Two New Independent Reports on the Death of Dan Markingson, But Now What Will Happen?

Years after his death, there is now a little more clarity about the clinical trial in which Dan Markingson was enrolled when he died.  Whether this clarity will have any impact remains to be seen.

We most recently posted about the aftermath of Mr Markingson's death here, (and see posts in 2013 here, and in 2011 here.)  Very briefly, Mr Markingson was an acutely psychotic patient enrolled in a drug trial sponsored by Astra Zeneca at the University of Minnesota.  His enrollment was said to be voluntary although at the time he enrolled he had been under a stayed order that could have involuntarily committed him to care.  Despite his mother's ongoing and vocal concerns that he was not doing well on the study drug and under the care of trial investigators, he continued in the trial until he died violently by his own hand.  After his death, his mother Mary Weiss, friend Mike Howard, and University of Minnesota bioethics professor Carl Elliott campaigned for a fair review of what actually happened.  University managers not only rebuffed their concerns, but harshly criticized Professor Elliott, and ended up reprimanding him for "unprofessional conduct."

Two New Reports

In the last few weeks, two new independent reports on the case appeared.  Both vindicated the concerns and questions raised by Mary Weiss, Mike Howard, and Prof Elliott.

Association for Accreditation of Human Research Protection

One, called for by the University of Minnesota faculty senate, was by the Association for Accreditation of Human Research Protection,  and said that the university left research subjects "susceptible to risks that otherwise would be avoidable" (see this Minneapolis Star-Tribune article.)  Furthermore, according to a post in the Science Insider blog from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, it said,

[T]he external review team believes the University has not taken an appropriately aggressive and informed approach to protecting subjects and regaining lost trust,

Also, it said the university has been

assuming a defensive posture. In other words, in the context of nearly continuous negative attention, the University has not persuaded its critics (from within and outside the University) that it is interested in more than protecting its reputation and that it is instead open to feedback, able to acknowledge its errors, and will take responsibility for deficiencies and their consequences.

Finally, it noted a "climate of fear" in the Department of Psychiatry.

Office of the Legislative Auditor for the State of Minnesota

The second report, available in full here,was from the Office of the Legislative Auditor for Minnesota.  If anything, it was more damning. Its summary included,

the Markingson case raises serious ethical issues and numerous conflicts of interest, which University leaders have been consistently unwilling to acknowledge. They have repeatedly claimed that clinical research at the University meets the highest ethical standards and dismissed the need for further consideration of the Markingson case by making misleading statements about past reviews. This insular and inaccurate response has seriously harmed the University of Minnesota’s credibility and reputation.

It seemed to affirm in detail nearly all of Weiss', Howard's and Elliott's concerns.  It recommended that the University should suspend new psychiatric drug trials until the problems it identified were remedied (see Star-Tribune article here.)

Vindication, but Will It Lead to Progress?  

Taken together, these reports vindicate the work of Mr Markingson's mother, friend, and academic watchdog Professor Elliott and their supporters.  As the Star-Tribune reported,

'Over the past eleven years the University of Minnesota has made us feel as if we have no voice, no rights and absolutely nothing remotely called justice,' wrote Mike Howard, a close friend to Markingson’s mother, in a letter in the audit. 'This report is the first step toward accountability.'

The Minnesota Post added the response of Professor Elliott and a colleague,

'It’s nice to have an independent confirmation of what we’ve been telling the university for five years, but which they have refused to listen to,' he told MinnPost on Thursday.

Elliott said he is not convinced, however, that Kaler and other university leaders are going to take responsibility for what happened in the Markingson case — or take the necessary steps to fix the problem going forward.

'One of the most worrying findings in the report was the widespread belief on campus that the university leadership doesn’t care about human study subjects,' he said.

Leigh Turner, another U bioethicist who has also been outspoken about the issues raised by the Markingson case, expressed similar concerns. 'Can we expect reform from the very people who have done nothing for the past several years?' he said in a phone interview.

