The "King of Pain" Recants - Pharmaceutical Paid Key Opinion Leader Admits It Was All "Misinformation"

This may be a first.  A Wall Street Journal story announced that the "key opinion leader" who played a pivotal role in the promotion of  aggressive use of narcotics to treat non-malignant chronic pain has had a change of heart.  

Background - Embracing Narcotics

In the long ago time when I was in medical school, the wisdom was then that narcotics (that is, drugs like morphine or heroin, the latter not legal) should only be used in severe acute pain, like that due to bad trauma or occurring post-operatively, or for the pain of terminal illnesses, like cancer.  The reason their use was so restricted was that the drugs were believed to cause frequent adverse effects, from severe constipation, to addiction, to respiratory depression and death.

However, starting in the 1990s, the conventional wisdom changed.  Suddenly, the focus was on the under-treatment of chronic, but not malignant pain, and it became permissible, or even preferable, to use potent narcotics for this purpose.  Physicians like me who were very conservative in their use of narcotics were chastised for under-treating pain.

The Wall Street Journal article explained how this radical change in approach was apparently engineered by a few key opinion leaders, particularly Dr Russell Portenoy.  It opened,

Two decades ago, the prominent New York pain-care specialist drove a movement to help people with chronic pain. He campaigned to rehabilitate a group of painkillers derived from the opium poppy that were long shunned by physicians because of their addictiveness.

Dr. Portenoy's message was wildly successful. Today, drugs containing opioids like Vicodin, OxyContin and Percocet are among the most widely prescribed pharmaceuticals in America. 

The article provided graphics showing that per capita prescription narcotic use has more than tripled since 1999, 

A Change Driven by Wishful Thinking, not Evidence

Unfortunately, as the article made clear, the radical change that seemed so odd to some of us physicians who were trained before the 1990s was not driven by any good evidence from clinical research.

Per the WSJ,

Because doctors feared they were dangerous and addictive, opioids were long reserved mainly for cancer patients. But Dr. Portenoy argued that they could be also safely be taken for months or years by people suffering from chronic pain. Among the assertions he and his followers made in the 1990s: Less than 1% of opioid users became addicted, the drugs were easy to discontinue and overdoses were extremely rare in pain patients. 

However, Dr Portenoy's contention seemed to be based only on a small case-series of patients, lacking any sort of control group, and too small and likely too selective to generalize, particularly to patients with chronic, non-malignant pain.(Portenoy RK, Foley KM.   Chronic use of opioid analgesics in non-malignant pain: report of 38 cases. Pain 1986; 25:171-86.  This article does not seem to be available online.)

In 1986, at the age of 31, he co-wrote a seminal paper arguing that opioids could also be used in the much larger group of people without cancer who suffered chronic pain. The paper was based on just 38 cases and included several caveats. Nevertheless, it opened the door to much broader prescribing of the drugs for more common complaints such as nerve or back pain. 

 Dr Portenoy also cited

the statistic that less than 1% of opioid users became addicted.

Today, even proponents of opioid use say that figure was wrong. 'It's obviously crazy to think that only 1% of the population is at risk for opioid addiction,' said Lynn Webster, president-elect of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, one of the publishers of the 1996 statement. 'It's just not true.'

The figure came from a single-paragraph report in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980 describing hospitalized patients briefly given opioids.

The reference here appears to be a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine ( Porter J, Jick H. Addiction rate in patients treated with narcotics. New England Journal of Medicine 1980; 302:123.  Link here.)  This was literally one paragraph long, so the methods of the research it reported cannot be rigorously evaluated.  In any event, the letter appears to have retrospectively documented an observation of hospitalized patients who were given at least a single dose of narcotics, and thus appears not relevant to the effects of long-term narcotics on patients with chronic pain. 

Thus, Dr Portenoy's enthusiasm for aggressive use of narcotics in non-malignant chronic pain was never based on any good evidence from well designed and performed randomized controlled trials with long-term followup that showed that narcotics were safe and effective in this setting.  At best, Dr Portenoy's and colleagues' contentions that narcotics should be liberally utilized for such patient were based on wishful thinking, not good evidence.


A Change Driven by Stealth Marketing

The WSJ article documented how Dr Portenoy was a prime mover in what appeared to be deceptive stealth campaigns to market narcotics for chronic, non-malignant pain.  Dr Portenoy's 1986 case-series

opened the door to much broader prescribing of the drugs for more common complaints such as nerve or back pain.

Charming and articulate, he became a sought-after public speaker. He argued that opioids are a 'gift from nature' that were being forsaken because of 'opiophobia' among doctors. 'We had to destigmatize these drugs,' said Dr. Portenoy.

He rose to chairman of pain medicine and palliative care at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York. His small office is studded with awards and evidence of his offbeat sense of humor. He prominently displays a magazine mock-up that jokingly dubs him 'The King of Pain.'

At medical conferences, his confident, knowing manner helped smooth the way for his message. Before an audience of government regulators, he once joked that he might tell a patient at low risk of abuse: 'Here, [have] six months of drugs. See you later,' he said, according to a Food and Drug Administration transcript. Amid laughter, he added, 'It's just hyperbole. I don't actually do that.'

