No Needle, but the Damage was Done - A New Example of Suppression of Research about Adverse Effects of Prescription Narcotic Analgesics

This story feels personal, since as a physician who trained starting in the 1970s, figuring out how to manage patients who desperately wanted narcotics, whether to relieve pain, relieve addiction, or relieve financial distress has been a constant challenge.

Background  - Treating Pain while Avoiding "the Needle and the Damage Done"

Almost as soon as I started clinical training in medical school I came up against the problem of narcotics.  In the 1970s, narcotic addiction was a pressing problem that threw a dismal shadow over society..  In the hospital and emergency room we daily saw overdoses and the complications of narcotics addiction, including some particularly nasty infections like bacterial endocarditis,  While dealing with these, we tried to do our best to manage the severe pain of cancer and other relentless diseases with limited tools, narcotics being the most potent.

We knew that we should not let our bleak experiences with addiction to illicit narcotics prevent us from giving adequate pain medication to those with metastatic cancer.  However, it was never clear how to best to help people with chronic pain from diseases that were not so immediately deadly.  And whatever it took we wanted not to promote "the needle and the damage done."


Things did not become easier in the 1990s when we  incessantly heard about under-diagnosis and under-treatment of  pain, and how we should not be so afraid of addiction and other adverse effects when prescribing legal narcotics.  As we heard this, however, it seemed that more people with less well-defined chronic pain were coming to us seeking relief, sometimes while preoccupied with narcotics as the solution to their problems.  Yet many of these patients seemed at risk of addiction, appeared already addicted, or even appeared to be seeking drugs so they could sell them to others.

In my most recent clinical position, it seemed I was always dealing with new patients with years of obscure musculoskeletal pain who felt I was the miracle physician they were seeking, often specifically to prescribe something like Vicodin, Percodan, or Oxycontin.  When on weekend call I inevitably hear from some poor patient who had somehow run out of or lost an important medication, which turned out to be Vicodin, Percodan, or Oxycontin, and just needed a simple refill without the bother of actually seeing a doctor.  Etc, etc, etc.

How could I relieve real suffering without becoming the pusher man? 

The Over Promotion of Narcotic Pain Treatment  

Then the realization began to dawn that patients, doctors and society were being victimized by a new type of pusher man, this time dressed in a suit and working for an "ethical" drug company.  In the earlier days of Health Care Renewal, we first posted (in 2006) about allegations of deceptive and unethical promotion of fentanyl by Cephalon that lead to its overuse by patients beyond those with cancer who were its ostensible target population.  Then in 2007 came the spectacular case of guilty pleas by a subsidiary of Purdue Pharma and several of its executives for "misbranding" Oxycontin,  that is, promoting it far beyond any medically legitimate use in severe chronic pain.  Following that various investigations, well chronicled in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, showed how pharmaceutical companies employed deceptive marketing techniques, subverting medical education and research, and creating conflicted key opinion leaders and institutionally conflicted disease advocacy groups, to push more "legal" narcotics  For example, see the Journal Sentinel reports the subversion of :  medical schools and their faculty; .medical societies, disease advocacy groups, and foundations; and guideline writing panels.  In 2012, we posted about how a drug company paid key opinion leader admitted to second thoughts about his role promoting narcotics.

The realization that that overtreatment of chronic pain, now matter how sketchy, never mind the adverse effects of narcotics, was driven by greed and marketing did not make managing chronic pain and patients who wanted narcotics easier.

One strategy we used was to try to find drugs nearly as effective as narcotics (although we began to realize that narcotics are also notw as effective as we thought) but less addictive.  The latest story by the indefatigable John Fauber of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel suggests that strategy too was subverted.

 Suppression of Research about Addiction to Tramadol

One workaround I sometimes attempted was to prescribe tramadol (e.g., Ultram, Janssen), an opioid which was promoted as non-narcotic and non-addicting.  However, like many quick pharmaceutical solutions to difficult problems promoted in the last few years, that did not often seem to work as well as expected.  Now, per Mr Fauber, it appears that

the FDA failed to heed a key piece of research indicating tramadol had the potential to be abused when it first appeared on the U.S. market in 1995. The drug was not placed under the Controlled Substance Act.

Despite recent research affirming its abuse potential, restrictions on prescribing it are no more stringent than for Lipitor or Viagra.

The Controlled Substance Act places drugs into five progressively restrictive categories based on their abuse potential. At the top of the list are drugs such as heroin. At the other end are cough medicines with limited amounts of codeine.
In deciding tramadol need not be on the list, the FDA based its decision largely on research in which the drug was injected as well as reports from Europe, where it had been on the market for years, that showed very little abuse.

However, the agency also had unpublished research showing that when given to opioid abusers orally in high doses, rather than being injected, it produced opiate-like effects that were similar to those from oxycodone, the narcotic in OxyContin, one of the most abused drugs in America. 

Oops.  Here is more detail about the suppressed research,

Tramadol was first introduced in Germany in 1977.

Data from Germany had suggested it was only about one-tenth as potent as morphine when injected. Other data showed that after years of use in Germany and other countries there was very little abuse of the drug.

However, in the early 1990s, researchers at Johns Hopkins University did a study in which high doses of the drug were given orally to opioid abusers. Taken that way, tramadol acted much differently than when injected.

At very high doses it produced opiate-like effects that were similar to high-dose oxycodone.

Taken by mouth, the drug is transformed in the liver to a metabolite known as M1, which is able to attach to and activate opioid receptors in the brain. It is M1 that is believed to produce the desirable, opiate-like effect.

In 1994, Ortho-McNeil, part of the R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute of Johnson & Johnson, sought approval from the FDA to sell its brand-name version of the drug, Ultram, in the United States.

The Johns Hopkins study never was published, but the company said it was provided to the FDA.