'I hope there’s some change,' he added. 'But the fact that [Markingson died in 2004] and it’s now 2015, I think hope has to be tempered with a dose of realism. There are some very powerful forces interested in minimizing the findings and suggesting that there are only minor things that need to be done.'

It appears there a several major remaining questions.

What Were the Underlying Causes?

Although both reports went into some detail about what happened to Mr Markingson, they seemed not to dwell on why it happened.  They did not seem to address relevant contextual factors, policies, and decisions.  For example, the report by the Office of the Legislative Auditor included,

We understand that the University of Minnesota has been and should continue to be an institution that delivers not only high quality medical care but also engages in cutting edge medical research— research that does pose risks to human subjects. In addition, we do not question the appropriateness of the University obtaining money from pharmaceutical and other medical companies to support that research. However, in every medical research study—whether supported with public or private money—the University must always make the protection of human subjects its paramount responsibility.

However, as we and many others more erudite have discussed frequently, clinical research that evaluates products or services made by the commercial sponsors of the research has proven to be highly susceptible to manipulation by these sponsors to increase the likelihood that the results will serve marketing purposes, and suppression if the manipulation fails to produce the wanted results.  Commercial sponsors often strongly influence the design, implementation, analysis and dissemination of clinical research.  Often their influence is mediated by financial relationships with individual researchers and with academic institutions who seem more and more beholden to outside sponsors, that is, by conflicts of interest.  The report by the Auditor noted pressures, including financial pressures on the physician who ran the study in which Mr Markingson was a subject to enroll more patients and keep them enrolled.  To protect patients better in the future, in my humble opinion the relationships among commercial sponsors, academic medical institutions, and individual researchers need further consideration.  Is the easy money supporting research coming from commercial firms with vested interests in the outcome of that research really worth the risks of biased results, hidden results, and to research subjects?   

Will Anything Change and Will Anyone be Held Accountable?

Once these two reports were delivered, it now seems to be up to university managers to make needed changes.  In general, these are the same managers who are described above as so "defensive," who not only ignored complaints, but appeared to try to silence those who complained.  If they are left in charge, why should we expect them to make any meaningful changes?  Instead, should they  not be held accountable for their actions?  

Will the University Cease Hostilities Against Dr Elliott?

Again, as noted above, university managers did not merely disagree with Professor Elliott.  They disparaged him, appeared to try to intimidate him, and reprimanded him.  It seems at the very least he is owed an apology.  So far, nothing in the news coverage suggests he has or will receive one.

Will Anyone Notice? 

So far, this case has gotten good coverage in Minnesota media.  However, it has largely been ignored in the national media.  Beyond Minnesota, I could only find mention in some blogs, e.g., in PharmaLot by Ed Silverman, and in Forbes by Judy Stone.  I have seen nothing in any US medical or health care journal, although the British Medical Journal did cover it in a news feature.  This case clearly has global implications, and ought to be considered one of the most important cases illustrating the perils of commercially sponsored human research, but it remains proportionately anechoic.

Summary

The latest reports seem only to confirm that clinical research at major academic institutions has gone way off track.  It now seems that in their haste to bring in external funding, university administrators and the academic researchers who are beholden to them have sadly neglected the protection of their own patients.  As we have said ad infinitum, true health care reform would turn leadership of health care organizations over the people who understand and are willing to uphold the mission of health care, and particularly willing to put patients' and the public's health, and the integrity of medical education and research when applicable, ahead of the leaders' personal interests and financial gain.

ADDENDUM (25 March, 2015) - See also numerous posts by Professor Elliott on the Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog,  by Bill Gleason in the Periodic Table blog,  and by Mickey Nardo on the 1BoringOldMan blog. 

ADDENDUM (30 March, 2015) - Note that after receiving offline comments, I changed the first paragraph to emphasize the clarity is about the trial, rather than the patient's death, and second paragraph to clarify that the order to commit was stayed.

