer at the university. 'For example, oxycodone ... is listed as a moderate-potency opioid, when I think everybody agrees it's a very strong opioid, up to twice as strong as morphine.'

While it's appropriate to prescribe oxycodone for severe acute pain or cancer pain, Dhalla said the book suggests that physicians can prescribe the drug for chronic non-cancer pain with relative safety for the patient.

'And I think people with experience know that that is just not the case. When you prescribe to people with chronic non-cancer pain, it's very difficult to do that safely,' he said, noting that the book pays little attention to issues of addiction and deaths from overdose.

'The book in several places makes reference to a claim that the rates of addiction if opioids are used for chronic non-cancer pain are very low. And they're not nearly as low as is claimed in the book.'

In fact, a study by Dhalla and colleagues published last year showed prescription rates for opioids -- including OxyContin, a long-acting form of oxycodone -- soared in Ontario over the last two decades, as did the number of deaths linked to the narcotic.

A subsequent inquiry has recommended revising the curriculum and dispensing with the drug company funded book.

This is another example of how marketing has infiltrated medical education. It suggests that market influenced education likely includes not only opinions in favor of the specific product being marketed, but distortions of fact to support the product that are hardly evidence-based.

Furthermore, it shows how conflicts of interest facilitate marketing influenced medical education. Note that the bringer of the biased textbooks in this case was being paid honoraria to speak on behalf of the pharmaceutical company, but presumably not to teach the particular course in question. However, his enthusiasm readily carried over to his work in that course.

We have discussed how pharmaceutical marketers regard the "key opinion leaders" whom they pay to speak as salespeople. One would expect salespeople to be enthusiastic for their product even outside of their normal working hours. In my humble opinion, this is why no medical academic should be allowed to simultaneously be a commercially paid "key opinion leader."

By the way, note that this case also suggests how the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal are relevant globally, not just to the US. I tend to be wary of blogging about cases in other countries, since there may be subtle difference in context across countries that might make interpretation of cases more difficult when viewing them from abroad. However, I think that the facts and language here are straightforward enough for me to be fairly confident about what was going on. Nonetheless, if any Canadian think I have got this wrong, please let me know.

Meanwhile, if anyone is blogging about similar issues from beyond the US shores, please let me know so I can add their work to our blog roll.

Hat tip to Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

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.

BLOGSCAN - This Book is Haunted

We have posted quite a bit about ghost-written articles, that is, ostensibly scholarly articles appearing in medical and health care journals with apparently prominent authors that were really written mainly by medical writers hired by companies to market particular products, usually drugs.  Now we hear of a case of a ghost-written book.  Our fellow bloggers have covered this well.  See posts here and here by Professor Margaret Soltan in University Diaries, and here on Inside Higher Ed; here by Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog; here by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog; and here by Alison Bass on the Alison Bass blog.  Ghost writing is often an important component of stealth marketing schemes, and serves not only to deceptively market products, but to deceptively increase the influence and prestige of the "key opinion leaders" who enable the practice.  Be skeptical about the medical literature, and particularly skeptical by any academic who seems to have written more articles than would be humanly possible.

ADDENDUM (2 December, 2010) - As suggested by the comment below, see also posts here and  here on the 1BoringOld Man blog.  Also see an additional post by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.

Of Drug Talks, Deception, and Denial

A month ago, we discussed a series of reports by Pro Publica and multiple other respected news organizations about payments by seven pharmaceutical companies to thousands of doctors.  Industry often claims that they only pay the best and the brightest physicians and academics to provide education relevant to their products.  However, the ProPublica et al report suggested that they mainly recruited physicians who already showed their favor to their products by prescribing them often, but soothed their consciences by dubbing them "thought leaders" or "key opinion leaders."  While some of the physicians were well-known academics, others had notably blemished records. 

Since then, a series of local or regional news organizations have reported on physicians in their areas.  These reports (all listed below as "references" in somewhat chronological order ) further explained how these "drug talks" are just marketing exercises, and how some of the physicians involved rationalized making money hawking drugs.

Physicians as Marketers

Considered together, the articles documented how the drug talks served marketing rather than educational needs.

Doctors are the Most Influential Speakers

As noted previously, corporations and the doctors they hire chronically characterize the doctors' talks as educational. However, from New York City,(9)

[Dr Stephen] Friedes said drug companies can’t use sales reps to give the same speeches. Instead, they need doctors to serve as speakers because the presentations are more believable when they come from an expert’s mouth. And that’s why companies will pay the biggest bucks to get the biggest experts to read their slides.

Paying Doctors Who Already are Prolific Prescribers

From Chattanooga, Tennessee(7), came pulmonologist Daniel Smith's acknowledgment that the corporations choose speakers who they already know favor their products:

He emphasized that his use of GlaxoSmithKline's Advair inhaler began long before he started speaking for the company.

'The assumption is if the doctor didn't have the relationship, he wouldn't prescribe the medication,' he said.

Also, as reported from Des Moines, Iowa(8):

Several doctors said drug company representatives asked them to become paid speakers because sales records showed the physicians often prescribed the companies' products.

'They're like, 'We noticed you're using a lot of our drugs, would you mind telling other doctors why?' ' said [Sioux City internist Dr Mark] Carlson, who emphasized that he prescribes the medications he believes work best.

Furthermore, from New York City(9) :

First, the industry says it picks the doctors who are the most knowledgeable about the drugs. But [Dr Richard] Schloss said Pfizer first picked him because he was a high prescriber of Geodon.

'What they do is they get the pharmacy records, and they know who’s prescribing what,' said Schloss, 'and they can come in and say, ‘I see you’re prescribing, you know, a lot of, in this case, Geodon. What do you like about it?’ And you if say nice things, they say, ‘Will you be interested in speaking for us?’'

Payments Influence Behavior

Even though health care corporations may select speakers who already favor their products, probably to reinforce this pattern, that does not mean that such payments do not induce even more enthusiasm. From Chattanooga, Tennessee(7), obstetrician-gynecologist Kirk Brody

said he hasn't actually spoken on behalf of a drug company for eight years or so. He quit after one year when he realized the drugs he lectured about ended up popping into his head when it came time to prescribe, he said.

'I felt like it was probably influencing my prescription habits,' he said. 'If you're out there singing the praises of something, you tend to believe it. It was just an ethical problem.'

Also, from New York City(9):

[Dr Richard] Schloss said he agreed to be a speaker because he genuinely believes in Geodon, and he enjoys teaching. But even he admitted the speaking has actually changed the way he prescribes.

'You know, I may use Geodon maybe 10 percent more than I did before I was a speaker,' said Schloss. 'I use it 10 percent more because I’ve spoken about it so many times....'

"Push Poll"

From New Hampshire(1), Dr. Leonard Korn, president of the New Hampshire Psychiatric Society, described how the drug talks resembled a "push poll" (biased poll meant to sell a viewpoint)

'We sat there being educated by their people and they sent us a check,' he said, recalling the usual fee was about $500.

The doctors would then give feedback about the positive and negative aspects of a particular medication and of drugs made by competitors.