Also, oops.  The FDA decided not to list the drug as a controlled substance, realized more thought might be needed in the future, but did not appear too worried about who would be doing the thinking.  

That was when the FDA allowed Ortho-McNeil to fund its own committee, separate from the FDA, that would monitor the country for problems with the drug.

While it was called an 'independent steering committee,' Ortho-McNeil paid for the group's work and also paid consulting fees to its members.

Sidney Schnoll, a former member of the committee, said he could not remember how much the committee members were paid. In total, the program cost Ortho-McNeil about $15 million a year, said Schnoll, now an executive with Pinney Associates, a Bethesda, Md., company that works with drug and opioid companies.

'There was absolutely nothing independent about this group,' said Andrew Kolodny, a New York addiction specialist and advocate of tighter controls on opioids.

From early on, Ortho-McNeil's marketing plan for tramadol meant keeping it off the list of controlled substances where it would have difficulty competing against other narcotic painkillers such as Tylenol 3 and Tylenol 4, Schnoll said in a 2009 interview. Both Tylenol products contain codeine and are schedule 3 drugs.

The Schnoll interview was done by two professors, one from the University of Florida and one from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, as part of a project at University of Michigan Substance Abuse Center.

'There were equally good products that were cheaper on the market,' Schnoll said, according to a transcript of the interview. 'So they really wouldn't have much of the market. They wanted to see if it would be possible to get the drug onto the market as a non-controlled substance.'

After a decade, the eight-member Ortho-McNeil committee dissolved itself in December 2005, without ever having recommended that tramadol be put under the Controlled Substances Act.

Oops, again.  Meanwhile, the adverse effects of tramadol were becoming more apparent.

An analysis by the Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today found that tramadol use is up dramatically since 2008, the earliest year for which data is available. It rose from 25 million prescriptions that year to nearly 40 million in 2012, according to data from IMS Health, a market research firm.

In 2011, the drug was linked to 20,000 emergency department visits around the country. In Florida alone, there were 379 overdose deaths involving tramadol that year, up from 106 in 2003, according to the DEA.

In Milwaukee County, 20 people died of a drug overdose involving tramadol from 2010 through October 2013, according records from the Medical Examiner's Office. In most of those cases, tramadol was one of several opioids that had been taken.

Final oops.  Perhaps no needles were involved, but the damage was being done.  

Summary - Goddam the Pusher Man

The over-promotion of addictive narcotics for pain relief has become an instructive example of deceptive and unethical practices used by commercial health care firms seeking revenue no matter what it takes to get it.  Just the latest article on tramadol illustrated the use of paid key opinion leaders and more broadly, the creation of conflicted medical academics for marketing objectives (here, apparently, obfuscating the dangers of the product); the suppression of clinical research (for the same reason); and at least raised the possibility of regulatory capture.  It seems unlikely that whoever made the decisions to use the tactics worried about adverse effects including loss of the integrity of research, subversion of academic medicine, ;undermining medical decision making, and obviously most importantly direct harm to patients.  (I would note that the decision makers appeared to be working for Johnson and Johnson, a company which seems to have a growing history of questionable behavior.)  

Health care professionals should at least learn that the pusher man does not always look like a character out of Easy Rider.

There They Go Again, Again... - Johnson and Johnson Loses Two Civil Cases, Makes $2.5 Billion Settlement Based on Claims it Withheld Safety Data on its Products

There has been some talk by US government officials that any day now they will actually get tough on corporate executives whose organizations are involved in multiply unethical actions (perhaps using the legally valid, but massively neglected responsible corporate officer doctrine, look here).  However, the march of legal settlements by such corporations continue without any hints of negative consequences for the people who might have actually been involved in unethical activity. 

So, we note another week, another multi-billion dollar settlement and another loss of a civil lawsuit by huge drug, device and biotechnology company Johnson and Johnson

The Articular Surface Replacement Metal-on-Metal Hip Prosthesis Settlement

After various rumors, the report of the settlement appeared in a New York Times article on November 19, 2013.  The basics were,

Johnson & Johnson and lawyers for patients injured by a flawed hip implant announced a multibillion-dollar deal on Tuesday to settle thousands of lawsuits, but it was not clear whether the deal would satisfy enough claimants.

Under the agreement, the medical products giant would pay nearly $2.5 billion in compensation to an estimated 8,000 patients who have been forced to have the all-metal artificial hip removed and replaced with another device. 

Separately, the company has agreed to pay all medical costs related to such procedures, expenses that could raise the deal’s cost to Johnson & Johnson to $3 billion, people familiar with the proposal said.

Under the plan, the typical patient payment for pain and suffering caused by the device would be about $250,000 before legal fees. Based on standard agreements, plaintiffs’ lawyers would receive about one-third of the overall payout, or more than $800 million, with those who negotiated the plan emerging as big winners.

The proposed settlement, which was submitted on Tuesday to a federal judge in Toledo, Ohio, must receive the support of 94 percent of eligible claimants to go forward.

An earlier NY Times article on a rumored version of the settlement emphasized that relevant litigation had featured strong allegations that Johnson  and Johnson's DePuy subsidiary hid what it knew about the faults of the device,

The A.S.R. hip was sold by DePuy until mid-2010, when the company recalled it amid sharply rising early failure rates. The device, which had a metal ball and a metal cup, sheds metallic debris as it wears, generating particles that have damaged tissue in some patients or caused crippling injuries. 

DePuy officials have long insisted that they acted appropriately in recalling the device when they did. However, internal company documents disclosed during the trial of a patient lawsuit this year showed that DePuy officials were long aware that the hip had a flawed design and was failing prematurely at a high rate.

Many artificial hips last 15 years or more before they wear out and need to be replaced. But by 2008, data from orthopedic databases outside the United States also showed that the A.S.R. was failing at high rates in patients after just a few years.