Minimizing Legal Liability or Upholding the Mission? - the Markingson Case Redux

There are new, and troubling developments in the long running case of Dan Markingson, the psychiatric patient and research subject who committed suicide while enrolled in a trial of anti-psychotic drugs at the University of Minnesota nearly 10 years ago.

Summary of the Case

A good quick summary of this case just appeared in the Center for Law and Bioscience blob out of the Stanford Law School. 

Dan Markingson – a vulnerable, psychotic young man – was forced to choose between enrolling in a Pharma-funded drug study or being involuntarily committed (in other words, locked up).  A UMN [University of Minnesota]  doctor enrolled him in the study despite having just determined that Dan 'lack[ed] the capacity to make decisions regarding [his] treatment,' rendering it highly unlikely that Dan could have given valid informed consent to participate.  As Dan's mother, Mary Weiss, observed his mental condition deteriorating, she repeatedly tried to have Dan removed from the trial – at one point asking  'Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else before anyone does anything?'  But the UMN co-investigators in the drug study refused to terminate his participation.  Shortly after Ms. Weiss made her desperate plea, Dan Markingson killed himself by cutting his own throat.

Our most recent (2011) post on the case was here.  In it we also noted that there was reason to think:
-  The design of the controlled trial was flawed.
-  Financial conflicts of interests may have influenced the trial investigators' actions, particularly their questionable enrollment of Mr Markingson in the trial and their retention of him in it despite his apparent clinical deterioration.
Despite that, when bioethicists and the University of Minnesota called for a new investigation of the trial and what happened to Mr Markingson, the university rebuffed them.

Worse, as detailed in a 2012 post in the Center for Law and Bioscience blog, not only did university officials rebuff this call, but the university general counsel, who had been operating at the heart of this case, appeared to threaten the leading bioethicist dissident, Dr Carl Elliott:

 After Carl Elliott, the University of Minnesota bioethicist, refused to drop the matter, Rotenberg asked the university’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee to take up the question of '[w]hat is the faculty[’s] collective role in addressing factually incorrect attacks on particular university faculty research activities?' – a question that appeared both to accuse Elliott of 'factually incorrect attacks' and to call for some unspecified action to 'address' them.  Other faculty, including the president of the Minnesota chapter of the American Association of University Professors, viewed this as an attempt to intimidate Elliott into silence.  If so, it backfired.  The story ended up in the press, putting the Markingson case back in the public eye and once again making the University of Minnesota look really bad.

New Evidence Unearthed

In 2013, Dr Elliott made public what may be important new evidence in the case.  As summarized by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune,

The professor, Carl Elliott, says he has obtained consent documents for two separate schizophrenic patients that appear to be exact copies — not just in the subjects’ apparent replies, but in the positions of the lettering on the pages.

Elliott said it is improbable that separate patients would provide identical responses to the questionnaire, which includes open-ended questions about the risks and requirements of clinical research. And that, he said, raises questions about whether the university was really examining patients to determine their ability to consent to research.

 One crucial question about the case is how a patient who was actively psychotic - out of touch with reality - could give true informed consent to participation in a drug trial.  These new documents suggest major irregularities in the process used in the trial to assure that patients did give informed consent. 

Furthermore, as reported by the Minnesota Daily, other documents that Dr Elliott found suggested problems with records that related to whether study investigators would have had legal authority to access Mr Markingson's medical records, also suggesting major problems with trial administration. 

These documents, unknown until recently, suggest new concerns with how the study in which Mr Markingson was enrolled, and during which he died, was run.  Yet, the University of Minnesota's official response to them, once again orchestrated by university counsel Mark Rotenberg, attacked the legitimacy of the documents (and indirectly, attacked Prof Elliott again), as reported by the Star-Tribune,

the university’s general counsel, Mark Rotenberg, challenged the authenticity of the documents and disagreed that study recruiters failed to obtain proper and independent consent from mentally ill patients.