'It was a bit like a focus group ... except a focus group is not really promoting its product,' he said. 'This is much more like a push poll.'

His concern is that such events can influence doctors, even subconsciously, to choose that company's drug.

Why Hide the "Education?"

If the physicians' talks are educational, as some of the speakers and their corporate pay-masters assert, why should they be hidden from the media. However, as reported from Des Moines (Iowa)(8):

The companies say they favor openness. 'We believe transparency is critical to rebuilding trust in our industry, and Lilly seeks to continue to be a leading voice and example in transparency efforts in the biopharmaceutical industry,' said J. Scott MacGregor, a spokesman for Eli Lilly.

In that spirit, The Des Moines Register asked MacGregor and his counterparts at the other two leading companies to let a reporter observe one of their doctor-education sessions. All three declined.

'It would be inappropriate for you to attend an event,' AstraZeneca spokeswoman Katie Lubenow said. She said the sessions are open only to medical professionals.

Also, from New York City(9):

But for talks that are supposed to be purely educational, there seems to be a lot of secrecy. WNYC called the seven companies in the ProPublica database, and asked if it could observe a presentation. Each company declined. And none would send copies of their slides. [Columbia Unviersity urologist Franklin] Lowe wouldn’t provide a copy either. He said the slides were company property and he could get into trouble if he passed them out.

Physicians' Rationalizations for Getting Paid to Give Pharmaceutical Talks 

Denial: Industry Sponsored Talks are Educational

Despite the evidence above and elsewhere that pharmaceutical companies pay physicians to give talks to market their products, not to altruistically provide unbiased education, many physicians asserted what they were doing is educational. Those providing the rationalizations included high ranking academics. For example, from New Hampshire(1):

Dr. Craig L. Donnelly, chief of the child psychiatry section at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, said he views such appearances as part of his mission to educate the next generation of physicians.

Donnelly is the second-highest earner on Pro Publica's list for New Hampshire, earning $136,578 from Eli Lilly in 2009 and the first quarter of 2010.

When he gives talks, Donnelly said in an e-mail, he advocates not for one particular drug but for a "full range of treatment options," including non-pharmacological ones.

'When I speak to colleagues, I am putting my reputation on the line,' he said. 'I genuinely believe that these talks provide educational value to my colleagues in primary care, above and beyond the informational component on the particular drug topic.'

Denial:  Physicians are Not Chosen to Speak Because they Favor the Product

Despite the evidence above and elsewhere that corporations pick physician speakers who already favor their products, from San Francisco, California(10), former Stanford faculty member psychiatrist Manoj Waikar said:

he does not disclose what drugs he prescribes to pharmaceutical companies so they hire him for his expertise, not because of his prescribing patterns.

He seemed unaware that the companies already have easy access to data about his prescribing habits.

Rationalization: The Need for "Collaboration" Implies the Need to Get Paid for Marketing

Furthermore, even academics who were uncomfortable with industry supported talks recited the mantra that academic-industrial "collaboration" is needed to provide "innovation." This begs the question of why such "collaboration" needs to include payments by industry to academia for marketing, or in fact any activities other than pure research. For example, from an article specifically about the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire(2), Dr James L. Bernat, a DHMC neurologist and chairman of the bioethics committee,

said the relationship between medicine and industry can be 'synergistic and useful' for both groups. But he said, 'There are potential conflicts of interest that can occur ... that need to be identified, mitigated and prevented.'

Also, co-chair of the hospital's integrity and ethics task force Dr. Carl DeMatteo, an infectious-disease physician and chief quality and compliance officer,

said academic physicians who share their research with pharmaceutical or medical-device companies 'can bring forward treatments and cures to the public that can make a real difference in people's lives.'

The latter, of course, is mainly an argument for publication and dissemination of basic science research, not for academic physicians working with drug, device or other companies on evaluating the products those companies have a vested interest in, much less involving academics in marketing.

Universities are always promoting academic-industrial collaboration, but never seem to explain why such collaboration requires academics to be paid to give talks, or for that matter, for ill-defined consulting work.  They talk about the benefits of research as a monolithic whole, rarely explaining why it is good for industry to sponsor and control human research meant to evaluate the products in which companies have vested interests.

Reasoning from a Biased Sample: Multiple Conflicts as De-Biasing

Physicians asserted that being paid by multiple corporations is reduces bias in favor of a particular drug, ignoring the possibilities that multiple conflicts of interest might bias in favor of expensive drugs vs generics, in favor of drug therapy vs other approaches, or even in favor of aggressive vs conservative therapy. For example, from Erie, Pennsylvania(3), a report quoted Dr Gurjaipal Kang,

'I don't feel there is a conflict of interest,' Kang said. 'I speak for competing drug companies. I speak about some drugs that I don't often prescribe.'

Also, from Vancouver, Washington(4), a quote from Dr Jeffrey L Hansen, psychiatrist:

'I don’t believe it influences my prescribing practices because I work with a number of companies,' Hansen said. 'I want to make sure that no matter who’s sponsoring my speaking the message is the same.'

Denial: Conflicts of Interest Do Not Influence Behavior

Many doctors simply asserted that being paid to give a talk does not influence their prescribing. This begs the question of whether they were hired to speak to reinforce their pre-existing preference for the products of their employers. It also seems to simply deny that financial incentives matter, a position supported by common sense, and underlying essentially all of economics. For example, from Syracuse, New York(5), the chief of urology at Crouse Hospital, said

'Morally my goal is to treat the patient with the best medications I know of,' Albala said. 'I find it hard to believe some people would write a (prescription for) a medication just because they are a speaker.'

'I would be happy to do these gratis,'....

Note, of course, that despite the last assertion, he was apparently even happier to get paid. Dr Albala was the top recipient of drug company honoraria in the Syracuse region, getting $180,200 from GlaxoSmithKline.

False Dilemma: If It is Not Illegal, It Must be Good

An old argument in politics and business is the assertion that one's behavior is good as long as one has not been convicted of a crime.  An analogous argument made by physicians is to claim that compliance with local administrative processes certifies one's actions as ethical. For example, from Durham, North Carolina)(6), Duke Medicine oncologist David Rizzieri,

asked whether the substantial sums he has received from drug companies could lead to ethical issues, Rizzieri replied, 'I respect this concern and feel the multiple layers of oversight and conflict of interest management planning ... help assure appropriate application and presentation of the data.

Rationalization: Entitlement

Physicians may feel that because of the hardships they have endured, especially during training, they are entitled to be rewarded, apparently no matter what the circumstance. So, from Durham, North Carolina,(6) a medical student noted:

There is certainly a sense that once you go through medical school and you go through residency, you're kind of entitled to these gifts from industry, or to be paid well enough for speaking

Also, from Chattanooga, Tennesse(7), local pulmonologist Daniel Smith sarcastically asserted:

We're considered experts in our field. I guess we're supposed to spend hours and hours of time educating other doctors for free

This, of course, begs the question of who should be paying.

