Manipulation of 12,000 Medical Records Made Easy by EHR

This from a hospital in Canberra, Australia using a common ED EHR in that part of the world, iSOFT:

Canberra Hospital embroiled in data scandal
SBI Magazine (Secure Business Intelligence)
Jul 5, 2012 

A Canberra Hospital executive has admitted to manipulating Emergency Department records to make wait times and stays appear shorter than they were.

The executive told the Director-General of the Health Directorate they had made "approximately 20 to 30 changes to hospital records" a day from "late 2010" onwards.

ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corp.] News reported that the matter has been referred to police, while the executive has been suspended without pay.

Though the data manipulation was initially said to be motivated by concerns over job security, changes in 2011 and early 2012 were said to have been made due to "managerial pressure" to improve publicly-reported performance statistics.

This raises the issue that data manipulation might have been performed not just to improve reported statistics, but to cover up medical error, computer related or not, and thus deny injured patients or their heirs the right to legal redress.

"The only thing that worked to achieve benchmark targets was to alter the data," the executive later told investigators at PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), which was engaged by Health to perform a forensics analysis. The analysis is detailed in a new Auditor-General report (pdf).

In total, PwC found 11,700 performance records - about six percent of all records stored in the hospital's iSOFT emergency department information solution (EDIS) - had been altered.

It is believed more staff at Canberra Hospital altered records than the executive that has so far admitted responsibility.  "While an executive has admitted to changing EDIS records, it is probable that EDIS records have also been manipulated by other persons with access to the system," the federal auditor-general noted overnight.

This is another area where electronic records make possible tasks that are probably impossible with paper.  Altering 11,000+ records would be hard in paper charts, as the alterations would likely stick out in a pronounced manner.

"The executive’s admission to Audit does not appear to account for all of the changes to EDIS records that have been made to improve timeliness performance."

For example, changes to EDIS records, albeit a much smaller number, appear to have been made on days when the executive was on leave (seven days in total in 2010-11 and early 2011-12). 

I am saddened to note, a proper term for this activity might indeed be "conspiracy":  a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future.

User access control, IT security failures

Poor controls such as generic logins and inadequate user and password security made it easy for insiders to game the data.

While EDIS was on approximately 259 workstations across the hospital and 253 users had permission to run the software, there were only 23 user accounts.

Of these user accounts, only eight were in regular use, including four named administrator accounts (specific to administrative staff) and four generic user accounts: CLERK, NURSE, DOCTOR and BEDMAN.

The generic accounts could be used by personnel across the hospital, not just within the Emergency Department.

Passwords for the four generic user accounts were "very poor" and had "never been changed". Password expiry was set at a default 999 days.

Audit logs were equally poor, not proactively checked and unreliable.

The proper term for these arrangements might be "gross mismanagement" of clinical information technology.

"A feature of the logging record is that it logs the changed field in EDIS and a number of other fields simultaneously, while not identifying which field was changed and what its original value was," auditors noted.

"Audit also notes that the logging record is also ineffective, because every entry in EDIS is logged from “Workstation 14”.  

"Although EDIS has been disseminated widely throughout the Canberra Hospital each of these users logs into EDIS using the common “Workstation 14”.

"This practice, combined with the use of generic user accounts, makes the EDIS logging information useless for investigations of unauthorised activity."

Furthermore, it was possible to edit EDIS records up to 72 hours after a patient’s treatment, providing a generous window for later unauthorised changes to the records.

These "features" sound like seller misdesign with regard to the metadata (logging records).

Noticing anomalies

It was only in April this year that a full inquiry was commissioned after "anomalies" in performance figures were spotted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).

The AIHW found an unusually high number of emergency patients that were reported to have been seen at exactly within the required time for their illness category.

For example, there was an unusually high number of patients who were reported to have been seen at exactly 30 minutes or 60 minutes.

In addition, an unusually high number of people checked out of the Emergency Department precisely 240 minutes after their recorded arrival.

If you're going to engage in this type of activity, at least be competent at it...instead of setting up a red flag bigger than the flag that used to fly over the Kremlin.

The records that were manipulated mean that publicly reported information relating to the timeliness of access to the Emergency Department and overall length of stay in the Emergency Department have been inaccurately reported.

The report could not ascertain the level of over‐estimation due to the lack of a clear audit trail identifying what were legitimate and what were fabricated entries in patients’ records.  

Timelines can be critical to proving medical negligence in court.  Further, if time data could have been manipulated, it seems clinical data could have been manipulated as well.

EHR data manipulation is of unknown magnitude worldwide, but I can imagine if it's easy to do and the benefits potentially substantial, electronic records could possibly be less trustworthy than paper records.