'I am challenging these allegations directly,' he said. 'We have no reason to believe the consent forms were prepared inappropriately.'

As Matt Lamkin wrote in the Stanford Law and Bioscience blog,  the University's responses all through this case have been focused  not on the welfare of patients, maintaining the trust of research participants, or the integrity of clinical trials, but on the legal defense of  the University and its leaders

Despite all this (and much more), the University has never acknowledged any errors or taken any disciplinary action related to the Markingson case and has repeatedly rejected calls for an independent investigation.  That’s probably because from the start the University has handled this case as a litigation matter.  Rather than trying to determine whether there were problems with the way its personnel treated Markingson, the University has focused on minimizing its potential liability.  Accordingly, the University appears to run every inquiry related to the case through the office of its General Counsel, Mr. Rotenberg.  When Carl Elliott (my mentor as a grad student at UMN) wrote a damning article about the case in Mother Jones, the University’s response came from Rotenberg.  When UMN bioethicists called on the University’s Board of Regents to launch an independent investigation, the Regents deferred to Rotenberg.  Not surprisingly, he declined.

When you turn to your lawyer, you’re going to get a particular kind of response.  The GC isn’t in a position to take an objective look at the circumstances.  He’s an advocate.  His role is not to make sure the client has conducted itself ethically, but to minimize the client’s risk.  Asking your lawyer to respond to allegations of wrongdoing is like asking your PR flacks to do so.  Their job is to make their clients look good, not to make sure they’ve acted properly.

Note that this still begs the question of who the client is.  Is it the university, or the university's leaders?

Furthermore, as Mr Lamkin pointed out, the general counsel would appear to have a conflict of interest.  It may be he has an interest in defending his own actions, as well as those of his client(s), whether they are the university, its leaders, or both. 

In addition to Mr. Rotenberg’s role as the University’s top defender and advocate, there is another reason he cannot impartially consider requests for an investigation: the General Counsel’s Office is an important player in some of the disturbing events at issue.  As noted above, Rotenberg himself has been accused of attempting to intimidate and silence the bioethicist who has most doggedly sought an investigation.  The University’s lawyers are also responsible for the disgraceful silencing of Markingson’s mother, Mary Weiss.  After avoiding liability by arguing the University was immune from suit, these lawyers then threatened to force Weiss – whose son had died in a University doctor’s 'care – to pay the University’s legal costs of some $57,000.  The University used that threat as leverage to get Weiss to forgo an appeal of the trial court’s decision.

So as the University continues to refuse any new consideration of this this seemingly never-ending case, Dr Elliott has posted an online petition calling for an outside investigation.   We will see how Mr Rotenberg reacts to this.

Summary


A very troubling aspect of this case is that it has shown that the university leadership has seemed to care, at best, more about fending off litigation than upholding the university's mission.  The mission of the university is supposed to be discovering and disseminating the truth in a spirit of free inquiry.  Added to the mission of medical schools and university teaching hospitals is taking good care of patients, and putting the patients' interests ahead of all other concerns.  Yet, in this case, university leaders have not seemed to care whether in their haste to push back legal liability they were stepping on their faculty's academic freedom and free speech, the integrity of the medical research done at the university, and most importantly the rights of their patients and research subjects.  Furthermore, it is not clear whether they mainly feared the impact of litigation on the university, or how litigation might actually end up holding them accountable.

As Dr Judy Stone wrote in her Scientific American blog,

  it appears that UMN believes, as do many other institutions, that protecting itself from scandal and its consequences comes first and foremost and that, like the big banks, that it is too big to be punished.

Again, note that UMN cannot itself believe or protect.  People acting ostensibly on its behalf may have been protecting themselves from scandal, and believing that the size and status of their institution gave them, the leaders, impunity.

The case of Mr Dan Markingson is a continuing reminder that to reform health care, health care organizations need to be lead by people who put the health care mission first and are willing to be accountable for that mission.   I hope that eventually there is an honest investigation of this case, and a commitment to reform based on its conclusions.