Appeal to Common Practice: Pharmaceutical Paid Talks are Part of the Culture

Some in the academic world seemed to assert that since the talks are common practice, they must continue.  From Durham, North Carolina(6), Ross McKinney, director of Duke's Trent Center for Bioethics, Humanities and History of Medicine, said

the new policies will also have to consider the existing culture among doctors.

'It is hard to set restrictions when that is the existing culture. This isn't the Mayo Clinic where everybody is just a salaried employee,'....

Summary

There is a growing body of evidence that pharmaceutical companies, and presumably other for-profit health care corporations, may pay physicians to give talks to help market their products, not to altruistically support unbiased education.  Physicians may command more respect than sales people.  The companies may choose those who are already known to favor their products.  While the speakers may influence other physicians, payments to them may reinforce, if not enhance their favorable stance towards the companies' products.  The setting of the talks may be designed to favor their marketing purpose.  Pharmaceutical companies and the physicians they pay may be wary of letting skeptics witness these talks because they have the above considerations to hide.

However, it seems that many physicians who give the talks, and sometimes the academic institutions with which they are affiliated, are in denial about the nature of these talks.  They are quick to rationalize what they do, sometimes with the help of logical fallacies.

I submit that physicians and health professionals should shun commercially sponsored talks as deceptive marketing.  Physicians who give such talks are at best naive, and at worst complicit in the deception.  Deceptive marketing is never good, but is particularly upsetting and dangerous when it is used to sell products that have serious health consequences. 

ADDENDUM (24 November, 2010) - See this related post by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.

References


1.  Wickham SE. Three Doctors paid $100,000-plus by drug companies. New Hampshire Union-Leader, Nov 8, 2010.  Link here.
2. Wickham SE. Dartmouth-Hitchcock takes fresh look at such payments. New Hampshire Union Leader, Nov 8, 2010. Link here.
3. Bruce D. Drug companies pay Erie doctors to speak about their drugs, devices. Erie (Pennsylvania) Times-News, Nov 8, 2010. Link here
4. Lasher B. Pharmaceutical industry spends millions on doctors: Clark County doctors got $190,000 over 18 months. Vancouver (Washington) Columbian, Nov 7, 2010. Link here.
5. Mulder JT. Drug makers pay 51 central New York doctors nearly $1 million to talk about their products. Syracuse (New York) Post-Standard, Nov 7, 2010. Link here.
6. Chen M. 'Dollars for Docs' hits home. Durham (North Carolina) Herald-Sun, Nov 13, 2010. Link here.
7. Bregel E. Prescription for concern: pharmaceutical companies' payments to doctors raise questions amid soaring U. S. drug costs. Chattanooga (Tennessee) Times- Free Press. Nov 14, 2010. Link here.
8. Leys T. 121 Iowa physicians collect from drug firms. Des Moines (Iowa) Register, November 14, 2010. Link here.
9. Chang A. Physicians on pharma's payroll: educators or marketers? WNYC, November 18, 2010. Link here.
10. Colliver V. Disciplined doctors receiving pharmaceutical funds. San Francisco (California) Chronicle. Nov 18, 2010. Link here.

Sunday Settlement and Guilty Plea Roundup

Here we go again. 

AstraZeneca / Seroquel

We have posted frequently about allegations of devious marketing techniques used by AstraZeneca to promote its blockbuster atypical anti-psychotic drug Seroquel (quetiapine.)  See our posts here, here, here, here, and here.  Now, as reported by the New York Times, it is time for AZ to settle with the US government.

AstraZeneca has completed a deal to pay $520 million to settle federal investigations into marketing practices for its blockbuster schizophrenia drug, Seroquel, the Attorney General, Eric Holder, said at a news conference Tuesday afternoon.

'AstraZeneca paid kickbacks to doctors as part of an illegal scheme to market drugs for unapproved uses,' Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, said at the event in Washington. She said the company promoted drugs for unapproved uses by children, the elderly, veterans and prisoners.

AstraZeneca agreed to sign a corporate integrity agreement with the federal government over its marketing of Seroquel for unapproved uses, but will not face criminal charges, company and federal officials said.

The company, based in London, has been accused of misleading doctors and patients by playing up favorable research and not adequately disclosing studies that show Seroquel increases the risk of diabetes.

Of course, an AZ spokesperson had a different take on it.

Glenn Engelmann, AstraZeneca’s U.S. general counsel, released a statement saying the company denies the allegations but settled the investigation with the payment.

'It is in the best interest of AstraZeneca to resolve these matters and to move forward with our business of discovering and developing important, life-changing medicines — while avoiding the delay, uncertainty, and expense of protracted litigation,' Mr. Engelmann said.

Johnson and Johnson / Topamax

On the other hand, the issue of how Johnson and Johnson marketed Topamax (topiramate), a drug approved for treating seizures, is a new one for Health Care Renewal.  Here is the story, via Bloomberg.

Two units of Johnson & Johnson will pay more than $81 million to resolve criminal and civil claims over illegal promotion of the epilepsy drug Topamax, the U.S. Justice Department said.

Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical LLC agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and pay a $6.14 million criminal fine for misbranding the drug, the government said. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals also will pay $75.37 million to resolve civil allegations that it illegally marketed Topamax and caused false claims to be submitted to government health programs.

While the Food and Drug Administration approved Topamax for the treatment of partial onset seizures, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical promoted the drug for unapproved psychiatric uses, the government said. The company hired physicians through its 'Doctor-for-a-Day' program to join sales representatives in visiting doctors and to speak to colleagues about unapproved uses and doses, according to the government.

In this case, the company admitted wrong-doing as part of the specific plea agreement.

Under the plea agreement, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical will admit that from 2001 to 2003 it promoted Topamax 'for certain uses not approved' by the FDA, according to a statement by Ortho-McNeil-Janssen.

The company 'voluntarily discontinued the program at issue before receiving the government’s first subpoena in the investigation,' according to the statement.

Ortho-McNeil-Janssen also will sign a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.

Summary

Once more, with feeling ....  We have discussed a series of legal settlements and criminal convictions and guilty pleas resolving cases of alleged wrong-doing by health care organizations. Almost none included any penalties for people who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior. None of the financial penalties were so big as to be more than another cost of doing business for the organizations involved. Corporate entities, but very rarely people have pleaded guilty or been convicted (almost always of misdemeanors), Some of the cases included gimmicks, like a subsidiary constructed only to plead guilty, that otherwise seemed to lessen accountability.

If we truly want health care that is accessible, of high quality, at a fair price, and more importantly, if we want health care that is honest and focused on patients, we need to provide health care leaders with clear, rational incentives in these directions, and make them fully accountable for their actions, and the courses of their organizations under their leadership.

ADDENDUM (2 May,2010) - See also comments on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma blog by Dr Howard Brody on the AZ settlement.

"Person No. 7," Also Known as the 83rd Richest Man in the World

This one nearly snuck by. 