Steven Passik, a psychologist who once worked closely with Dr. Portenoy and describes him as his mentor, says their message wasn't based on scientific evidence so much as a zeal to improve patients' lives. 'It had all the makings of a religious movement at the time,' he says. 'It had that kind of a spirit to it.'

So Dr Portenoy became a respected opinion leader.  His influence was demonstrated by how he generated disciples

 Dr. Portenoy's ideas about opioids reached into mainstream medicine and attracted outspoken advocates. In a 1998 talk in Houston, Alan Spanos, a South Carolina pain specialist, said patients with chronic noncancer pain could be trusted to decide themselves how many painkillers to take without risk of overdose. According to a recording, Dr. Spanos said he understood that a patient would simply 'go to sleep' before stopping breathing. While asleep, he said, the patient 'can't take a dangerous dose. It sounds scary, but as far as I know, nobody anywhere is getting burned by doing it this way.'

Dr Portenoy was affiliated with organized efforts that facilitated the marketing of narcotics for chronic malignant pain.  The marketing used clinical practice guidelines to push narcotics

Dr. Portenoy helped write a landmark 1996 consensus statement by two professional pain societies that said there was little risk of addiction or overdose among pain patients. 

The campaign enlisted government regulators, and thus seemed to include an element of regulatory capture,

One of Dr. Portenoy's chief complaints was that doctors were reluctant to prescribe opioids because they feared scrutiny by regulators or law enforcement. In the second half of the 1990s, he and his followers campaigned successfully for policies to change that.

In 1998, the Federation of State Medical Boards released a recommended policy reassuring doctors that they wouldn't face regulatory action for prescribing even large amounts of narcotics, as long as it was in the course of medical treatment. In 2004 the group called on state medical boards to make undertreatment of pain punishable for the first time.

This case demonstrated the direct involvement of pharmaceutical companies who sold narcotics,

That policy was drawn up with the help of several people with links to opioid makers, including David Haddox, a senior Purdue Pharma executive then and now. The federation said it received nearly $2 million from opioid makers since 1997. The federation says it derives the majority of its funding from administering medical licensing exams, credential verification, and data services.

A federation-published book outlining the opioid policy was funded by opioid makers including Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Soluttions Inc, and others, with proceeds totaling $280,000 going to the federation. .

 The campaign also involved an important hospital accrediting organization

In 2001, the Joint Commission, [JCAHO] which accredits U.S. hospitals, issued new standards telling hospitals to regularly ask patients about pain and to make treating it a priority. The now-familiar pain scale was introduced in many hospitals, with patients being asked to rate their pain from one to 10 and circle a smiling or frowning face.

The Joint Commission published a guide sponsored by Purdue Pharma. 'Some clinicians have inaccurate and exaggerated concerns" about addiction, tolerance and risk of death, the guide said. "This attitude prevails despite the fact there is no evidence that addiction is a significant issue when persons are given opioids for pain control.'

A Change Leading to Personal Enrichment

Meanwhile, Dr Portenoy was personally profiting from his relationships with pharmaceutical companies

Over his career, Dr. Portenoy has disclosed relationships with more than a dozen companies, most of which produce opioid painkillers. 'My viewpoint is that I can have those relationships, they would benefit my educational mission, they benefit in my research mission, and to some extent, they can benefit my own pocketbook, without producing in me any tendency to engage in undue influence or misinformation,' he said.

Dr. Portenoy and Beth Israel declined to provide details of their funding by drug companies. A 2007 fundraising prospectus from Dr. Portenoy's program shows that his program received millions of dollars over the preceding decade in funding from opioid makers including Endo, Abbott Laboratories, Cephalon, Purdue Pharma and  Johnson & Johnson.  

He currently also appears to be on the advisory boards of  Zars Pharma Inc,  Relevare Therapeutics, and Cytogel Pharma.

Thus, it seems that Dr Portenoy fit the usual definition of key opinion leader.  He was regarded as an authority in his area and his opinions were obviously influential.  He was paid by health care corporations with interests in selling their goods or services, in this case, narcotic drugs, and was using his influence to promote individual patient care decisions and policy decisions that facilitated the widespread use of these drugs. 

A Change Leading to Sick and Dead Patients

Since the campaign to "destigmatize" narcotics began, the US has seen what many have called an epidemic of narcotic adverse effects.  The WSJ article provided graphs showing that narcotic related deaths and hospital admissions both increased more than five times since 1999.   As the WSJ put it,

 some specialists now question whether the drugs should be prescribed so freely for months or years to people with chronic pain that isn't related to cancer, as Dr. Portenoy proposed 25 years ago. "People lost sight of the fact that these are dangerous drugs that are highly addictive," said Jane Ballantyne, a pain specialist at the University of Washington. She once agreed with Dr. Portenoy and proponents of broad opioid use but now believes they need to be used more selectively.