-- SS

Addendum:  while on the topic of clinical IT Down Under, there's also this:

Coast medical records system 'dangerous'
Stephanie Bedo
Goldcoast.com.au

July 6, 2012

SENIOR doctors say Gold Coast Heath's new multimillion dollar electronic medical record system is 'inadequate and dangerous' and could put patients' lives at risk.

Doctors have complained about the system, saying some patient documents are missing, it has log-in problems and 10-minute delays in accessing critical information.

Gold Coast Health was the first region in the state to move to electronic record-keeping, rolled out progressively from October last year.

Queensland Health spent about $200 million on the electronic medical record roll-out last year, which was delayed by 12 months because of problems with the software provider.

... Hospital cardiologist Dr Greg Aroney raised concerns about the system at a Griffith University forum on the future of health on the Gold Coast this week.

"Our system is totally inadequate and dangerous," Dr Aroney said.

Read the whole story at this link:   http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/07/06/429621_gold-coast-news.html

A similar story from the states where the doctors' complaints were actually ignored is at my Sept. 2011 post "Blake Medical Center (Bradenton, Fla.) Ignores Health IT Warning Letter From 100 Staff Physicians." 

Let's hope the Australian physicians' complaints are taken more seriously.

-- SS

Defending Academic Whistleblowers: Call Out the Marines?

At "Academic Medicine Deploys a Logical Fallacy to Avoid Disclosing Inconvenient Truths" Roy Poses wrote about the illogic employed by academia to weaken draft rules for researchers to disclose conflicts of interest.

Another major component of research in academia might be termed "gangster tactics against whistleblowers on wrongdoing."

In the following July 8, 2011 letter to Dr. Amy Guttmann, President of the University of Pennsylvania (courtesy the Project on Government Oversight or POGO), a Penn psychiatry researcher, Dr. Jay Amsterdam, has retained a law firm to represent him in alleged research misconduct by others at Penn, specifically Dwight Evans, the Chair of the Department, and an Associate Professor Dr. Laszlo Gyulai (note: I have never met and do not know any of the people involved):

"Dear Dr. Guttmann,

On behalf of my client, Dr. Jay Amsterdam, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, I would like to inform you that we have filed a charge of research misconduct with the Office of Research Integrity (OR!) against Dr. Dwight L. Evans, Professor of Psychiatry and Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Laszlo Gyulai, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. I have enclosed a copy of the complaint and referenced documents for your reference. As chairwoman of President Barack Obama's Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, I feel certain you will deal with this matter in a just and sincere fashion.

Letter, page 1 (click to enlarge)

Letter, page 2 (click to enlarge)

The allegations are not in themselves surprising (at least to me). The complaint is that the defendants misappropriated data from a study conducted by the plaintiff, manipulated the data, and used it in a ghostwritten article by a major journal, the American Journal of Psychiatry, in a concealed marketing effort to increase sales of Paxil by GSK. We have documented many examples of this type of behavior in medical research at this blog.

(By way of my not being surprised by such allegations, I personally have been involved as junior Yale faulty in that research university's professors' attempts to misappropriate my IP, a computer program I wrote for a Yale collaboration on birth defects in the Arab world, for their own use. My internal complaints were followed by severe retaliation, up to the level of blacklisting and extortion. Those attempts were aided by, of all things, an Associate General Counsel who was not authorized to practice law in the state, apparently not having taken the Law Boards. I put an end to that effort through legal means. This was followed a number of years later by attempted misappropriation of the same property by a Johns Hopkins-affiliated professor with his own software company in a DoD proposal. I also put an end to the latter effort, which involved informing the DoD.)

However, my purpose here is not to comment on the allegations of research misconduct. It is to comment on a subject that occupies three of the four paragraphs in the above letter - protection from retaliation:

... By filing this complaint, I expect my client to receive full and complete protection from retaliation and/ or defamation by either the University of Pennsylvania and/ or any other parties involved in publishing the referenced study. [E.g., GSK - ed.] It is my client's belief that the data from his study was effectively stolen from him, manipulated and used in a ghostwritten article published in the American Journal of Psychiatry in order to advance a marketing scheme by GlaxoSmithKline to increase sales of Paxil.

If any acts of retaliation and/or defamation are taken against my client, I will immediately inform ORI and the Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General. Furthermore, it is my understanding that several congressional committees have expressed an interest in investigating the problem of research misconduct and ghostwriting in academia and, thus, I intend to allow my client to fully cooperate with any investigation and will inform Congress of any retaliation against him for such cooperation.

To ensure this complaint is taken seriously, and to alert interested parties, I am providing copies of this correspondence to Senator Charles Grassley, Senator Herb Kohl, and the Chairman and Ranking members of the House Energy and Commerce, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

About the only resources left out of the list of protectors of the plaintiff from abuse are the Marines ... and perhaps a threat of "Frontier Justice."