A Settlement and Some Indictments

In May, 2009, we posted that international Swiss-based medical device manufacturer Synthes settled charges that it was paying surgeons who conducted clinical trials for the company with company stock, and in June, 2009, we posted that Synthes was indicted based on allegations that it had subjected patients to an experimental use of its Norian XR bone cement product on the spinal cord, a use not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and that its executives had lied to the FDA about these actions.  It was noteworthy that the indictment named but did not charge the then CEO of the company as "Person No. 7" who allegedly decided not to conduct clinical trials of Norian XR, but rather to have surgeons use it in a case series that was not identified as clinical research.  The company CEO at that time was a Mr Hansjorg Wyss, who is still chairman of the Synthes board, owner of 40% of Synthes stock, and the richest man in the Philadelphia area, worth $5.7 billion according to Forbes magazine, making him the 83rd richest man in the world in 2009, according to Forbes magazine.

Four Guilty Pleas

Here is what first escaped my attention.  In July, 2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported:

Two senior executives of a West Chester-based manufacturer of medical devices pleaded guilty yesterday in connection with illegal clinical trials of a bone cement on about 200 patients, three of whom died.

The company, Synthes USA Inc., did not tell the patients that they were participating in what amounted to human experimentation, according to a 97-count indictment filed June 16 by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia.

Michael D. Huggins, 51, of West Chester, was president and chief operating officer of Synthes' spine division from late 1994 to January 2008.

John J. Walsh, 46, of Coatesville, has served as director of regulatory and clinical affairs in the same division since August 2003.

Before U.S. District Judge Laurence F. Stengel, each pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of introducing adulterated medical devices into interstate commerce. They face $100,000 fines and a year in prison when they are sentenced Oct. 22.

Then, in August, 2009, Bloomberg reported:

Synthes Inc. official Richard Bohner pleaded guilty in Philadelphia to charges tied to illegal clinical trials of a bone cement that led to three deaths.

Bohner, Synthes’ vice president of operations, is the last of four executives to plead guilty to shipping misbranded Norian XR across state lines. He faces as long as one year in prison plus a $100,000 fine, according to documents made public today in federal court in Philadelphia.

Bohner and the other executives, Michael Huggins, John Walsh and Thomas Higgins, promoted the drug through the use of test markets aimed at persuading surgeons to publish the results of their surgeries, according to court documents.

Huggins and Walsh, who pleaded guilty July 20, will be sentenced on Oct. 22.

So that is four individual guilty pleas so far in this case. The pleas received only scant attention in the local media, and hence slipped by the technology I was using to scan the media at the time.

The Richest Man in Philadelphia

I got caught up when on 6 December, 2009, the Philadelphia Inquirer published a summary article focused on the "Person No. 7":

Wyss also is chairman of Synthes in West Chester, which faces 52 felony counts stemming from allegations that it illegally experimented on patients, three of whom died.

Synthes is fighting the charges, and a trial could be held next year. Four of its executives already have pleaded guilty to misdemeanor counts in the case and face sentencing hearings in January.

Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia did not name or charge Wyss, but their June indictment describes a "Person No. 7," who was a major shareholder and chief executive officer of the company when the alleged illegal conduct occurred, from 2001 through 2004. A Synthes representative confirmed that Wyss was CEO then.

In 2001, the U.S. attorney's indictment says, Person No. 7 decided the company should not pursue the costly and time-consuming clinical trials that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration demanded for the company's bone-cement product, Norian.

Instead, according to the indictment, Person No. 7 directed the company to 'get a few sites to perform 60 to 80 procedures and help them publish their clinical results' to help popularize Norian for a use not approved by the FDA.

The procedures involved injecting Norian into the spines of patients who had vertebral compression fractures, which are typically caused by osteoporosis. FDA officials had previously approved Norian for other uses, but they demanded trials for that type of surgery, fearing that the cement could perform differently in the spine.

Even after tests in pigs showed that Norian could leak from the spine and cause life-threatening blood clots, Synthes continued with surgeries on human patients, who were never told that the procedure was experimental.

Three of those patients died, but prosecutors do not know whether Norian played any role in their deaths, because the company and doctors did not immediately report all the fatalities to the FDA. The patients have not been identified.

Through a Synthes representative, Wyss initially agreed to be interviewed for this article, but later declined.

The Inquirer article seemed to try to balance the allegations about Wyss with his wealth and philanthropy:

Wyss grew up in Bern, Switzerland. His father sold mechanical calculators and liked to discuss world events, according to Harvard's Web site. Wyss trained as an engineer in Switzerland and soon began setting up Chrysler manufacturing plants worldwide. In 1965, he earned a master's degree at Harvard's business school.

'I didn't speak in class for the first five weeks,' he told a Harvard Web publication at the time of his gift. 'My classmates were all the crème de la crème, with button-down shirts I had never seen before.'

He worked for several large companies, but sold airplanes on the side. One of his buyers was a Swiss surgeon who founded Synthes. That connection eventually led Wyss to become president of the company's U.S. business in 1977.

Over time, he became a large shareholder and chief executive. He retired from that post in 2007, but he remains chairman.

Forbes Magazine in March estimated Wyss was worth $5.7 billion. His fortune has helped him pursue whatever he wants, including the rehabilitation of the Crooked Tree Golf Course in Tucson, Ariz., and the purchase of the 900-acre Halter Ranch & Vineyard in Paso Robles, Calif. The winery emphasizes organic growing methods and sells many wines, including one named Synthesis.

Wyss has given away large chunks of his fortune, mostly to organizations dedicated to his primary passions: science and the environment.

His $125 million donation to Harvard funded the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering....

Wyss also established two private foundations. The Wyss Foundation is dedicated to preserving land in the American West. Wyss went hiking there as a student and fell in love, according to Forbes.

The Wyss Foundation gave away about $13 million and had about $250 million in assets in 2007, according to tax filings.

Wyss also donates heavily from his personal funds. BusinessWeek estimated his total giving from all sources at $277 million from 2004 through 2008.

However, some of Wyss' philanthropy seems more designed to benefit his company:

Wyss' other foundation, the Hansjörg Wyss Foundation, had about $172 million in assets and gave away $4.9 million in 2007. It focuses mostly on education and training of surgeons, according to the AO Foundation, a Swiss research group with ties to Synthes and Wyss.

By funding research and training, Synthes has forged tight relationships with surgeons. The U.S. Attorney's Office alleges that the company paid for trips to educational seminars in San Diego and Charlotte, N.C., where surgeons learned to use Norian in the spine.

Marketing Over Research

This emphasis on education that actually seems to partake of company marketing is also displayed by Synthes itself.  Per the company's 2008 Annual Report, the company runs a "residency program,"

The Synthes Resident Program was originally released in the United States in 2007 by Synthes Trauma. It was first developed to train orthopaedic trauma surgical residents and consists of both online training modules and locally offered workshops.

In 2008, the Synthes Resident Program was expanded to a selection of European countries with modifications for the needs of specific areas and markets. Furthermore it is now also being offered by Synthes Spine and Synthes CM.

This program has achieved remarkable popularity, or should we say "market penetrance?"

The Synthes Resident Program has been well accepted in the U.S., with more than 90% of all U.S. orthopedic residents having utilized the program.

The company also offers an "Enhanced Surgeon Education Program," and support's the AO Foundation's educational activities.