Dr Portenoy Recants

What is most remarkable about this case is that it seems to be the first in which a highly influential industry paid key opinion leader has publicly had a change of heart.

Now, Dr. Portenoy and other pain doctors who promoted the drugs say they erred by overstating the drugs' benefits and glossing over risks. 'Did I teach about pain management, specifically about opioid therapy, in a way that reflects misinformation? Well, against the standards of 2012, I guess I did,' Dr. Portenoy said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. 'We didn't know then what we know now.'

I would note there is some sophistry there.  There was never good evidence for narcotics' effectiveness or safety for patient with chronic, non-malignant pain.

In fact, Dr Portenoy also admitted that, sort of,

'Data about the effectiveness of opioids does not exist,' Dr. Portenoy said in his recent Journal interview. To get a painkiller approved, companies must prove that it is better at reducing pain than a sugar pill during short trials often lasting less than 12 weeks. 'Do they work for five years, 10 years, 20 years?' Dr. Portenoy said in the Journal interview. 'We're at the level of anecdote.'

Again, it is not that the data that supported the use of the drugs has disappeared, or that new data has been developed that contradicts the old data.  There never has been any good data, that is, from well designed and performed randomized controlled trials that demonstrate that the benefits of narcotics outweigh their harms for patients with chronic, non malignant pain.  It does not exist now and it never existed.

Dr Portenoy also admitted,

'I gave innumerable lectures in the late 1980s and '90s about addiction that weren't true,' Dr. Portenoy said in a 2010 videotaped interview with a fellow doctor. The Journal reviewed the conversation, much of which is previously unpublished.

In it, Dr. Portenoy said it was 'quite scary' to think how the growth in opioid prescribing driven by people like him had contributed to soaring rates of addiction and overdose deaths. 'Clearly, if I had an inkling of what I know now then, I wouldn't have spoken in the way that I spoke. It was clearly the wrong thing to do,' Dr. Portenoy said in the recording.

So not only did the Wall Street Journal article describe how the overuse of narcotics for chronic, non-malignant pain came from wishful thinking energized by the possibility of corporate and personal profit, it showed how the chief medical cheer leader for these drugs now admits he was wrong.


Summary

In summary, it appears that the huge increase in the use of narcotics to treat chronic, non-malignant pain was never based on clear convincing evidence from well-designed studies.  At best it was based on irrational enthusiasm and wishful thinking by some very vocal and persuasive advocates.  These advocates seemed to become "key opinion leaders," that is, influential people who promoted the use of pharmaceuticals while they were being paid by pharmaceutical companies, and were likely involved in what appears to be systematic stealth marketing campaign by the pharmaceutical companies that make narcotics.  These campaigns included production of clinical practice guidelines promoted as authoritative, and enlistment of accrediting organizations and government regulatory agencies.

One particularly disturbing part of this story was the involvement of numerous people and organizations  entrusted by society to promote good medical care.  It shows how physicians, other health professionals, and the public at large must be very skeptical of vocal advocates of new, aggressive, "innovative" approaches, of clinical practice guidelines even those developed by apparently prestigious professional societies, of accrediting organizations, and of government regulators.  That is discouraging, and could lead to the cynical approach of simply not trusting anyone.

I would note, however, that two ways the headlong rush to over-use of narcotics could have been derailed would have been:
-  employment of extreme skepticism of people paid by narcotics manufacturers advocating increased use of these drugs, no matter how distinguished, scholarly, or influential these people appear to be.  This suggests the need for general skepticism of people with financial relationships with health care corporations pushing the goods or services these corporations provide, or pushing policies that would aid the selling of those goods or services
-  a rigorous evidence-based medicine approach, meaning making clinical and policy decisions based on the best evidence found by systematic search from rigorously evaluated clinical research about the benefits and harms of these decisions, informed by patients' values.  Such an approach would have revealed there was never any good clinical evidence to support long-term use of narcotics for chronic, non-malignant pain, the particular "innovation" being pushed in this case.

So I would argue that the case of the legal narcotics pushers underlines the need for utmost transparency about conflicts of interest affecting people and organizations that advocate for particular approaches to health care, and to the management of individual patients; continuing movement to bar at least the most egregious conflicts, as per the Institute of Medicine report on the topic (look here); and the need for the very skeptical, rigorous application of true evidence-based medicine approaches.  

Finally, I must note that this seems to be the first time that a prominent, highly influential key opinion leader  has recanted.  Maybe he will write an article entitled "Dr Drug Pusher?" - just joking, but at least one former  key opinion leader did write the confessional  "Dr Drug Rep."  Maybe this is the beginning of a movement toward health care based on logic and evidence rather than wishful thinking, irrational enthusiasm, or ideology, or even worse, on deception or personal enrichment.     

Giant GSK Settlement Provides Reminder of the Pervasiveness of Stealth Marketing

The latest  and biggest legal settlement involving health care to hit the news, that of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the US government, has many familiar elements. As summarized by the New York Times,

In the largest settlement involving a pharmaceutical company, the British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a top diabetes drug, federal prosecutors announced Monday. The agreement also includes civil penalties for improper marketing of a half-dozen other drugs.