Internal DePuy projections estimate that it will fail in 40 percent of those patients in five years, a rate eight times higher than for many other hip devices. 

A later NY Times article about plaintiffs' sometimes negative reactions to the settlement added,

 The DePuy Orthopaedics division of Johnson & Johnson estimated in an internal document in 2011 that the device would fail within five years in 40 percent of patients. Traditional artificial hips, which are made of metal and plastic, typically last 15 years or more before replacement. 

 DePuy officials have insisted that they acted properly in handling the device, including waiting until 2010 to recall it. However, internal company documents show that company officials were warned years before by their own consultants that the device was so problematic they would not use it in their patients. 

In January, 2013, the NY Times had reported in more detail about how DePuy executives concealed evidence about safety issues with the hips,

. Johnson and Johnson executives knew years before they recalled a troubled artificial hip in 2010 that it had a critical design flaw, but the company concealed that information from physicians and patients, according to internal documents disclosed on Friday during a trial related to the device’s failure.

The company had received complaints from doctors about the device, the Articular Surface Replacement, or A.S.R., even as it started marketing a version of it in the United States in 2005. The A.S.R.’s flaw caused it to shed large quantities of metallic debris after implantation, and the model failed an internal test in 2007 in which engineers compared its performance to that of another of the company’s hip implants, the documents show.

Still, executives in Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Orthopaedics unit kept selling the A.S.R. even as it was being abandoned by surgeons who worked as consultants to the company. DePuy executives discussed ways of fixing the defect, the records suggest, but they apparently never did so.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers introduced the documents on Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court during opening arguments in the first A.S.R.-related lawsuit to go to trial.

In particular, 

In 2007, DePuy engineers tested the A.S.R.’s rate of wear to see if it matched the wear rate of another all-metal hip implant made by the company. It did not.

'The current results for A.S.R. do not meet the set acceptance criteria for this test,' that report stated.

The same year, company officials began discussing ways to fix the problem, like redesigning the cup to eliminate the groove. But at the same time, it was actively marketing the A.S.R. to surgeons in the United States, who were implanting it into tens of thousands of patients.

'We will ultimately need a cup redesign, but the short-term action is manage perceptions,' one top DePuy sales official told a colleague in a 2008 e-mail. A DePuy executive, Andrew Ekdahl, who is now the unit’s president, was also told by a company consultant that the A.S.R. was flawed, according to another document. 

In mid-2008, DePuy apparently abandoned the redesign project, an internal document indicates. A company spokeswoman, Mindy Tinsley, declined to comment on the document. 

In the fall of 2009, the Food and Drug Administration rejected DePuy’s application to sell the resurfacing version of the A.S.R. in the United States, saying it was concerned about, among other things, “high concentration of metal ions” in the blood of patients who received it. 

DePuy executives soon started making financial estimates of when the company should stop selling the A.S.R., based on the time it would take to convert surgeons to another company implant, a document shows.

So the evidence introduced in litigation suggested that top DePuy executives knew the design was faulty, but chose to not disclose the evidence of this, and not to withdraw the product, but rather to "manage perceptions." 

As is typical of most settlements made by big health care corporations in the last 10 years, no one at DePuy or its Johnson and Johnson parent who might have authorized, directed, or implemented the continued sales of the device despite warnings that it might be unsafe would have to suffer any negative consequences.  In particular, apparently Mr Ekdahl will not suffer any such consequences (and was not obviously named in the few news reports of the settlement.)   Mr Ekdahl, now Worldwide President, DePuy Synthes Joint Reconstruction, was quoted in the official Johnson and Johnson news release about the settlement.

The Topamax Verdicts

This case, which was much smaller in terms of the monetary amounts involved, got much less coverage, but Bloomberg did report on November 18, 2013,

Johnson & Johnson's  Janssen Pharmeceuticals unit was ordered by a Philadelphia jury to pay $11 million in a case claiming its anti-seizure drug Topamax caused birth defects, the second such loss in less than a month.

Again, the case involved claims that the company withheld information about the safety of its product,

Janssen failed to adequately warn doctors for Haley Powell, a stay-at-home mother, of the risks of Topamax before she gave birth to a son with a cleft lip, jurors in state court in Philadelphia found today.

'Janssen has long known that this drug causes debilitating birth defects and yet intentionally kept this information from physicians and patients,' Shelley Hutson, an attorney for Powell, said after the verdict was read.

Furthermore,

 Janssen knew as early as 1997 that animal studies showed an increased risk for birth defects, especially oral clefts, Hutson said during closing arguments on Nov. 15.


Hutson accused Janssen of operating in a culture of secrecy and of intentionally concealing safety reports in 2003 and 2005. She rejected arguments by the company that it presented the information on poster boards, in abstracts and at medical conferences. Those actions “do not keep patients safe,” Hutson said.

'As early as 1997 in admission after admission, this company knew and they didn’t tell the doctors,' Hutson said.

A report in Law360 emphasized,

 Plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania suits alleged the company didn't fully, truthfully or accurately disclose Topamax data to the FDA, to them and to their doctors. As a result, Janssen intentionally and fraudulently misled the medical community, the public and herself about the risks to a fetus associated with the use of Topamax during pregnancy, plaintiffs claimed.

 Summary

There they go again....  So Johnson and Johnson has announced two multi-billion dollar settlements in one month (November, 2013, look here for the first).  It also announced a smaller settlement involving the marketing of Topamax, which is now in addition to a 2010 guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010 (look here).  Note that all the November, 2013 legal actions involved allegations, often backed by seemingly convincing evidence produced in litigation (as noted above), of deceptive, unethical practices.  Both cases above included allegations that the company sold products without fully disclosing those products' harms to patients.  Furthermore, all the month's legal actions are now added to a long list of Johnson and Johnson's legal woes, often involving allegations and evidence of other unethical actions, sometimes involving guilty pleas to charges of such actions (see compilation of the record through July, 2013 here.)  (By the way, Synthes, which is now another Johnson and Johnson subsidiary, and is not run by the same individual on whose watch the ASR case occurred, has had its own legal and ethical woes, look here.) 