On the other hand, the financial summary provided in the report suggests that research is not what the company emphasizes.  Its 2008 operating expenses included $943.3 million in sales and promotion, $349.4 million in general and administrative, and only $169.9 million in research and development, only 11.6% of total operating expenses.

And if you like the report's verbiage about education, you will also appreciate its full page section on "Integrity," which includes the header:

Corporate Citizenship. Acting with Integrity. Acting ethically and respectfully is a cornerstone of our business. At Synthes we are committed to responding to the challenges in our business by operating in accordance with the highest levels of professional and ethical standards in our industry. Simply put, we must always act with integrity.

It also boasts:

Our commitment to abide by the rules and regulations applies throughout Synthes, to all countries and to all employees, and to all our business partners.

Acting ethically is highly important for Synthes. Our actions create our
reputation. Our good reputation is an integral part of our Synthes brand,
and an essential element of our continued success.

And finally asserts:

Our effort to operate with the utmost integrity begins with the commitment of our Board of Directors and senior managers. [italics added for emphasis]  Our managers are role models for our employees, and lead our efforts to build and to promote a culture that encourages positive ethical conduct and that demonstrates commitment to compliance with the law.

Those four now admitted guilty top executives certainly were excellent role models. Even better was "Person No. 7," the current board chairman and former CEO.

Summary

So here we have all the elements: guilty pleas by top executives in connection with a human experiment whose nature was concealed from patients; allegations about but no charges against a fabulously wealthy company leader; a company that promotes what appears to be marketing in the guise of education; a tremendously profitable company which spends most of its money on marketing, not research; a company that boasts of its integrity and how its leaders are "role models," even as some have pleaded guilty to crimes; and despite the worldwide reach of the company and its products, no national coverage of any of this, the anechoic effect redux.

We have, not only in the US, but in other developed countries (for example, Switzerland, in which Synthes is based), and globally, health care based on marketing and hype, on deception and conflicts of interest, and on making a few privileged insiders fabulously wealthy.  Here is the essence of our health care dysfunction, and the inflating health care bubble.  When would be health care reformer stop arguing about insurance coverage, perhapds they can then pay some attention to these major reasons why health care is so expensive, inaccessible, and often does so little good for patients. 

PS - Earlier this year, we commented on the make-up of the Board of Trustees of the prestigious Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, which seemed split mainly among leaders of finance, including such troubled corporations that contributed to the global financial meltdown as Bank of America, AIG, Citigroup, and Wachovia, and orthopedic surgeons with ties to device makers.  One of the latter was Dr David Helfet, who listed his memberships on advisory boards for OHK Medical Devices Inc, Healthpoint Capital, and Orthobond Corp.  Just to add to the whiffs of lack of full disclosure surrounding this case, Dr Helfet still does not disclose on the hospital web-site that he is on the Board of Directors of Synthes.

Note (added 14 December, 2009) - Per comment below, the Vice President of Corporate Compliance and Internal Audit at the Hospital for Special Surgery claimed that an administrative error, not failure of disclosure by Dr Helfet, lead to the omission of the information about his membership on the Synthes board from the Hospital's web-site.

An Alliance on Mental Illness or for Pharmaceutical Companies?

A recent article by Gardner Harris in the New York Times focused on the financial links among health care corporations and not-for-profit disease (or patient) advocacy groups.

A majority of the donations made to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation’s most influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers in recent years, according to Congressional investigators.

The alliance, known as NAMI, has long been criticized for coordinating some of its lobbying efforts with drug makers and for pushing legislation that also benefits industry.

Last spring, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent letters to the alliance and about a dozen other influential disease and patient advocacy organizations asking about their ties to drug and device makers. The request was part of his investigation into the drug industry’s influence on the practice of medicine.

The mental health alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has refused for years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying the details were private.

But according to investigators in Mr. Grassley’s office and documents obtained by The New York Times, drug makers from 2006 to 2008 contributed nearly $23 million to the alliance, about three-quarters of its donations.

Even the group’s executive director, Michael Fitzpatrick, said in an interview that the drug companies’ donations were excessive and that things would change.

However, he tried to downplay the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the Alliance.

'I understand that NAMI gets painted as being in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, and somehow that all we care about is pharmaceuticals,' Mr. Fitzpatrick said. 'It’s simply not true.'

Note the careful wording of this denial, though. He did not deny that most of what NAMI cares about is pharmaceuticals.

Moreover, the article suggested how cozy pharmaceutical companies and the Alliance's leadership have become.

The close ties between the alliance and drug makers were on stark display last week, when the organization held its annual gala at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on Constitution Avenue in Washington. Tickets were $300 each. Before a dinner of roasted red bell pepper soup, beef tenderloin and tilapia, Dr. Stephen H. Feinstein, president of the alliance’s board, thanked Bristol-Myers Squibb, the pharmaceutical company.

'For the past five years, Bristol-Myers has sponsored this dinner at the highest level,' Dr. Feinstein said.

He then introduced Dr. Fred Grossman, chief of neuroscience research at Bristol-Myers, who told the audience that 'now, more than ever, our enduring relationship with NAMI must remain strong.'

Documents obtained by The New York Times show that drug makers have over the years given the mental health alliance — along with millions of dollars in donations — direct advice about how to advocate forcefully for issues that affect industry profits.

In a letter today to the NY Times, NAMI Executive Director Fitzpatrick tried again to correct "misimpressions."

First, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, has always disclosed corporate and foundation sources of revenue. Until this year, specific amounts remained private for competitive fund-raising reasons.

Second, your estimate that pharmaceutical companies account for three-quarters of “donations” has been misinterpreted as a share of NAMI’s total annual budget — which is actually about 50 percent.

Perusal of the 2008 NAMI Annual Report does include this impressive list of "Corporate Partners":

Abbott
Alexza Pharmaceuticals
Amazon
AstraZeneca
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Bristol-Myers Squibb
College of Psychiatric and Neurologic
Pharmacists
Corcept Therapeutics
Cyberonics
Delivery Agent, Inc.
Forest Laboratories
GEO Care
GoodSearch.com
The Health Central Network
Janssen Pharmaceutica
Eli Lilly and Company
Magellan Health Services
McNeil Pediatrics
Neuronetics
Novartis
Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer
PhRMA
RF Binder
Sanofi-Aventis
Shire
Solvay
Validus Pharmaceuticals
WellPoint
Wyeth
YTB Travel Network

The NAMI web-site now includes lists of specific corporate donations that individually exceeded $5000 since the beginning of 2009. So far this year, the biggest pharmaceutical corporate donors appear to be AstraZeneca ($350,000), Bristol-Myers-Squibb ($506,205), and Eli Lilly ($675,500). 

Looking at the latest Form 990 filed on behalf of NAMI with the US Internal Revenue Service (available from GuideStar here)  provides more interesting detail. (Keep in mind that the 2008 form covers July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008.)   This form listed the organization's total revenue as $13,788,288, and expenses as $12,796,205.  These expenses included $1,785,060 (13.9%) for management and $1,520,637 (11.9% ) for fund-raising.  The form listed eight NAMI executives who made more than $100,00 a year, including Mr Fitzpatrick ($210,685 total compensation).