That a law firm must include explicit threats to expose retaliation against whistleblowers to high-ranking members of Congress suggests Research universities and their corporate allies have become more like the Mafia than centers of novel scientific discovery.

This all reminds me of my Jan. 13, 1999 letter to the editor in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) entitled "Academic and Legal Aspects of Authorship Disputes."

As a result of my Yale experience (which, incidentally, also probably damaged nascent cross-cultural progress due to the unusual aspect of my work in facilitating improved care of children with birth defects in a Middle Eastern oil-producing Kingdom), I wrote a response to a July 1998 JAMA article on growing authorship disputes and abuses at Harvard Medical School ("Authorship: The Coin of the Realm, The Source of Complaints" by then-Ombud Linda J. Wilcox).

I wrote:

Jan. 13, 1999

To the editor:

I was alarmed by the statement in the article on authorship by Ms Wilcox [1] saying, "It is unreasonable for institutions to promise that they can protect individuals from retaliation for coming forward to complain through formal grievance procedures." Most organizations have policies on retaliation, especially with regard to grievances. If enforced, these policies can discourage such behavior and ensure the victim of redress. In addition, retaliation such as that mentioned in the public and federal sectors is downright illegal, and university employees fall under Department of Labor workplace standards and laws for their respective states.

Universities have serious ethical and credibility problems if they have such poor control over their employees that they cannot promise to protect individuals from actions contrary to their own grievance policies and that are probably illegal.

I continued on with the argument that lawlessness in universities was counterproductive and needed to be halted, but Ms. Wilcox' reply was more platitudinous than substantive about the 'helplessness' of universities in protecting their own from retaliation.

It seems little has changed.

To expect the best research from such an environment is like expecting silk purses to be manufactured by pork producers.

-- SS

BLOGSCAN: Forensic Statistics

Several interesting points are raised in the newsletter of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) in a post entitled "Forensic Statistics" in their July 2011 newsletter headlined "Numbers." Healthcare Renewal is cited:

Forensic Statistics

While claims from RCTs fail to replicate about 20% of the time, the problem with epidemiology is so bad as to constitute a crisis, writes S. Stanley Young (“Everything Is Dangerous: a Controversy,” National Institute of Statistical Sciences, June 2008, www.niss.org). Fewer than 20% of nonrandomized trials [e.g., observational studies - ed.] replicate; i.e. 80%-90% of epidemiologists’ claims are false.

More than $1 billion in grant/tax money flows to institutions with reproducibility problems, Young states. A fundamental flaw in their methodology is to ask multiple, often hundreds to thousands of questions, of the same data set. It’s like playing “maverick solitaire”: given 25 randomly selected cards from a deck of 52 playing cards, the probability of being able to arrange them into 5 “pat hands” (e.g. a full house) is 98%.

Since data miners are good at concealing their footsteps, critics need full access to the raw data and the code used for the statistical analysis—often not forthcoming.

The EHR software that is supposed to support all this “research” and to guide medical treatment also needs a forensic evaluation, writes Scot Silverstein, M.D., of Drexel University (see http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com). He cites such an evaluation of the Cerner FirstNet system used in New South Wales, Australia, done by Prof. Jon Patrick. The authoritarian implementation processes of the governmental HIT “support” staff were familiar to Silverstein, such as disenfranchising the clinical staff and failing to acknowledge the validity of complaints.

“Healthcare reform” demands acceptance because it claims to be based on science. But then, so did Communism.

The "maverick solitaire" data mining issues (to be used, no doubt, in future "comparative effectiveness research" based on EHR data) are a additional concern to those I raised in an essay "The Syndrome of Inappropriate Overconfidence in Computing: An Invasion of Medicine by the Information Technology Industry?" in the AAPS journal several years ago (PDF).

I can also add: where are the RCT's of EHR/CPOE systems?

-- SS

Is the Executive Branch/HHS Trying to Put Lipstick on a Pig Regarding Health IT?

In another example of executive branch spin on healthcare - this time, the Office of the National Coordinator of Health IT (ONC) within HHS - data that gave an off-narrative message about healthcare IT was initially withheld according to Modern Healthcare's Joseph Conn.

The data withholding is reminiscent of the data manipulation practiced in the pharmaceutical industry.

Legislative branch, take note:

Not-so-rosy rumors

By Joseph Conn

Modern Healthcare.com

Last week, Dr. David Blumenthal announced the results of two surveys funded by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology on hospital and physician participation in the federal electronic health-record incentive programs.

But Dr. B left out a few numbers in going over the results of the survey of office-based physicians conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. On request, the ONC and NCHS released those missing numbers.