Yet despite this lengthy and sorry record, no individual manager or executive at Johnson and Johnson, including its many and confusing subsidiaries, seems to have suffered any negative consequences for authorizing, directing, or implementing any unethical activities, whether they risked harming patients, or whether they resulted in a guilty plea by a corporate entity.  Instead, as we have discussed most recently here, the top executives of the company have grown very rich. 

So since the US government seems to continue to recycle its policy of allowing corporate managers and executives impunity regardless of how repetitively harmful their actions might be to patients' and the public's health, I will recycle my comments from earlier in November, 2013,....

The latest settlement in the parade is another marker of the sort of conduct that big health care organizations have exhibited to increase revenue, and to use that revenue as a rationale for making their top insiders very rich.  The particular conduct alleged here could have put patients at risk, partly by deceiving health care professionals.  Yet in their wisdom, top US law enforcement saw fit not to try to hold any individuals accountable for this conduct, and allowed the company to deny any misconduct other than a single misdemeanor by a subsidiary.  This occurred despite the company's history of multiple legal settlements and findings of guilt in various courtrooms.

Yet none of these actions has resulted in any negative consequences for any individual within the company.  No one who authorized, directed, or implemented bad behavior will pay any penalty, even were the bad behavior to have lead to significant personal enrichment.

As we have said ad infinitum, and on the occasion of a previous Johnson and Johnson settlement, many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

As we have said before, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.

Roy M. Poses MD on Health Care Renewal 

Once More with Feeling - Johnson and Johnson Found Guilty, Fined $1.1 Billion

The latest legal black eye for giant pharmaceutical and device company Johnson and Johnson appeared in an Arkansas court room.  As documented by Bloomberg, via NJ.com,

Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $1.1 billion by a state judge after an Arkansas jury found the company’s officials misled doctors and patients about the risks of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

Jurors in Little Rock yesterday said the company’s marketing campaign also violated consumer-protection laws. The panel deliberated about three hours before finding J&J and its Janssen unit engaged in 'false or deceptive acts' by sending a 2003 letter touting Risperdal as safer than competing drugs to more than 6,000 doctors across the state.

The prosecutors had alleged a variety of kinds of deceptions about Risperdal,

Along with contending that J&J and Janssen defrauded the Medicaid program by failing to properly outline the antipsychotic medicine’s risks, Arkansas officials alleged J&J officials deceptively marketed the drug as safer and better than competing medicines.

The state also argued the companies marketed the drug for 'unapproved uses, including various symptoms in children and the elderly' after being warned by federal authorities to halt such sales.

In summary,

Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said in an e- mailed statement that he sued because residents in the state deserved to be protected from 'fraud and deceptive practices.'

He said that jurors found 'Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals lied to patients and doctors because they cared more about profits than people.'

Bloomberg noted that

It’s the third jury verdict against J&J, the second-biggest maker of health products, in cases where states alleged it hid Risperdal’s risks and tricked Medicaid regulators into paying more than they should have for the medicine. Louisiana and South Carolina juries also found the company’s Risperdal marketing violated consumer-protection laws.

In fact, this is just the latest in a remarkable string of legal cases suggesting an ongoing pattern of unethical and illegal behavior by this very large health care corporation. As we wrote recently, this included
- Convictions in two different states in 2010 for misleading marketing of Risperdal, as noted above
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010
- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by J+J's DePuy subsidiary
- A guilty plea for marketing Risperdal for unapproved uses in 2011 (see this link for all of the above)
- Accusations that the company, which makes smoking cessation products, participated along with tobacco companies in efforts to lobby state legislators (see post here)
- A guilty plea to misbranding Natrecor by J+J subsidiary Scios (see post here)
- More recently, in 2012, testimony in a trial of allegations of unethical marketing of the drug Risperdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary revealed a systemic, deceptive stealth marketing campaign that fostered suppression of research whose results were unfavorable to the company, ghostwriting, the use of key opinion leaders as marketers in the guise of academics and professionals, and intimidation of whistleblowers. After these revelations, the company abruptly settled the case (see post here).
- Most recently, there are reports that the company is in negotiation with the US Department of Justice to settle other lawsuits about the marketing of Risperdal, perhaps for as much as $1.8 billion (see this BusinessWeek story.)

Meanwhile, as we also discussed recently, Johnson and Johnson seems to have lost the ability to manufacture high quality products. It has had to make 30 separate product recalls since 2009. The latest was Liquid Infant Tylenol. (The current WSJ Health Blog list of recalls can be found here.)

So the real question here is how many instances of manufacturing of defective, mislabeled, contaminated, or harmful products, and how many court cases showing unethical or illegal behavior will it take until the leadership and governance of this company improves (and by extension, the leadership and governance of other large health care corporations with similar bad records improves).

As we posted not long ago, the CEO who presided over most of these messes will be allowed to retire with a huge golden parachute.  His devotion to "making the numbers," that is, hitting short-term revenue targets ahead of all other goals, probably had something to do with a company once thought of as a paragon of corporate behavior turning so bad.  Yet he became extremely rich doing this, and neither his riches nor his legal status have ever been challenged.  His successor apparently will be another former sales representative who may be just as devoted to "making the numbers,."  Thus has the business school dogma that short-term financial results, prettied up as "shareholder value," is the only thing that should matter to corporate leadership (look here) poisoned health care.

How many more doctors and patients have to be deceived, how many products have to be contaminated or defectively made before we demand better leadership of health care organizations?  