So, in summary, it appears that corporate donations, mainly from a few large pharmaceutical companies, supply a substantial portion, (maybe half, if I read the letter by Mr Fitzpatrick correctly) of the annual budget of NAMI. About one-quarter of that budget is spent on administration and fund-raising, including six-figure salaries for at least eight executives.  So who do you expect would more easily get access to the $200K+/year NAMI Executive Director, an executive of a pharmaceutical firm that supplies more than $500,000 a year, or a NAMI member who pays $35 dues?

Here we have another example of a respected patient advocacy organization which gets a substantial portion of its revenue from (presumably the marketing departments of) a few large pharmaceutical companies.  (See another example here.)  Its well-paid executive director can at best bring himself to deny that the only purpose of the organization is to support pharmaceutical marketing and lobbying.  It seems reasonable that for supplying half the budget, the pharmaceutical companies expect considerable help not only with marketing but also with advocacy of policies that favor their corporate goals. 

As I have said before, I do not have a problem with pharmaceutical and other health care corporations marketing their products, and expressing their views on policy. I do have a problem with corporate marketing or policy advocacy is disguised as grass-roots, not-for-profit education and advocacy.  If ostensibly not-for-profit disease (or patient) advocacy organizations like NAMI want to continue to accept corporate money, they should make it clear that they speak for their corporate donors as well as, and probably with priority over their members and patients with the diseases of interest.  Well-intentioned people who pay their dues, and/or make small contributions to NAMI to help the mentally ill might want to consider whether they are likely to have any influence compared to the individual pharmaceutical executives who oversee $500,000+ a year corporate donations.

ADDENDUM (2 November, 2009) - See also comments on the Furious Seasons blog.

More on the Misleading Promotion of Seroquel

Previous posts (here and here) noted internal documents from AstraZeneca made public during litigation about its blockbuster atypical antipsychotic drug Seroquel (quetiapine) suggesting that the company's marketers manipulated clinical research results to make them appear more favorable to the product, and suppress studies with unfavorable results that could not be easily manipulated.

This week, Bloomberg News reported testimony from one trial about other aspects of Seroquel's marketing. The marketers' claims were at odds with the company's own research results:

AstraZeneca Plc advised its sales force to promote the antipsychotic drug Seroquel as 'weight neutral' four years after company research found 'clinically significant' weight gains in users, internal documents show.

AstraZeneca’s 'global strategy is to demonstrate to consumers that Seroquel has a weight-neutral profile,' Debbie Holdsworth, a marketing official, wrote in a 'dear colleague' letter dated May 14, 2001. The document was produced during a pretrial examination of former executive John Patterson.

'If 45 percent of patients gained significant weight in a year, how could that be weight-neutral?' patient attorney Ed Blizzard asked Patterson, citing a internal 1997 e-mail written by an AstraZeneca doctor, at a hearing in Orlando Oct. 5.

Also, evidence was presented that suggested that company marketers consciously promoted the drug for off-label indications over several years:

Patterson was asked about a 'Seroquel Strategy Summary' issued in December 2000, which described the broadening of Seroquel use 'on and off label' as a sales goal. While doctors are free to prescribe any medicine to treat a given condition, it is illegal for drug companies to promote medicines for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

'The company has standards and procedures to ensure its sales representatives do not promote off label,' Patterson testified. Still, the goal of off-label promotion remained in strategy summaries for the years 2001 or 2002, he acknowledged.

Coupled with previous revelations (see posts noted above), it looks like the marketers were employing an integrated strategy combining a variety of deceptions, the sort of broad based stealth marketing approach we have seen employed to promote other health care products.

Such strategies undoubtedly have lead to the prescribing of expensive drugs when other treatments, or no treatment would be better, and have helped support the high prices charged for products that are not necessarily so good for the many patients who have ended up getting them. Of course, the money thus generated has let many executives of the companies that employ such marketing strategies become rich. As Bloomberg reported:

Patterson, who reported directly to AstraZeneca’s chief executive officer, was paid more than $1 million at one point during his tenure at the company. He retired April 1 as executive director of product development, and is the highest- ranking AstraZeneca executive to testify in open court in lawsuits claiming the company withheld information about the risks of Seroquel.

In my humble opinion, if we really want to reform health care in the US (and around the globe), we need to challenge how health care organizations have used their ability to sponsor medical research to manipulate its design, implementation, analysis and dissemination, and when necessary, to suppress its results to favor their vested interests. We also need to challenge systematically deceptive marketing practices designed to make products and services appear more useful than they really are, thus supporting exaggerated prices and prompting overuse. Unless we challenge these and some other causes of excess prices and excess use, attempts to provide universal health insurance and access will bankrupt us all.

(And to preempt anyone in the audience who may recoil from anything that restricts the freedom of action of health care corporations - tell me how manipulation of research, suppression of research, and deceptive marketing is necessary for innovation or for adequate revenues to support good products? I am not arguing for hamstrung companies. I am arguing for honest business practices.)

Hat tip to PharmaGossip.

Polly Want a Million (Plus)

We have frequently posted about attempts to justify financial relationships among physicians and medical academics on one hand, and pharmaceutical, biotechnology, device and other health care corporations, on the other. Some defenders of such relationships now have gone so far as to start their own society, whose meeting was covered and commented on by fellow "pharmascolds," including Dr Daniel Carlat and Dr Howard Brody. The usual justification of these relationships is that they are necessary for "innovation" and the onward progress of medical science, education, and care. I have yet to see any logic or evidence to back up these assertions, nor have I seen anyone defend these relationships who does not also have personal financial relationships of their own with health care corporations. (See examples here, here, and here.)

Meanwhile, cases of individual physicians and academics whose lucrative relationships with industry seem to generate huge conflicts of interest continue to surface. The latest example ferreted out by investigators working for US Senator Charles Grassley (R - Iowa) is that of Dr David Polly. (Recall that Dr Polly was one of the strongest defenders of Dr Thomas Kuklo, who was accused of falsifying clinical research results in a way that seemed to favor the product of his own corporate benefactor [see post here].)

The main points were reported by David Armstrong and Thomas M Burton in the Wall Street Journal,

In May 2006, University of Minnesota spine surgeon David Polly urged a Senate committee to fund research into the severe arm, leg and spine injuries suffered by soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere.

Dr. Polly told the committee he was testifying on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and referenced his prior work caring for soldiers as a surgeon at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

What Dr. Polly didn't disclose during his testimony was that his trip to Washington was paid for by Medtronic Inc., the big medical-device maker whose bone growth product, called Infuse, has been used to treat soldiers, according to company records.

Dr. Polly and colleagues in Minnesota subsequently received a $466,644 Department of Defense grant for a two-year study beginning in February 2007 to evaluate Infuse in cases where an injury is also infected, according to the university.

Dr. Polly was paid $1.14 million by Medtronic for consulting services from 2004 to 2007.

Details of Dr. Polly's consultant billing were provided by Medtronic to Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has been scrutinizing the relationship between academics and industry.