As was the case for nearly every other legal settlement we have discussed,

No individuals have been charged in any of these cases.

Thus, how well even such a large settlement will deter future wrong-doing is not clear.

Nonetheless, the documents released with it provide good documentation about how pervasive systematic, deceptive stealth marketing campaigns have become in health care. 

In particular, the official "complaint" filed by the US Department of Justice emphasized all these elements in the stealth marketing of paroxetine (Paxil, Seroxat in the UK) to adolescents.

Manipulation of Clinical Research

We have frequently discussed how health care corporations, particularly pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device companies, now sponsor  the majority of clinical research.  Their control of the design, implementation, analysis and dissemination of clinical research allows manipulation that increases the likelihood that the results will be favorable to their vested interests, usually the products and services they sell. 

We have previously discussed the manipulation of Study 329 to promote the marketing of Paxil (look here and here).  However, the US DOJ document makes these concerns more official.  It included:

Manipulation of Study Endpoints

Study 329 was a randomized controlled trial of Paxil vs imipramine vs placebo for depression in adolescents. The two primary endpoints pre-specified to the US Food and Drug Administration were "the degree to which a patient's Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression ('HAM-D') total score changed from baseline"; and "the patient's 'response' to medication, as defined as (a) a 50% or greater reduction in the patient's HAMD-D score, or (b) a HAM-D score of less than or equal to 8." However, initial analysis by GSK failed to show that Paxil improved either of these two end-points. The company concluded "it would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of [Paxil]."

So the analysis emphasized secondary outcomes, the "Study 329 investigators later added several additional efficacy measures not specified in the protocol. Paxil separate statistically from placebo on certain of these measures." Adding numerous post-hoc measures increased the likelihood of finding a difference on at least one due to chance alone.

Manipulation of Data

Initial analysis of the data suggested that patients given Paxil experienced 11 serious adverse events, including five that appeared related to suicidal ideation or action. When the FDA later reexamined the data, "upon closer examination the number of possible suicide-related events among the Study 329 Paxil patients increased beyond the five patients GSK described in the JACAAP article as having 'emotional lability.' While collecting saftey information for the FDA, GSK admitted that there were four more possible suicide-related events among Paxil patients in Study 329. In addition the FDA later identified yet another possible suicide-related event in the Study 329 Paxil patients, which was also not among the 11 serious advents listed in the JAACAP article. Thus, altogether, 10 of the 93 Paxil patients in Study 329 experienced a possible suicidal event, compared to one in 87 patients on placebo. This is a fundamentally different picture of Paxil's pediatric safety profile than the one painted by the JAACAP article...." 

Manipulation of Dissemination

The report describing the results of Study 329 (Keller MB, Ryan ND, Strober M et al.  Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized controlled trial.  J Am Acad Child Adolescent Psychiatry 2001; 40: 762-772.  Link here. ) was written under the control of GSK. "In April 1998, GSK hired Scientific Therapeutics Information, Inc (STI) to prepare a journal article about Study 329. GSK worked closely with STI on the article by providing a draft clinical report to 'serve as a template for the proposed publication.'"

The published report of Study 329 "mischaracterized the results." "Although the ... article identified the study's two primary endpoints in the abstract, the article did not explicitly state that Paxil failed to show superiority to placebo on either of the primary efficacy measures." Also, "the article did not explicitly identify the two protocol-specified primary outcome measures - or that Paxil failed to show superiority to placebo on these two measures. Instead the article claimed that there were eight efficacy measures and that Paxil was statistically superior to placebo on four of them." In addition, "while the article listed the five protocol-defined secondary endpoints, the text of the article omitted any discussion regarding three of the secondary measures on which Paxil failed to statistically demonstrate its superiority to placebo and instead focused on the five secondary measures that GSK added belatedly and never incorporated into the Study 329 protocol. The article claimed that these finve secondary measures had been identified 'a priori,' therefore incorrectly suggesting that all secondary endpoints had been part of the original study protocol." In other words, the final published articles contained multiple outright falsehoods about the drug's efficacy that exaggerated that efficacy.

Furthermore, initial analysis showed that patients given Paxil had more serious adverse events than others. An initial draft of the study article stated, "serious adverse events occurred in 11 patients in the paroxetine group, 5 in the imipramine group, and 2 in the placebo group." These included "headache during down-titration(1 patient), and various psychiatric events (10 patients): worsening depression (2); emotional lability (e.g., suicidal ideation/ gestures, overdoses), (5); conduct problems or hostility (e.g., aggressiveness, behavioral disturbance in school) (2); and mania (1)." As noted above, the number of suicide related events was actually double that noted in this draft as "emotional lability."  However, the published version of the report "falsely state[d] that only one of the 11 serious adverse events in Paxil patients was considered related to treatment...."  Nor did it mention the true number of events related to suicidal ideation or action.

The article only "listed at most five possibly suicidal events among Paxil patients, brushed those off as unrelated to Paxil, and conclude that treating children with Paxil was safe."