MISSING in ACTION on MEDSCAPE

MISSING in ACTION on MEDSCAPE

Charles Nemeroff has been in the news lately, under investigation by Senator Grassley for allegedly violating NIH regulations on conflict of interest and disclosure. The fallout to date includes his severance from several NIH-funded projects at Emory University School of Medicine, a freeze of NIH funding for a major center grant, and his stepping down from Emory’s chair of psychiatry while an internal investigation proceeds. Some amazing documents were released by the Senator. Among other surprises, they contained a scathing critique of a Nemeroff publication by Emory’s Dean Claudia Adkison, and evidence that Dr. Nemeroff tried to get himself off the hook within Emory by smearing third parties and blaming them for harassment. Now that these internal documents have been released by the Senate Committee on Finance and then appeared in The New York Times, Dr. Nemeroff will have even more explaining to do.

The word is finally out. Dr. Nemeroff’s credibility is under a cloud, to say the least, and his influence is rapidly waning. After all, who wants to be associated with a suspect and a loser? In the hardnosed, commercial world of Continuing Medical Education, for instance, the signs are that Dr. Nemeroff is toast. Whereas he once coordinated multi-city traveling CME road shows and a parade of spots on CME websites like Medscape, his profile now is suffering. Go to this Medscape website, for instance. You will find that his current Expert Viewpoint spots are missing, replaced by the message, “This article is temporarily unavailable.”

Well, good for Medscape. They came in for their share of criticism, here and here, a while back. Now they deserve credit for displaying ethical standards. Meanwhile, we are waiting for another company called CME Outfitters to get the message. Dr. Nemeroff is slated to moderate a raft of new programs for this company in the coming weeks, sponsored by corporations like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Ortho-McNeil Janssen. CME Outfitters' logo, after all, is Education with Integrity. Sooner or later the pharmaceutical corporations, like the CME companies, will understand that they are not helping themselves by trotting out a shopworn and sleazy KOL figurehead like Nemeroff for their marketing efforts. And other KOLs who up to now were willing to "wet their beaks" in these CME forums controlled by the Boss of Bosses Nemeroff will now be leery of associating with him.

The fallout continues.

Bernard Carroll

Variations on a Theme of Sleaze

VARIATIONS ON A THEME OF SLEAZE

A few days ago I posted on corrupt reports in two medical journals, where key opinion leaders (KOLs) and corporate employees misrepresented the potential of Janssen’s atypical antipsychotic (AAP) drug risperidone for depression. One of these reports appeared in a general medical journal, Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM), which confirms the designs of the corporate marketers: by volume, treatment of depression now is centered in primary care. Considering the weak efficacy data, the dubious risk-benefit profile, and the inferiority of AAP drugs to other options, there is no justification for the broad and early adjunctive use of these agents for depression in primary care. The Eli Lilly Company, which markets the combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine in a single pill (Symbyax), has the same objective. Other companies are moving rapidly into this market space.

Combining AAP drugs with antidepressants takes us back to the bad old days of antidepressant-antipsychotic drug combinations like Triavil in the1960s and 1970s, when we learned that depressed patients are especially susceptible to a serious adverse event known as tardive dyskinesia (TD) caused by antipsychotic drugs. While the risk of TD is less than with the early antipsychotic agents, it is still unacceptably high with AAP drugs for patients who are unlikely to show meaningful clinical benefit, as I detailed earlier. In adult patients with schizophrenia the risk of TD with olanzapine treatment is about 2.5% at 1 year. In children and adolescents treated with AAP drugs for 6 months the risk is an alarming 6% (Wonodi I et al Movement Disorders 2007; 22: 1777). In patients with mood disorder, these figures are likely to be higher. And this is before one even begins to factor in the metabolic toxicity of AAP drugs (weight gain, obesity, insulin resistance, and Type II diabetes mellitus)! Patients are not well served when AAP drugs are pushed for treating depression in primary care.

Medical journals are not the only compromised medium. Continuing Medical Education (CME) is a second front in the campaign to expand the AAP drug market. The standard formula calls for corporate sponsorship channeled through an “unrestricted educational grant” to a medical education communications company (MECC). The MECC employs writers to prepare the “educational content,” and academic KOLs are recruited to deliver this content. The KOLs are chosen for their willingness to be “on message” for the corporate sponsor. If they go “off message” they know they will not be invited back. The talk of “unrestricted grants” is window dressing. The MECC also secures the imprimatur of a nationally accredited CME sponsor, typically an academic institution. The sponsor is paid to certify that the CME program meets the standards of the Accreditation Council on Continuing Medical Education (ACCME). Everybody turns a buck: the MECC and its staff are handsomely paid (CME is now a multi-billion dollar business); the KOLs are generously rewarded with honoraria and perquisites; the academic sponsor is well paid by the MECC; the ACCME receives dues from the academic sponsor; the audience obtains free CME credits rather than having to pay for these required educational experiences; and the corporate sponsor gets what it considers value for its marketing dollar.

ACCME standards include clear identification of off-label drug use; full and fair disclosure of clinical trial results, warts and all; and clinical guidance to the audience about risks, benefits, and treatment options. It is not an exaggeration to say that these standards are more often honored in the breach than in the observance. That is because CME events have been degraded to little more than thinly veiled advertising, built around promoting a product rather than around education. So corrupted has the process become that the Macy Foundation recently recommended that industry financing of CME be ended, “whether such support is provided directly or indirectly through subsidiary agencies.” See Daniel Carlat for more on this topic. Is this position alarmist? Consider the following examples of corruption in CME.

A widely advertised CME program appeared on-line 6 November 2007, titled Treatment-Refractory Depression: Is there a Role for Atypical Antipsychotics? Note the leading question and the product category focus. The program was developed by the MECC PeerView Institute for Medical Education, and it was sponsored by the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, which certified CME credits. Like the journal articles I discussed last week, this CME program is marked by a concatenation of deceits. The major messages were, augment earlier rather than later; AAP drugs are “an emerging therapeutic option” for augmentation (note the branding language); and AAP drugs are efficacious. None of these messages is based on credible evidence.