Although there have now been many reported cases of medical academics who collected large payments from health care corporations, the services they provided in exchange for the money have not always been very clear. Defenders of financial relationships among physicians and medical academics and industry have argued that most payments were for valuable research, education, or health care activities. However, Senator Grassley's office provided the details of Dr Polly's invoices, and several of the news articles so far described what he did for the money. Per the Wall Street Journal article,

In total, Dr. Polly billed Medtronic for more than $50,000 in lobbying-related costs. He made trips to Washington in 2005 and 2006 and called on several members of Congress, according to the records.

According to billing records, Dr. Polly's billing rate was $4,750 for an eight-hour day in 2007, and he billed as many as 13,000 minutes a quarter -- or 216 hours over three months. In some months, he conducted at least some Medtronic business on nearly every day.

His consulting log indicates that on one occasion he spent one minute to wake up a Medtronic executive, although he listed 'no charge' for that service. He did bill Medtronic for the 30 minutes he spent in the car with that executive after waking him up.

An accompanying post on the Wall Street Journal Health Blog provided more information:

Did you ever wonder what doctors do to earn big consulting contracts from medical device companies and pharmaceutical concerns?

Records released by Medtronic to Sen. Charles Grassley, a longtime critic of the ties between academics and and health-care companies, provide a rare and detailed glimpse into the daily billings of a consultant — in this case, spine surgeon David Polly of the University of Minnesota.

Polly collected more than $1 million in four years of work for Medtronic, according to the records, which you can take a look at here.

The services he provided were many, but among them, Polly was paid to write articles for medical journals; write a chapter in a book and a book outline; recruit patients for publicity efforts; attend Medtronic national sales meetings; travel to conferences in Japan, Paris and elsewhere; lead training and educational sessions for physicians; and lobby Congress.

Polly also billed for at least two phone calls with Medtronic CEO William Hawkins as well as charging the company $2,000 when Mr. Hawkins visited an operating room. In October, 2003, he billed the company $12,000 for attending a medical meeting of the North American Spine Society, at $4,000 a day.

There are also scores of entries for work billed in five-minute increments, usually to send email or return phone calls. The bill for each five-minute charge? $49.48 a pop.

So did the $1.2 million Medtronic spent on Dr Polly's services inspire any "innovation?" Did it lead to any scientific progress or improved health care? I am not sure.

It is clear, however, that a good chunk of this money went to support marketing, advocacy, and lobbying. The items in bold italics above were clearly in support of marketing, advocacy and lobbying, not science, medical education, or patient care. (To give Dr Polly the benefit of a doubt, some other items listed above could have been related to research, education, or patient care, although this is not indisputable.)

So the case of Dr Polly corroborates my deep skepticism of the financial relationships among physicians and medical academics on one hand, and corporations that sell health care goods and services on the other. We "pharmascolds," - a preferable term might be health care skeptics - suspect that many of these relationships are really about stealth marketing and advocacy. The companies often pay to market their products and services, or advocate positions to the companies' advantage, but prefer that their salespeople and advocates are cloaked in academic guises, and wreathed in the rarefied aura of respected academic institutions. (Note that some of us are just as skeptical about relationships among academic institutions and other health care not-for-profit organizations on one hand, and such corporations on the other, for analogous reasons.)

While the leadership of our formerly distinguished medical academic institutions remains infiltrated, if not dominated by people earning many thousands of dollars from health care corporations, I must remain skeptical about how much of these institutions supposedly academic output is actually stealth marketing and stealth health policy advocacy.

At the very least, medical academics, medical academic institutions, and other health care not-for-profits or NGOs should reveal in detail what payments they get from companies selling health care products or services, and how these payments could relate to the companies' marketing or lobbying efforts. In the US, some such disclosure would be mandated by the proposed "Sunshine" legislation now being considered by the US Congress. (By the way, note that this problem is hardly confined to the US, and needs global, not just American attention.)

However, physicians (at least physicians in full-time private practice, academic positions, and employed by mission-oriented not for profit organizations) should go further, and consider whether receiving industry money is worth the ongoing damage it does to our professionalism and our professional reputations. Medical schools, universities, health care foundations, disease advocacy groups, and other health care not-for-profits and NGOs should also go further, and consider whether receiving industry money is worth the ongoing damage it does to their missions, and their institutional reputations.

See also comments by Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

Pseudo-Evidence Based Medicine Threatens Health Care Reform Based on "What Works"

As I posted yesterday, the increasingly noisy debate about health care reform in the US has not dealt much with the issues we often discuss on Health Care Renewal. These include problems in how health care organizations are led which threaten physicians' and other health care professionals' core values using tactics including perverse incentives, deception, and intimidation.
Last night, however, President Obama held a news conference mostly devoted to health care issues, in which he stressed the importance of changing not just how health insurance works, but how health care decisions are made. As Newsweek's "The Gaggle" blog reported,

Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system? No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier. The government already is making some of these decisions. More importantly, insurance companies right now are making those decisions. And part of what we want to do is to make sure that those decisions are being made by doctors and medical experts based on evidence, based on what works, because that's not how it's working right now.

So what the President seems to be advocating is making health care more evidence-based, perhaps in the formal sense of evidence-based medicine.

As a card-carrying evidence-based medicine advocate, I certainly agree, but let me reiterate that evidence-based medicine is not just medicine based on some sort of evidence. As Dr David Sackett, and colleagues wrote [Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Muir Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine; what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-72. Link here. ]

Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. By individual clinical expertise we mean the proficiency and judgment that individual clinicians acquire through clinical experience and clinical practice. Increased expertise is reflected in many ways, but especially in more effective and efficient diagnosis and in the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients' predicaments, rights, and preferences in making clinical decisions about their care. By best available external clinical evidence we mean clinically relevant research, often from the basic sciences of medicine, but especially from patient centred clinical research into the accuracy and precision of diagnostic tests (including the clinical examination), the power of prognostic markers, and the efficacy and safety of therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventive regimens.

Furthermore,

Evidence based medicine is not 'cookbook' medicine. Because it requires a bottom up approach that integrates the best external evidence with individual clinical expertise and patients' choice, it cannot result in slavish, cookbook approaches to individual patient care. External clinical evidence can inform, but can never replace, individual clinical expertise, and it is this expertise that decides whether the external evidence applies to the individual patient at all and, if so, how it should be integrated into a clinical decision.

One can find other definitions of EBM, but nearly all emphasize that the approach is designed to appropriately apply results from the best clinical research, critically reviewed, to the individual patient, taking into account that patient's clinical characteristics and personal values.

So far, so good. I believe the proper application of "real" (as described above) evidence-based medicine has the potential to improve patient outcomes while moderating health care costs. However, we have pointed out how problems arising from concentration and abuse of power in health care threaten the evidence-based medical ideal.

First, there are major problems with the development of the sort of clinical research evidence required by the EBM process. We have discussed how clinical research is frequently manipulated by those with vested interests in producing results that favor the products or services that they sell. The critical review process inherent in EBM is meant to cope with less than optimally designed and implemented research. However, the process was designed to cope with honest mistakes and inevitable trade-offs, not deliberate manipulation by vested interests.