See additional thoughts from Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, on the 1BoringOldMan blog, on the Periodic Table blog, and last but certainly not least, many comments by Dr Carl Elliott on the Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog. 

Nemeroff, Seroquel, and ACCME

Nemeroff, Seroquel, and ACCME

Roy Poses has discussed the atypical antipsychotic drug Seroquel (quetiapine) several times on this site, pointing out manipulation of clinical research results to enhance the appearance of efficacy, and suppression of studies with unfavorable results. I call this augmenting the marketed profile of the drug. Daniel Carlat has commented on published Seroquel data here and ClinPsych here.

AstraZeneca, the marketer of Seroquel, has also been busy with continuing medical education (CME) programs that augment Seroquel’s profile. Last December 8, one such program went on line, aired by the provider CME Outfitters. The program’s title was “Atypical Antipsychotics in Major Depressive Disorder: When Current Treatments Are Not Enough.” The corporate logo for CME Outfitters is Education with Integrity. I will allow readers to decide if the company is meeting its mission statement in this respect.

The key opinion leader engaged by CME Outfitters to discuss Seroquel and other atypical antipsychotic drugs was Charles Nemeroff of Emory University. He was joined by 2 KOLs-in-training, whom I will not name. The corporate sponsor that paid CME Outfitters and, indirectly, these presenters was AstraZeneca. I do not need to rehearse here the ethical issues that have surrounded Dr. Nemeroff for the past several years. Suffice it to say that, as a result of those issues, Dr. Nemeroff is no longer chair of the department of psychiatry at Emory University, he is no longer editor-in-chief of the ACNP journal Neuropsychopharmacology, he was removed from involvement with ongoing federally funded research grants at Emory University, and he was put on a short leash by the Emory administration.

On December 23, 2008 I filed a formal complaint about Dr. Nemeroff’s program with ACCME. My bill of particulars was lengthy, detailed, and backed up by extensive
materials. In due course, ACCME investigated the complaint and found that the program did violate ACCME standards. With respect to content, ACCME determined that Dr. Nemeroff’s program lacked sufficient information about possible adverse effects of treatment with atypical antipsychotic drugs; and failed to emphasize sufficiently the efficacy of alternative treatments. With respect to commercial bias, ACCME determined that bias existed as a result of the absence of contrasting therapy data, and through downplaying the drawbacks related to treatment with atypical antipsychotic drugs in depressed patients.

Following these findings by ACCME, the provider was notified of the violations in early September 2009, and the program was removed from the provider’s website. The sanitized statement of violations determined by ACCME does not capture the nuances of deceit, ineptitude, and deficient educational content in Dr. Nemeroff’s program. One remarkable example was Dr. Nemeroff’s citation of data, from one of his own publications, that were previously retracted. Did he think no one would notice?

A second example involved biased presentation of the sponsor’s data for Seroquel. Two doses of Seroquel (150 mg and 300 mg) were tested. Only the results for the 300 mg dose were statistically significant. Nevertheless, in the video presentation one of the junior presenters stated very clearly that there was “significant improvement in both response and remission with both doses” of Seroquel. That is a falsification of the scientific record. That falsification does not meet ACCME requirements for fair, balanced, truthful, and honest teaching. As moderator, Dr. Nemeroff was required to correct this false statement made by his junior assistant, but Dr. Nemeroff failed to do so.

The negative findings and sanction by ACCME against Dr. Nemeroff’s program are welcome, though I have to say it took ACCME an inordinately long time to complete their work. I also presented ACCME with several follow-on questions, which the Council is now considering. These are:

• Did ACCME notify the presenters that their program violated ACCME policies? If not, why not?

• Will CME credits be clawed back from physicians and other professionals who obtained credits through the noncompliant program? If not, why not? I believe this would be an effective form of negative feedback to the provider and the presenters.

• Does ACCME have a process to require the provider and presenters to ascertain whether any patients were injured as a result of the violations that created biased and deficient information in this program? If not, why not?