The first sleight of hand was the leadoff presentation, which featured the STAR*D study results concerning remission and response rates to adjunctive treatments or switching after various levels of treatment failure. The data naturally suggest unmet needs in treating depression (a favorite theme of marketers). The unspoken implication of this academic veneer is that the later studies described in the CME program were comparable to the STAR*D study in terms of case material, which is not so. Recruitment to STAR*D was explicitly different from recruitment to the usual experimercial sponsored by a drug company, where many cases come from contract research organizations, not from clinical referral streams. Moreover, STAR*D was a purely descriptive study that by design could not identify specific treatment effects.

Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD from Emory University (yes, the same) discussed short term use of AAP drugs. His presentation is a model of being economical with the truth. Dr. Nemeroff has clearly mastered the art of accommodating his many corporate clients. He discussed 4 atypical antipsychotic drugs as augmenting agents for nonresponding depression. When discussing olanzapine he went beyond his short term remit to suggest that long term treatment is efficacious, yet he neglected to address the neurological or metabolic toxicity of long term olanzapine. When discussing risperidone he did not disclose that he was senior author of the major report he described and cited; he neglected to disclose the retractions he and Mark Rapaport from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center had been obliged to publish; he neglected to disclose that treatment with risperidone beyond 6 weeks was no more efficacious than placebo. That aspect was discussed by another speaker, who repeated Dr. Nemeroff’s now-retracted and discredited claims for significant long term preventive efficacy of risperidone in a subgroup of patients. Dr. Nemeroff made further claims about risperidone improving sexual function in patients receiving an SSRI antidepressant but he failed to disclose that beyond 6 weeks risperidone impaired sexual function in women who were receiving the SSRI; he backed up his claims about risperidone and sexual functioning by citing his publication in his own journal Neuropsychopharmacology that contained no data whatsoever on the matter; and he neglected to address the metabolic toxicity of risperidone that the corporation disclosed on ClinicalTrials.gov. He also falsely stated that the short term efficacy of risperidone in nonresponding depression was demonstrated in a controlled study, citing his own open-label study. These problems were called to the attention of the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA. In response, the CME program was revised on January 11, 2008. Dr. Nemeroff’s material now contained a different citation that again contained no data concerning sexual side effects. They removed the claim that the short term efficacy of risperidone had been established in a controlled trial (although by then the problematic report of this very issue in AIM had been published for over 2 months). The inadequate discussion of the toxicity of risperidone in Dr. Nemeroff’s trial was unchanged, and another speaker continued to repeat the retracted and discredited claims of Dr. Nemeroff for significant long term preventive efficacy of risperidone in a subgroup of patients. No explanation of the changes made on January 11, 2008 in the on-line materials was provided by UCLA to CME readers who had studied the erroneous and biased material for more than 2 months. Other speakers made passing reference to the metabolic toxicity of AAP drugs but only in a perfunctory way that had no educational value, like what we see in direct-to-consumer advertising. Nobody mentioned the risk of TD.

As the Macy Foundation report makes clear, CME providers are expected to give learners guidance on the risk-benefit balance of new treatments. It is disingenuous of Dr. Nemeroff to talk up risperidone for short term treatment of these difficult depressions by exaggerating the benefit, downplaying the risks, avoiding comparison with alternative treatments, and glossing over the problem of longer term loss of efficacy. These are clear violations of ACCME principles.

When discussing aripiprazole for nonresponding depression, Dr. Nemeroff once again was economical with the truth. Note that Bristol-Myers Squibb, the marketer of aripiprazole, sponsored this PeerView/UCLA program. To document his claims about aripiprazole, Dr. Nemeroff cited one Abstract from the American Psychiatric Association meeting in May 2007. That does not meet ACCME standards of documentation for learners, most of whom would be unable to access the cited Abstract (not that it would tell them much even if they could). For some reason, Dr. Nemeroff did not inform learners that the complete report of the aripiprazole study had appeared in June 2007 (Berman RM et al. J Clin Psychiatry 2007;68: 843-853), fully 5 months before the CME event went on-line. From that readily available report it is clear that the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for response with aripiprazole is 10, which compares unfavorably with a NNT of 4 for lithium, the best established augmenting option in placebo-controlled trials. A NNT of 10 means a clinician would need to treat 10 patients with aripiprazole before obtaining one remission that would not have occurred anyway with placebo. That does not constitute compelling clinical benefit. Dr. Nemeroff did not candidly discuss these troubling data. Dr Nemeroff provided his CME audience none of the remission or response data from the published aripiprazole study, though these data were readily available. These omissions of published, highly relevant information signify disrespect for his audience by Dr. Nemeroff, incompetence by the MECC, and failure of due diligence by the accrediting institution, UCLA, to ensure that accurate, balanced information and adequate documentation are provided. Likewise, no substantive risk-benefit analysis was provided to guide CME learners, and there was no meaningful discussion by Dr. Nemeroff of the metabolic toxicity of aripiprazole. The published report tells us that 7.1% of patients treated with aripiprazole gained more than 7% body weight, a very significant difference (p < 0.01) from the placebo treated patients (1.2%). Dr. Nemeroff did not share that information with the CME audience. Instead, he slyly minimized the appearance of the problem by showing a mean weight gain of only 2 kg with aripiprazole. In addition, the neuromotor toxicity of aripiprazole was remarkable (23.1% akathisia and 27.5% extrapyramidal symptoms). Dr. Nemeroff gave the CME audience no guidance about that problem or about its unblinding effect in the trial. Why do highly paid KOLs behave in this way? Do they think nobody will notice?