Docs were asked: "Are there plans to apply for Medicare or Medicaid incentive payments for meaningful use of health IT?" Blumenthal reported on their answers in part, noting that 41.1% indicated "yes" and 14% said "no." However, a 44.9% plurality, which he did not mention, chose "uncertain whether we will apply." [Nothing to see here ... move along - ed.]

Those who answered "yes" were asked a follow-up question: "What year do you expect to apply for the meaningful-use payments?" Of the 41.1% of docs who indicated they were sure they would apply (a figure Blumenthal released), nearly one in five (19.7%, a number he didn’t mention) were unsure as to when. [Must be the Luddite faction - ed.]

Additionally, the NCHS asked physicians, "Which incentive payment do you plan to apply for?" Their responses to this question also weren’t mentioned by Blumenthal last week. Not surprisingly, given current eligibility thresholds, 65.1% selected Medicare and just 6.8% chose Medicaid, but again there was considerable uncertainty, with 28.2% choosing "unknown" or leaving the choice blank. [This finding suggests rank confusion to me more than anything else. In case nobody noticed, physicians are rather busy these days taking care of patients, and don't have time to find out what's in lengthy government documents - ed.]

Read the whole article.

It seems the executive is simply determined to push this technology onto a significantly skeptical physician community - skeptical of the incentives, of MU, of government intentions, and/or of the technology itself.

Of course, perhaps they feel that such data on a beneficent technology that will absolutely, positively benefit medicine and patients needs to be withheld - for the greater good, of course, which some people have to suffer to achieve (see the post "MAUDE and HIT Risks: Mother Mary, What in God's Name is Going on Here?"). ONC on healthcare IT in recent months:

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=3732&query=home
... The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States is inevitable. EHRs will improve caregivers’ decisions and patients’ outcomes. Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they will demand nothing less from their providers. Hundreds of thousands of physicians have already seen these benefits in their clinical practice. (Also see http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-england-journal-on-meaningful-use.html).

and

http://www.massdevice.com/news/blumenthal-evidence-adverse-events-with-emrs-anecdotal-and-fragmented
... [Blumenthal's] department is confident that its mission remains unchanged in trying to push all healthcare establishments to adopt EMRs as a standard practice. "The [ONC] committee [investigating FDA reports of HIT endangement] said that nothing it had found would give them any pause that a policy of introducing EMR's could impede patient safety," he said. (Also see http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/05/david-blumenthal-on-health-it-safety.html).

A good number of physicians still appear to possess critical thinking skills.

Perhaps the new Congress (i.e., legislative branch) can benefit from physician-style skepticism about health IT as well.

-- SS

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.

Medical Whistleblowers' Roundtable

PLoS Medicine just published a summary of a round-table discussion by notable whistleblowers about pharmaceutical companies' research and marketing practices, with an accompanying editorial. (The on-line journal stepped in as a sponsor 10 days before the conference, after the unnamed journal that originally was going to sponsor the meeting pulled out on its lawyers' advice.)
The conference underlined some of the issues that have appeared on Health Care Renewal. Some notable quotes:

• Betrayal of Mission: According to David Graham (who raised concerns about the safety of Vioxx), The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in a "collaborative relationship" with pharmaceutical companies. A senior FDA official told Graham, "industry is our client." The public may be excused for thinking that they are supposed to be the FDA's clients.
• Tactics to Increase Likelihood of Favorable Results: Several participants talked about specific tactics used by some pharmaceutical companies to increase the likelihood that research results will be favorable to their products. An anonymous industry scientist noted that it takes only two positive studies to get FDA approval. But if a study has bad results, "typically a company is not going to publish the study at all." Furthermore, he said "drug companies assiduously avoid acquiring information about side effects." Patients who have increased risks of side-effects "are excluded from studies deliberately, even though, when the drug is approved, these patients will be targeted for sales." He also charged that studies are deliberately designed to be too small, or be over too quickly to detect serious adverse effects.
• Conflicts of Interest: Several participants suggested how drug companies convey money to public officials to influnce state level decisions about drugs. One charged that officials who were responsible for writing state guidelines about psychiatric treatments could access a secret account financed by drug companies. He was told, "Look, drug companies write checks to politicians, they write checks to politicians on both sides of the aisle - back off." He was then advised, "quit being a salmon, swimming against a stream."
• Ghost-Writing: The anonymous industry scientist described the process of ghost-writing, "When studies are published, they are frequently written not by the trained research scientist, who might have designed and analyzed the study, but by a designated medical writer with little if any backgroun in research, but who is trained instead to craft the findings of the study in the best possible way for the company."

This is important additional evidence about how deep these problems run. Solving them will take a lot of salmon.