Later, GSK marketing materials described the results of the study thus,

This 'cutting-edge,' landmark study is the first to compare efficacy of an SSRI and a TCA with placebo in the treatment of major depression in adolescents. Paxil demonstrates REMARKABLE Efficacy and Safety in the treatment of adolescent depression."

Thus the conrol exerted by GSK over the published article, despite its apparent academic authorship, enabled it to promote a drug that was not efficacious and had major adverse events as remarkably safe and effective, a totally deceptive result that would mislead any health care professional who used the article to guide clinical practice. 

Suppression of Clinical Research

GSK sponsored two other studies of Paxil in pediatric populations, Studies 377 and 701. As stated in the Department of Justice's Criminal Complaint against GSK,

GSK Did Not Publicize the Results of Studies 377 and 701
43. GSK learned the results of Study 377 in 1998 and the results of Study 701 in 2001. Paxil failed to demonstrate efficacy on any of the endpoints of either study.
44. GSK did not hire a contractor to help write medical articles about the results of Studies 377 and 701, as it had with Study 329.
45. GSK did not inform its sales representatives about the results of Studies 377 and 701.

Thus, GSK managed to conceal the fact that the majority of the studies it sponsored about Paxil used for adolescent patients showed no evidence that the drug worked, again seriously distorting the evidence-base on which clinicians made decisions, and doubtless leading to the use of a dangerous, ineffective drug by numerous vulnerable patients.

Bribing Physicians to Prescribe

GSK's sales representative reflected in their call notes their use of money, gifts, entertainment and other kickbacks to induct doctors to prescribe GSK drugs....

One really creative way to pay physicians to be exposed to marketing:

For example, in or about 2000 or 2001, GSK used 'Reprint Mastery Training Programs' or 'RMTS' to further promote drugs by purporting to pay physicians to train sales representative to review reprints of studies. Although the training was purportedly for the representatives, in fact, the sales force was already familiar with the materials. GSK typically paid physicians $250 to $500 to review the reprints.

Thus GSK simply paid physicians to use its drug, a practice characterized as kickbacks in the official complaint.  An article in the Guardian noted that the US Attorney involved in the case put it even more bluntly,

The sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations [and] paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to tickets to Madonna concerts.

Use of Key Opinion Leaders as Disguised Marketers

GSK also created a group of national 'key opinion leaders' ('KOLs') who were paid generous consulting fees. GSK selected many of these physicians based on their prescribing habits and influence within the community and used the speaker fees paid to these physicians to induce and reward prescribing of GSK's products. GSK used these individual to communicate marketing messages focused on the drug's marketing campaigns at the time, including off-label uses. Some physicians on GSK's speaker's board have been paid more than a million dollars for speaking on behalf of the company and recommending its drugs.

Thus key opinion leaders were paid specifically to market drugs, and as a reward, a bribe for prescribing drugs.

Consulting Fees as Kickbacks

In general,

In order to induce physicians to prescribe and recommend its drugs, GSK paid kickbacks to health professionals in various forms, including speaking or consulting fees, travel, entertainment, gifts, grants, and sham advisory boards, training,....

In particular,

During 2000 and 2001 at least, GSK also utilized events termed 'advisory boards' or consultant meetings and forums to disseminate its promotional message. Although these boards were purportedly composed of 'thought leaders' for the purpose of obtaining advice from the physicians, in fact, the 'advisory boards' were little more than promotional events coupled with financial inducement to prescribing and influential physicians.

Also,

GSK typically paid the physician between $250 and $750 to attend each local 'advisory' meeting. The payments did not reflect the value of services. The physician was not required to do anything but show up. GSK had no legitimate business reason to hire thousands of 'advisors' to 'consult' with the company about a single drug.

Manipulation of Continuing Medical Education

GSK also used so-called CME and CME Express programs and other sham training for marketing purposes, and to promote off-labe uses for the GSK prescription drugs.

Furthermore,

These CME programs purported to be independent eduaction free of company influence, but in fact functioned as GSK promotional programs disguised as medical education. GSK maintained control and influence over the purportedly independent CME programs through speaker selection, and influence over content and audience, among other things. Although third party vendors were usually also involved, they served only as artificial 'firewalls' that did not insulate the program from GSK's influence.

Summary

The legal documentation of the GSK settlement demonstrated how one drug company used an integrated, systematic campaign incorporating deception and bribery to sell drugs. Its elements included manipulation and suppression of the clinical research it sponsored, paying key opinion leaders to be disguised drug marketers, outright payments to physicians to prescribe drugs, and manipulation, again using payments to physicians, of supposedly independent continuing medical education. 

Note that while I summarized the elements of the stealth marketing campaign to sell Paxil, particularly for use in pediatric patients, the US government complaint also documents similar activities used to sell other drugs.  Furthermore, other stealth marketing campaigns have come to light through legal action, and many other instances of manipulation and suppression of clinical research, use of KOLs as disguised marketers, kickbacks and bribes, and manipulation of CME have been documented.