A final insult to CME learners in this program was the disclaimer that “The Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA is responsible for the selection of this report’s topics, the preparation of editorial content, and the distribution of this report” but “No responsibility is taken for errors or omissions in these reports.” Well, then, who is responsible? Why not UCLA, considering the ACCME standards and the fees UCLA received for sponsoring this CME activity through an “educational grant” from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company? Overall, it is difficult to avoid the impression that this so-called CME activity is a meretricious infomercial for Dr. Nemeroff’s corporate clients rather than a balanced educational event that aims to give practitioners considered guidance on a difficult clinical problem.

Will these revelations slow the marketing-inspired momentum for use of atypical antipsychotic drugs in depression? Not likely. Indeed, a new road show is right now getting under way, bringing the good news about atypical antipsychotic drugs in depression to CME audiences in Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and New York. Why now? Has some new insight been achieved that requires urgent communication to physicians? No. The road show has been launched now because aripiprazole was recently approved by the FDA for the secondary indication of adjunctive treatment in depression. It’s all about marketing. The faculty speakers are the usual suspects – KOLs and KOL wannabes who enjoy cozy or nepotistic relationships with the chairman. The funding is through another “educational grant” from the marketers of aripiprazole. The CME sponsor is an outfit in Texas that knows how the CME game is played. And the chairman of this new enterprise? Why, none other than the compromised Dr. Charles Nemeroff from Emory University. Why are we not surprised?

ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS FOR DEPRESSION?

Readers concerned about commercial influence know that the Devil is in the details when it comes to recognizing and exposing distortions like spin, bias and shills in journal publications. One guiding observation is that “For private companies, publication and a positive press have cash value…” (E.W. Campion, New England Journal of Medicine, 2004).

With an eye to the sly details, this posting will describe a current campaign to promote the atypical antipsychotic (AAP) drug risperidone as an augmenting agent in nonresponding major depression. The campaign aims to shape a favorable climate of opinion for the drug through experimercials (commercially strategic clinical trials) and journal publications that are really infomercials. The stakeholders are some major corporations, “key opinion leaders” (KOLs), leading medical journals, and several million patients who suffer from nonresponsive depression in the US. The winners are the KOLs and the corporations, while the big losers are the patients.

We begin with the November 2006 report of an experimercial testing Janssen’s AAP drug risperidone for nonresponding depression, published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology (NPP). This is the house journal of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP), which aspires to be the premier organization in its field. Bottom line: short term, open label, uncontrolled use of risperidone appeared to be helpful, but placebo-controlled continuation beyond 6 weeks was not effective in preventing relapse. The lead author was Mark H. Rapaport, MD from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. A co-author was the controversial Martin Keller, MD from Brown University, and the senior (last) author was Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD from Emory University, who was also editor in chief of the journal.

Dr. Nemeroff’s is a long-time KOL for Janssen’s efforts to create a favorable climate of opinion for risperidone in depression. He fronted for the company in presentations of the risperidone infomercial at the ACNP meeting in 2004, in a Janssen-financed journal supplement in 2005, and in co-authoring the 2006 infomercial in his own journal, NPP. Readers will recall that Dr. Nemeroff ran into problems in 2003 for failing to disclose his financial conflicts of interest in a Nature publication, and again in 2006 for failing to disclose his commercial ties in a review article he co-authored favorable to the Cyberonics vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device for depression (also published in the journal he edited). As a result of that episode, Dr. Nemeroff resigned as editor of NPP, but not before publishing the infomercial mentioned above on risperidone in depression. One wants to ask whether these publications that he co-authored went through a credible peer review in Dr. Nemeroff’s journal. One also wants to ask whether Dr. Nemeroff abused his position as editor to give product placement to his corporate clients Cyberonics and Janssen. And one wants to ask why the risperidone infomercial was published in NPP, given that the data had already been published by Dr. Nemeroff himself in another journal, in a special supplement financed by Janssen. This prior publication of the risperidone trial, that by journal policy should have precluded publication in NPP, was not revealed (cited) by Dr. Nemeroff and his co-authors. Did they think nobody would notice?

The main outcome of the risperidone trial reported in NPP was negative: long term use of risperidone did not prevent relapse. By assiduous secondary analyses and data mining, the authors found something positive to salvage their effort. They claimed by two analyses that risperidone was effective in preventing relapse in a subgroup of patients. In short order, however, they qualified the original report. First they belatedly disclosed the authors’ commercial ties to Janssen. A second Corrigendum retracted one of the claims of efficacy: by some process of Immaculate Conception, an “error” had occurred whereby a p value of 0.4 was transformed into a p value of 0.05, first in the text and again in the Abstract. This retraction occurred only because alert readers asked probing questions of the lead author, Dr. Rapaport. No author took responsibility for this compound misrepresentation in NPP. The “error” was so obvious that all authors and any conscientious reviewer should have seen it. You begin to see the picture: we have the appearance of editorial self-dealing, including product placement for a corporate client of the editor; an incompetent or possibly dishonest journal review process; and the appearance that somebody went out of his way in two places to insert a false claim of efficacy into the report of a negative clinical trial. Finally, we have reasonable cause to suspect that the KOLs did not actually read the article they were credited with authoring. For busy KOLs, tradecraft is a thing of the past.