• Does ACCME require the provider to notify physicians and other professionals who completed the noncompliant program that the provider was sanctioned for violation of ACCME standards? If not, why not?

• Does ACCME require the provider to furnish corrective materials to such professionals in order to remedy the bias and incompetence to which they were subjected through violation of ACCME standards, and thereby to remove potential danger to future patients? If not, why not?

• Why did ACCME allow the noncompliant program to remain available long after the complaint was filed? I suggest that ACCME needs to place a hold on programs that are subject to active complaint. Had such a policy been in effect in December 2008, the violating program would not have been re-aired by the provider in early 2009, it would not have remained on-line for 9 months, and the damage to the continuing education community would have been contained.

• Will ACCME issue a public listing of sanctions it has enforced against providers and presenters? If not, why not? State medical boards do exactly that in relation to physicians and other professionals who violate standards of practice.

• Finally, I reminded ACCME that its primary constituents are patients, physicians and other professionals, not commercial or academic CME providers. It seems to me that ACCME was altogether too laissez-faire and dilatory in the way it handled this matter. At the time of my initial complaint last December, I requested expedited review precisely because additional airings of this violating program were scheduled.

The good news is that ACCME seems to have got the message that things need to change. As one of their officers wrote to me recently, “We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put into participating in our complaints and inquiries process. You have raised important issues that the ACCME will review and address.” I await their next communications on the remaining questions.

As for Dr. Nemeroff, he is yesterday’s news. The adverse findings by ACCME about his program serve as a reminder to corporate sponsors and CME companies that Dr. Nemeroff is so compromised by now that he has lost effectiveness as a front man for Pharma. Indeed, he is so toxic that he now glows in the dark.

MEDSCAPE'S CME ETHICS, PART II

19 June 2008

MEDSCAPE’S CME ETHICS, PART II

A few days ago I discussed Medscape’s parasitic use of professional organizations to embellish its mediocre CME offerings – “highlights” of the closed 2007 ACNP annual meeting, for example. One of the responses to my post called attention to Dr. George D. Lundberg’s video editorial of 13 June 2008, denouncing attacks on commercially sponsored CME activities. Among other claims, Dr. Lundberg, a past editor-in-chief of JAMA, stated that Medscape “follow(s) rules that prevent bias and improper influence.” He went on to boast that Medscape is “the largest single source of CE for health professionals” and that “We are just going to keep doing what we are doing. It is good. We are clean. Our work is transparent…. We welcome analysis and criticism. We function in the best interests of patients …” These words were spoken before Daniel Carlat and I published our critiques of Medscape a few days later (see here and here and here).

There seems to be a right hand – left hand problem at Medscape. Though I take Dr. Lundberg at his word about his intentions, I invite him to defend the products that actually appear under his oversight as editor-in-chief. Let’s look at a case study of an “Expert Interview” published on-line June 9, 2008 under the tagline Medscape Perspectives on the American Psychiatric Association (APA) 161st Annual Meeting, May 3-8, 2008, Washington, DC. A boilerplate legal disclaimer noted, “This activity is not sanctioned by, nor a part of, the American Psychiatric Association. Conference news does not receive grant support and is produced independently.”

The “Expert Interview” for our case study is titled “Pharmacologic Options for Treatment-Resistant Depression…” The featured expert is Charles Nemeroff, chairman of Emory University’s department of psychiatry. Dr. Nemeroff is well known for ethical controversy. In 2003 the Nature Publishing Group revised their policies on disclosure of financial conflicts of interest in the wake of Dr. Nemeroff’s widely publicized nondisclosures. In 2006 Dr. Nemeroff resigned as editor of the journal Neuropsychopharmacology after he failed to disclose conflicts pertinent to a review article he co-authored and placed in his own journal. As is always true of case studies, the devil is in the details if we wish to understand just how sly and subtle was the spinning. Here are some of the issues that arise from Dr. Nemeroff’s Expert Interview on Medscape.