This means that any claims that:
- commercially sponsored clinical research provides clear, unbiased data that should drive clinical decisions
- health care professionals and academics paid as consultants by commercial health care firms are not influenced by these payments, and can provide clear, unbiased opinions
- commercially sponsored medical education provides clear, unbiased teaching
unfortunately must be viewed with extreme skepticism. This is particularly unfortunate given that most clinical research is now supported by commercial sponsors, and the majority of influential academics in medicine get some form of payments from the health care industry (look here).

Of course, there are some physicians who consult for commercial firms who actually provide clinical or scientific advice or assistance, and some commercially sponsored activities are honest. But we must wonder what garden path all those advocates for increasing industry "collaboration" to promote "innovation," and who regard conflicts of interest as "inevitable" and "manageable" are taking us down (e.g., look here and here).

Although the current settlement will require a huge payment, as I have said many times before (as early as 2008, here), do not expect such settlements to deter future bad behavior like that listed above.  The cost of the settlement will actually be spread among all company shareholders, all company employees, and likely patients and taxpayers.  However, the settlement will entail no specific negative consequences to the people who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior.  In particular, executives whose remuneration was swollen by proceeds from the sales of affected drugs, and the health care professionals who willingly accepted what the US Attorney called bribes will not pay any sort of penalty.  The bad behavior listed above was doubtless personally very profitable for some people.  Unless people who indulge in such behavior face the possibility of penalties worse than their expected gains, expect such bad behavior to continue.

In fact, as the New York Times reported,

critics argue that even large fines are not enough to deter drug companies from unlawful behavior. Only when prosecutors single out individual executives for punishment, they say, will practices begin to change.

'What we’re learning is that money doesn’t deter corporate malfeasance,' said Eliot Spitzer, who, as New York’s attorney general, sued GlaxoSmithKline in 2004 over similar accusations involving Paxil. 'The only thing that will work in my view is C.E.O.’s and officials being forced to resign and individual culpability being enforced.'

True health care reform would strive to eliminate important conflicts of interest affecting clinical research and medical education.  Specifically, it would prevent corporations that sell health care products or services from controlling clinical research meant to evaluate these products or services.  It would seek to eliminate serious conflicts of interest affecting health care professionals.  Finally, it would prevent vested interests from controlling medical education.  Not that I expect any such reform in the near future, it would be too threatening to those who have personally benefited from the current system.

Hat tip to Dr Howard Brody whose Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog scooped me on the details of the settlement relevant to study 329.

ADDENDUM (11 July, 2012) - see also this post on the 1BoringOldMan blog.

"More Marketing Than Science" - An Anonymous Confession About Deceptive Marketing Published in the British Medical Journal

The British Medical Journal just published an anonymous article by a pharmaceutical company insider that explained once again how pharmaceutical companies turn research studies, apparently scholarly articles, and medical education into stealth marketing efforts.  (See Anonymous.  Post-marketing observational studies: my experience in the drug industry.  Brit Med J 2012; 344: 28.  Link here.)

We have previously discussed examples of health care corporate insiders confessing their individual efforts to turn medical research and education into marketing.  For example, peruse this.  We have also discussed how documents made public through litigation have revealed marketing plans for specific drugs that used apparently academic, educational, or scholarly publications and venues to market without revealing this transformation.  For example, see the Neurontin marketing plan (see post here), and the Lexapro marketing plan (see post here).  We have also discussed numerous examples of manipulation of particular research studies by those with vested interests, and outright suppression of studies whose results did not favor such vested interests.

Yet I suspect majorities of health care academics and professionals, health care policy makers, and the public at large do not realize, or would not admit that the evidence base for making health care decisions, and the general academic and professional discourse has been so corrupted.  So it is worthwhile to review once again how an insider summarized this corruption.

Research Studies Designed Primarily as Marketing Vehicles

In general, the anonymous author suggested that at least some studies were done for marketing, not scientific purposes:

some of the studies I worked on were not designed to determine the overall risk:benefit balance of the drug in the general population. They were designed to support and disseminate a marketing message.

Whether it was to highlight a questionable advantage over a 'me-too' competitor drug or to increase disease awareness among the medical community (particularly in so called invented diseases) and in turn increase product penetration in the market, the truth is that these studies had more marketing than science behind them.

Furthermore, the studies were supervised not by physicians or scientists, but by marketers in the marketing department,

Although the medical department developed the publication plans, designed the study, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote the final paper (which when published was passed on to marketing and sales to be used as marketing material), the marketing team responsible for that product were directly involved in all stages. They also closely supervised the content of other educational 'scientific' materials produced in the medical department and intended for potential prescribers. Instructions from marketing to the medical staff involved were clear: to ensure that the benefits of the drug were emphasised and the disadvantages were minimised where possible.