Worse, we have discussed how vested interests may engineer the suppression of research when manipulation fails to produce the desired results. The EBM process assumes that the research on which decisions should be based is an unbiased sample of research that was done (and done to advance science, not commercial or ideological interests). When research whose results are unwanted by vested interests is suppressed, the resulting distortion of the evidence base may irretrievably bias the EBM process.

Finally, we have posted about how vested interests have distorted the discussion, dissemination, and teaching of the results of clinical research. They may develop systematic stealth marketing campaigns, often employing supposed "key opinion leaders," who are paid on the side by marketers, and using "medical education and communication companies"as marketing fronts whose publication strategies include deceptive tactics such as "ghost-writing."

Thus, a rising tide of "pseudo-evidence based medicine" threatens to overwhelm even the most conscientious physicians trying to practice evidence-based medicine.

So, while I applaud President Obama's advocacy of reforming health care to emphasize what the best evidence suggests really works, I do not think this effort will get far unless we deal with the rising tide of pseudo-evidence based medicine. As a minimum, we need full and detailed disclosure of all the relationships among vested interests and medical research and education, and a much greater role for research and education that is not subsidized by corporations bent on using research and education to market their products and services.

A Peabody Award for a Show Featuring Nemeroff's Pontifications

All things that fall must converge?

The escapades of the former Emory University Chair of Psychiatry, Dr Charles Nemeroff, now have gotten quite a lot of press, but we were writing about some of them here on Health Care Renewal before the good doctor became so well-known. Dr Bernard Carroll, for instance, posted here and here, and I posted here (with links backward).

We have also posted about how well-intentioned public broadcasters seem to have got caught up in the web of health care conflicts of interest. Here we talked about how a drug company ended up funding a special on obesity, and here we talked about the involvement of a device and a drug company in the "Mysterious Human Heart."

In late June, the Columbia Journalism Review included an article by Paul Scott about how a US Public Broadcasting System show won an illustrious Peabody award for a show featuring Dr Nemeroff pontificating about depression.

Last May, a Peabody was awarded to the film Depression: Out of the Shadows, a documentary which aired in 2008 on PBS, was produced by Twin Cities Public Television and WGBH Boston, and was written and directed by Minneapolis-based filmmaker Larkin McPhee.

But where her film was generous in its inclusion of heartbreaking personal stories about depression, its broad survey of the science of the illness included frequent appearances by Charles Nemeroff, M.D., a leading—some say powerful—mood disorders researcher from Emory University. Last fall, Nemeroff also became one of the most prominent psychiatrists to be rebuked for failing to disclose funds earned from the drug industry.

Last October, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa notified Emory that Nemeroff had received $2.8 million from drug companies between 2000 and 2007, $1.2 million of which he failed to report to the university, as he was required to do according to federal rules. To reduce their risk of bias, National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers must limit to $10,000 their annual receipt of payments from the makers of drugs they are studying. As the lead investigator for a five-year, $3.95 million federal grant to study Paxil and other GlaxoSmithKline drugs, Nemeroff pocketed seventeen times the NIH limit from GSK in 2004 alone, and exceeded his limit every year from 2003 through 2006, without informing his employers. Following his rebuke, Nemeroff lost his chairmanship at Emory, saw $9.2 million in NIH funds meant for Emory frozen, and was banned from federal research for two years.

Some might argue that little about this episode matters, since Nemeroff’s downfall took place in October and Depression: Out of the Shadows aired five months earlier. Yet a simple Google search would have alerted McPhee to the fact that Nemeroff, though the author of hundreds of research papers and well respected in his field, has been dogged by conflict of interest allegations for years. In 2003, he came under fire for praising three pharmaceutical products in the journal Nature Neuroscience without disclosing he held a financial stake in their success, one of which he held the patent on.

Three years later, Nemeroff resigned from his editorship of the journal Neuropsychopharmacology after The Wall Street Journal reported he held an undisclosed financial stake in a treatment for depression he praised in an article. Nemeroff is either great at making excuses for his conduct or extremely unlucky. Following his 2003 misstep, he blamed the journal in question for not requiring him to mention his conflicts. Following his omission in 2006, Nemeroff blamed a clerical error. Following his rebuke by Sen. Grassley, Nemeroff told his employers he did not realize that drug-industry sponsored continuing education appearances were payments requiring disclosure.

All defenses aside, by the time of production for Depression: Out of the Shadows, his drug industry entanglements were both widely distributed and widely known. “With financial ties to nearly two dozen drug and biotech companies,” wroteShannon Brownlee in The Washington Monthly in 2004, “Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff may hold some sort of record among academic clinicians for the most conflicts of interest.”

That PBS producers either did not know about Nemeroff’s drug industry entanglements or did not believe they tainted his discussion of the science of depression is disappointing.

But what made the praise bestowed on this PBS documentary particularly troubling were the erroneous, drug-industry serving statements made by Nemeroff within the film—statements which had the potential to negatively affect public health, and which the documentary left unchallenged. During a segment on the FDA’s 2004 decision to require “black box” safety warnings stating that antidepressants can increase the risk of suicide in children and teenagers, a risk it extended in May of 2007 to users under twenty-five, Nemeroff seized the occasion to claim that the federal safety warning was mistaken.

He did so by citing a 2007 study partially funded by Pfizer and published in The American Journal of Psychiatry, a paper ostensibly linking the warning with a subsequent increase in teen suicides. “The FDA put a black box warning for all age groups,” Nemeroff said in the documentary. “I believe this was a mistake, because in hastening our awareness, what we’ve shown is there’s been a marked drop in prescriptions of antidepressants, particularly for children and adolescents…and an increase in suicides and suicide attempts.”

But as critics quickly pointed outto The Boston Globe and The New York Times, the increase in suicides Nemeroff described actually occurred a year before a drop-off in antidepressant use. (You can’t blame a rise in suicides in 2003 on a drop off in prescriptions in 2005.) At the time, most parties to this debate agreed that the question of whether black-box warnings were inadvertently dangerous would not be further clarified until the release of Centers for Disease Control suicide data from 2005.

That data came out a month later, and showed that suicides have fallen overall; a follow-up report showed that suicides have fallen among youth specifically. The total number remains higher than in 2003, but less than in 2004, when the FDA warning went into effect.Given the complexity of epidemiological data and the rarity of suicide, those findings prove little except that any effort to link an uptick in suicides to reduced prescribing of antidepressant medications to children and teenagers is not supported by the epidemiological data.

Mr Scott concluded, memorably,

Something about the simultaneously complex and sympathetic nature of mental health reporting is making reputable journalistic organizations and well-meaning reporters sloppy.

Were health care journalists to dig deeper into the financial entanglements of some of the "key opinion leaders" who may be so eager to appear in well-meaning, and at times feel-good documentaries, the public might learn more about the web of conflicts of interest that now ensnares health care. They might also learn how much of what appears to be health care education is just marketing in disguise. That marketing is often of expensive, and not terribly effective treatments. Realizing that many seeming miracle cures aren't might lead to the skepticism that could help us control health care costs without hurting patients.