1. Internal contradiction. The legal disclaimer noted above states that there was no grant support and that the conference news items were produced independently. However, Dr. Nemeroff’s featured item prominently acknowledges an unrestricted educational grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. These two companies jointly market aripiprazole, a member of a drug class highlighted by Dr. Nemeroff in his Expert Interview.

2. Infomercial format. The Expert Interview by Dr. Nemeroff resembles nothing so much as Lindsay Wagner promoting the Select Comfort Sleep Number Bed in television advertisements. Promotional statements are made without scientific backup.

3. Disease mongering. In this interview, Dr. Nemeroff backed away from his earlier strict definition of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), proclaiming that in his current view 40% to 50% of depressed patients have treatment resistance. This sleight of hand naturally expands the market for the agents he later promotes as augmenting agents.

4. The primary care “hook.” Dr. Nemeroff introduced a professional “hook” to primary care physicians, emphasizing the association of depression with cardiovascular disease. This strategy is a component of disease mongering. Dr. Nemeroff’s discussion of this association had approximately zero educational value. Why did Medscape not insist on more substantive content?

5. Inappropriate drug recommendation. In discussing the switch strategy from one antidepressant class to another for resistant depression, Dr. Nemeroff included a recommendation for nefazodone. That drug was withdrawn by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company several years ago because of hepatic toxicity. What kind of “expert” makes such a recommendation? And what kind of editorial oversight by Medscape waves through such an incompetent statement?

6. Uncritical reliance on uncontrolled studies. In discussing switch of antidepressant drugs, Dr. Nemeroff noted that in phase II of the STAR*D trial 25% of patients switched from citalopram to sertraline responded. Dr. Nemeroff’s discussion of that result was inadequate. He invoked a dubiously relevant effect of sertraline on the dopamine transporter (when you are stuck for an answer, invoke neurochemical mythology) but he ignored the default hypothesis that 25% would have been the placebo response rate had STAR*D been designed to include placebo control groups. This default hypothesis assumes that all SSRI drugs are basically similar in terms of efficacy. For an educational item in Medscape or anywhere else, this aspect of the Expert Interview falls short of expected standards.

7. Pushing dangerous drugs. Dr. Nemeroff has been a leader in promoting use of second generation antipsychotic (SGA) drugs as augmenting agents for resistant depression. I have commented previously on his promotion of risperidone for this purpose, here and here. Others have raised serious questions about his reports. Overall, Dr. Nemeroff promotes these drugs by exaggerating their efficacy and glossing over their toxicity in resistant depression.

8. False statements. In this Expert Interview, Dr. Nemeroff leads off his discussion of SGA drugs for TRD with an endorsement of risperidone. The 2 published references to risperidone in TRD have major scientific flaws. Indeed, the study by Rapaport et al (reference 12 in this interview)was retracted. Nevertheless, Dr. Nemeroff still claims this study supports his position on SGA use in TRD. Does Dr. Nemeroff not read the retractions of his own publications (by his own “research team”)? How naïve are Medscape’s editors to be ignorant of these retractions?

9. Talking up the sponsor’s product. In reviewing the toxicity of SGA drugs for TRD, Dr. Nemeroff found something negative to say about the side effects of olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone. However, he made no mention of aripiprazole’s side effects, even though he emphasized its recent approval by the FDA for TRD. How convenient, as BMS-Otsuka sponsored his Medscape spot. Where were Medscape’s editors, described by George Lundberg as working to prevent bias and improper influence?

10. Glossing over weak efficacy. Though Dr. Nemeroff endorsed aripiprazole for TRD, he neglected to discuss the weak efficacy of this drug. The Number Needed to Treat for remission with aripiprazole in TRD is a disappointing 10. The studies cited by Dr. Nemeroff only compared aripiprazole against placebo. Dr. Nemeroff surely knows that just beating placebo does not qualify a drug as clinically useful. Dr. Nemeroff neglected to address the comparative efficacy of aripiprazole versus established treatments of TRD, such as lithium augmentation. The available evidence suggests that patients will do better on lithium and that aripiprazole would not be the first line choice, especially in primary care. Where were Medscape’s editors?