Manipulation of Research Design, Implementation, or Analysis

The author described how the marketers manipulated research studies so they would produce the results desired from a marketing perspective, regardless of their underlying truth,

Since marketing claims needed to be backed-up scientifically, we occasionally resorted to 'playing' with the data that had originally failed to show the expected result. This was done by altering the statistical method until any statistical significance was found. Such a result might not have supported the marketing claim, but it was always worth giving it a go to see what results you could produce. And it was possible because the protocols of post-marketing studies were lax, and it was not a requirement to specify any statistical methodology in detail. On the other hand, the studies were hypothesis testing (such as cohort studies, case-control studies) rather than hypothesis generating (such as case reports or adverse events reports), so playing with the data felt uncomfortable.

Other practices to ensure the marketing message was clear in the final publication included omission of negative results, usually in secondary outcome measures that had not been specified in the protocol, or inflating the importance of secondary outcome measures if they were positive when the primary measure was not.

So to summarize, the marketers would control the statistical analyses, promoting multiple analyses to attempt to come up with the "right" result that would support the marketing message (although the more kinds of analyses one tries, the more likely one is likely to come up with false results by chance alone). Presumably the marketers did not care whether or not the results were really true, which is perhaps why even they felt "uncomfortable" in some circumstances.

They would also foster the suppression of negative results, and the dredging of data for extra outcome measures when analysis showed no advantage in terms of the real primary outcomes. Suppression of negative results could be viewed as plain lying. Deliberate analysis of multiple end-points again risks identifying random error as true results.

The Role of Key Opinion Leaders

The author described how key opinion leaders, that is, health care professionals thought to be especially influential on practice or policy, were hired to become marketers presumably without revealing this intention.

Every big international observational study had a large advisory board. This was critical since the success of a newly launched drug in the market would depend on how many key opinion leaders were part of the study. Not only would they add credibility to the results, but they would also be key in influencing decision makers and other prescribers. In regional studies with thousands of patients, the study’s advisory board was formed by at least one key opinion leader from each country in that region, ensuring that areas important in terms of possible sales were covered. The contributions of the key opinion leaders to the study were always positive, but in my experience more directed towards designing new studies to answer their specific clinical questions rather than critically appraising our results and conclusions. In general, the relationship was amicable. We took them to the best hotels and restaurants during our advisory board meetings, and they appeared as authors in our research. Later, they would act as the company’s 'ambassadors,' giving conferences, teaching doctors, or talking to the media about the benefits of the drug.

Note that even the anonymous author could not bring him or herself to call the key opinion leaders salespeople, or marketers, but used the ambiguous wterm "ambassadors." Nonetheless, the role of key opinion leaders described would clearly be that of marketers or salespeople. However, it is extremely doubtful that any of these KOLs felt they had to declare that they were paid salespeople when presenting at conferences, teaching doctors, or talking about the media.

I would suggest that their actions would therefore fit Transparency International's definition of ethical corruption, "abuse of entrusted power for private gain." The KOLs are entrusted to be professional, and in many cases, scholarly. Using a professional or scholarly guise to act as a salesperson appears to be abuse of that entrusted power, in my humble opinion. In nearly every case, KOLs are paid, often handsomely, by the companies whose products they are selling. Thus, key opinion leaders acting as described by the anonymous author appear to be ethically corrupt.

Summary

The evidence of unethical marketing practices by commercial health care firms is mounting. Although I am most familiar with evidence from the US, there is mounting evidence that these practices are global, often done by companies that are not US based, and meant to influence practice and policy world-wide.

As the evidence mounts, it becomes increasingly clear that many such marketing practices are corrupt, at least in an ethical sense. Whether they may break laws in particular countries is a question for someone else.

The latest BMJ article is a reminder how skeptical the shrinking group of health care professionals who do not have conflicts of interest, are not biased in favor of particular products, and who put patients' interests first must be about ALL published research, scholarly publications, and apparently educational activities. Advocates of true evidence-based medicine must be extremely careful to try to use the least biased and manipulated parts of the evidence-base.

The mounting evidence suggests that at a minimum, all research reports, scholarly articles, media reports, conferences, and educational programs should provide full, detailed disclosure of all conflicts of interest. Perhaps having to make a declaration like "I am paid 50,000 Euros a year by the marketing department of company X to help market drug Y" before a supposedly educational talk would make some health care professionals think twice about such relationships.

However, even such detailed disclosure may not be sufficient to hamper marketing practices that now appear overtly corrupt. In my humble opinion, it is time to consider a global ban on the funding or influencing of human research by companies and other organizations which stand to gain financially according to the results of the research, or whose products and services are subject of such research. It is also time to consider a global ban on the funding or influencing of health care education by such organizations.

However, so many people are making so much money from the current practices that I doubt such proposals would get much support, or even public notice beyond this humble blog.

Know-Nothing, or Industry Shill? You Be The Judge.

I have not been writing much the past few weeks due to other concerns, and will probably not write much this summer.

However, I have been commenting on various posts on other blogs.  One resultant thread stands out as yet another example of a likely industry shill or sockpuppet defending the state of health IT, oddly at a blog on pharma (same blog as was the topic of tmy post "More 'You're Too Negative, And You Don't Provide The Solution To The Problems You Critique', This Time re: Pharma").