Soon, more questions arose. In a letter to NPP published in 2007, I challenged the second claim of efficacy for risperidone in preventing relapse in a subgroup: the claim made in the journal and in two of Dr. Nemeroff’s prior publications did not match the corporation’s analysis reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. Rapaport, Keller and Nemeroff had “nudged” the statistical result of Janssen’s analysis from borderline to unqualified statistical significance. My letter also detailed how these KOLs downplayed the disturbing data on metabolic toxicity (weight gain): the raw data were stated but the unfavorable statistical analysis of those data that appeared on ClinicalTrials.gov was suppressed. The KOLs chose not to reveal that patients who received risperidone gained significantly more weight than those who received placebo. The appearance of bias and spin was unmistakable. In response to my letter, the lead author, Mark H. Rapaport, MD, who seemed to have been deserted by his KOL colleagues, abjectly disowned any claim of efficacy whatsoever for risperidone, while being nonresponsive to the charge that they had manipulated the risk-benefit profile of the drug. So now we have high profile academic KOL authors putting lipstick on the pig with both false and exaggerated claims of efficacy in a negative study, misstating the results of statistical analyses, and “burying” inconvenient toxicity analyses. Were the reviewers for NPP so incompetent that they could not see what any reader could see? One wants to ask whether this report, with the editor in chief as senior author, received any review at all.

So far so good: with Dr. Rapaport’s latest retraction, Janssen and its hired KOLs now disown any claim that risperidone is effective in long term prevention of relapse in nonresponding depression. What about short term treatment? The infomercial in NPP contained only uncontrolled, open label data on the short term efficacy of risperidone. That is the weakest level of evidence, even though it was touted by the KOLs with the message that many patients responded “rapidly and robustly.” Inconveniently, many of them relapsed even with continuation risperidone therapy. So much for robustness.

As luck would have it, Janssen reported a placebo-controlled short term study of risperidone in nonresponsive depression in the November 6, 2007 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM) (Mahmoud RA et al. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 593-602). The authors are Janssen employees who had been co-authors with Rapaport, Keller and Nemeroff on the now retracted NPP report. (Possibly in response to static over the earlier report, Nemeroff and Rapaport plus a few other KOLs were simply acknowledged as advisors instead of receiving co-author status on the AIM report).

The bottom line? Though there were some statistically significant differences favoring short term risperidone over inactive placebo by conventional rating scales, evidence of clinical utility was underwhelming. Once again, Janssen’s presentation of the results was biased: the authors used completer data for efficacy, which improved the appearance of benefit for risperidone, whereas they used Intent to Treat (ITT) data for toxicity, which minimized the apparent metabolic adverse effects of risperidone. Dr. Ralph Koek and I pointed out in an on-line response to the journal that when ITT data are used consistently the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for remission was 15.6 at 4 weeks and 10.2 at 6 weeks. Those NNTs do not indicate compelling clinical benefit for risperidone: an NNT of 15 means one would need to treat 15 patients with risperidone to obtain 1 remission that would not have occurred anyway with placebo. Moreover, the metabolic toxicity of risperidone (weight gain) was significantly increased over placebo, but the authors downplayed that problem by keeping it out of the Abstract, and it did not appear in the “Summaries for Patients” posting by the journal. Once again, Janssen used questionable manipulations to maximize the appearance of efficacy while minimizing the apparent risk of risperidone in nonresponding depression. This is called “augmenting” the risk-benefit profile.

So now there is evidence from two controlled trials that risperidone confers little significant benefit and has a dubious risk-benefit profile either in short term use or in longer term use for nonresponsive depression. In light of this evidence it is difficult to justify the broad and early use of risperidone or, probably, any other atypical antipsychotic drug in such patients. Richard Shelton, MD from Vanderbilt and George Papakostas from MGH concur with this conclusion, in a thoughtful review article that has just appeared on-line in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. These two investigators conducted several of the early trials of other AAP drugs in depression. They gave a timely warning about the late-appearing but often devastating side effect of tardive dyskinesia that can result from exposure of depressed patients to AAP drugs. Needless to say, that tissue was not addressed in either of the Janssen publications talking up risperidone for depression.

Studies of this issue routinely take the de minimis approach of testing AAP agents only against an inactive placebo, ignoring the problems of unblinding that occur when these sedating agents are used, and avoiding comparisons with other options. Quite possibly, any sedating or anxiolytic agent like off-patent trazodone would have effects indistinguishable from risperidone. The corporation’s goal is not to answer such important clinical questions, however, but only to clear the regulatory bars needed to expand the market for its drug. Patients lose out when an expensive atypical antipsychotic drug with an NNT of 10-15 is promoted while an inexpensive option like lithium augmentation, which has an NNT of 4, is ignored. But, as these experimercials are driven by marketing rather than by scientific or educational goals, the evidence that risperidone is inferior to lithium, the best established augmenting agent, is routinely ignored in the clinical trial reports.

So, here is the litany of sly tactics used by Janssen with the willing cooperation of KOLs like Nemeroff , Rapaport and Keller. Remember, these KOLs are paid directly or indirectly by Janssen for their association with the marketing campaign: design a clinical trial in which unblinding is guaranteed and ignore this confound which favors the drug; secure high profile product placement in a journal like NPP, with the cooperation of the editor; make false claims of efficacy in a negative trial report; when challenged, lamely try to pass off this compound misrepresentation as an “error” for which nobody accepts responsibility; take self-serving liberties with the results of statistical analyses so as to claim efficacy where none exists; suppress inconvenient statistical analyses of toxicity; manipulate the apparent risk-benefit profile of the drug; constructively plead nolo contendere to the charge of manipulating key data analyses; focus on the statistical significance of psychometric outcome measures while ignoring clinimetric measures of usefulness like NNT; bias the analysis of efficacy by using completer data; bias the analysis of toxicity by using ITT data; and ignore existing data that suggest the corporation’s drug is inferior to established alternatives.

Any one of these sly tactics might be viewed individually as an unfortunate slip, for which some will incline to give the authors the benefit of the doubt. The concatenation of deceits, however, speaks for itself. Readers ought never to underestimate the cunning and the venality of marketeers and their co-opted academic KOLs in corrupting the medical literature. In a future posting I will continue this sordid tale with illustrations from the equally compromised world of CME programs.