11. Reckless promotion of SGAs early in the course of TRD. Dr. Nemeroff emphatically stated he is not opposed to the early use of SGAs for TRD. Here especially he resembled Lindsay Wagner. A conscientious educator would weigh the risks and benefits of the early and broad use of SGA drugs in TRD. Dr. Nemeroff did no such thing. He simply opined. Why did Medscape’s editors allow him to get away with this reckless promotion? There does not appear to have been any effective editorial oversight of this publication.

12. For Dr. Nemeroff to promote early use of SGAs in TRD is reckless because of the serious toxicity associated with these drugs. Where is the discussion of akathisia (26% in the most recent study of aripiprazole in TRD)? Where is the discussion of emergent suicidality associated with akathisia in depression? Where is the discussion of tardive dyskinesia caused by aripiprazole (5% within 12 months in schizophrenia, and quite possibly higher in mood disordered patients)? Where is the discussion of neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with SGAs like aripiprazole? Where is the discussion of weight gain with aripiprazole in TRD (significantly greater than with placebo)? Where is the overall analysis of risk versus benefit? Where were Medscape’s editors? Who at Medscape was looking out for “the best interests of patients”?

13. Incomplete disclosures. Dr. Nemeroff has a long history of recidivism concerning failure to disclose pertinent financial conflicts of interest. His record in this instance continues that sordid tradition. He failed to disclose that he is currently chairing a national series of CME meetings promoting aripiprazole for TRD, sponsored by, you guessed it, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Otsuka. Perhaps he thinks that because the money is laundered through a Medical Education Communications Company he doesn’t need to disclose it. Tell that to Joseph Biederman, who was called to task last week by Senator Grassley’s Senate Finance Committee for exactly that obfuscation. Dr. Nemeroff also failed to disclose his support from Janssen for studying risperidone in TRD. He failed to disclose his association with CeNeRx, that is developing MAO inhibitors, mentioned favorably in his interview. There is more, but these examples will suffice. Doesn’t Medscape know by now that Dr. Nemeroff cannot be relied on to report his conflicts appropriately? Does Medscape have knowledgeable professionals or ciphers in its editorial office?

So, this sleazy example illustrates many of the systemic problems that Medscape will need to correct if it hopes to remain credible. This documentation gives the lie to Dr. Lundberg’s claims that “We are clean. Our work is transparent.” One suggestion is for Medscape to abandon the degenerate form of scientific journalism exemplified by “Expert Interviews” and News items. In their present formats they cannot be truly educational and balanced items. They do not qualify for CME credit, as I verified with the company. They are simply vehicles for promoting sponsors’ products. And the Medscape staff seem to think their job is to ensure that the spin is firmly in place. Does George Lundberg really intend that?

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.

BLOGSCAN - Conflicts of Interest and Atypical Anti-Psychotic Drugs for Children

Another day, another report about how physicians are paid by drug, device, or biotechnology firms as consultants or to serve on speakers' bureaus, raising questions of whether such payments might influence the physicians' decision making, or whether their lectures and articles might end up furthering the companies' marketing purposes. Of course, there is evidence that even accepting small gifts may influence how people think about the gift-giver. And if one works part time for company x, common sense suggests one would be less likely to criticize company x's products, and perhaps more likely to criticize the alternatives. (See our relevant post here).

The Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry blog has lengthy comments about these issues in child psychiatry, especially as they relate to the use of atypical anti-psychotic drugs. See also the post on PharmaGossip.

BLOGSCAN - Curious Change in Finding from Risperidone Trial

On the Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry blog is a post about a curious change in the findings from a trial of the atypical anti-psychotic resperidone in depression.