Industry-sponsored sockpuppetry is a form of stealth marketing or lobbying, through discreditation of detractors, although in a perverse form.

The following exchanges meet the sockpuppetry criteria once pointed out by business professional and HC Renewal reader Steve Lucas in 2010 in a post about an industry sockpuppet caught red-handed through IP forensics here:

... In reading this thread of comments I have to believe [anonymous commenter moniker] "IT Guy" is a salesperson. My only question is: Were you assigned this blog or did you choose it? We had this problem a number of years ago where a salesperson was assigned a number of blogs with the intent of using up valuable time in trying to discredit the postings.

In my very first sales class we learned to focus on irrelevant points, constantly shift the discussion, and generally try to distract criticism. I would say that HCR is creating heat for IT Guy’s employer and the industry in general.

I find it sad that a company would allow an employee to attack anyone in an open forum. IT Guy needs to check with his superiors to find out if they approve of this use of his time, and I hope he is not using a company computer, unless once again this attack is company sanctioned.

In the hopes that continued exposure of this nonsense can educate and thus help immunize against its effects, I present this:

At "In the Pipeline", a blog on medicinal chemistry (the science of drug making) and other pharma topics, a rebuttal to a claim that over 500,000 people (not 50K) might have died due to VIOXX was posted entitled "500,000 Excess Deaths From Vioxx? Where?"

That 500K possibility appeared on a UK site 'THE WEEK With the FirstPost' at "When half a million Americans died and nobody noticed."  The author of the FirstPost piece started out by raising the point made by publisher Ron Unz that life in China might be more valued than that in the U.S., where major pharma problems and scandals generally meet what this blog calls "the anechoic effect."  (In China, Unz noted, perpetrators of scandalous drug practices actually get arrested and suffer career repercussions.)

FirstPost notes:

ARE American lives cheaper than those of the Chinese? It's a question raised by Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative, who has produced a compelling comparison between the way the Chinese dealt with one of their drug scandals – melamine in baby formula - and how the US handled the Vioxx aspirin-substitute disaster ... (Unz) "The inescapable conclusion is that in today's world and in the opinion of our own media, American lives are quite cheap, unlike those in China." 

Not to argue to merits of the order of magnitude-expanded VIOXX claim, which I disagree with, but having concern for the general state of ethics in biomedicine in the U.S., I posted the following comment at the comment thread of the rebuttal post at "In the Pipeline" at this link:

6. MIMD on May 30, 2012 11:38 AM writes...

While I agree the VIOXX numbers here are likely erroneous, the point of the cheapening of the value of American life is depressingly accurate.

For instance, look how readily companies lay people off, ruining them, and perhaps forcing them out of the workforce forever.

Also, currently being pushed by HHS is a medical device for rapid national implementation known to cause injury and death. The government is partially financing it to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, probably with Chinese money no less.  [Either that, or with freshly-printed money adding to the trillions of $ in our deficit - ed.]

There are financial penalties for medical refuseniks (non-adopters).

However, FDA, the Institute of Medicine and others readily admit in publication thay have no idea of the magnitude of the harm because of lack of data collection, impediments to information diffusion and even legal censorship of the harms data. In effect, we don't even know if the benefits exceed the harms, and FDA and IOM admit it. FDA in fact refers to the known injuries and deaths from this device as "likely the tip of the iceberg."

Perhaps to some it's no longer a big deal if people are injured and/or die in data gathering for this medical enterprise.

E.g., see "FDA Internal Memo on H-IT Risks", and the Inst. of Medicine report in the same issues here.

It's all for the greater social good, they might say.

 

The following anonymous reply ensued:

10. Watson on May 30, 2012 1:47 PM writes...

@6 You keep using that word - "device" - I do not think it means what you think it means

 

I replied:

11. MIMD on May 30, 2012 3:48 PM writes...

 #10

'medical device' is the term chosen by FDA and SMPA (EU).
But that's a distraction from the points I raise in the linked post about the experiment.

To which this confused misdirection came forth from the ether:

12. Watson on May 30, 2012 4:46 PM writes...

The linked article is discussing the poor state of "medical device records" because of a lack of uniform specifications with respect to Health Information Technology, i.e. how these technologies code data and the challenges of making the data obtained uniform across a wide variety of implementations and vendors. [Erroneous, incomplete misdirection - ed.]

It seems that the concern, far from being that Health Information Technology is "killing" people, is that the Medical Device Records may contain duplicate reports for adverse health events because of health care providers encoding the data more than once for each event.  [What in the world? - ed.] This problem with replication exists because there are different health record systems where this data needs to be input, and perhaps the same patient uses different physicians who have different systems, but all of which are required to report adverse events. [I have little idea what this even means - ed.]

In other words, "Health Information Technology" is not some monolithic "device", and your conflation of "HIT" which is more properly an abstract term with the "devices" which are used to generate some forms of patient data is in my view the real distraction. [The "real" distraction from the ethical issues of the HIT experiment is terminology about medical devices?  Misdirection again from the ethical issue, and of a perverse nature - ed.]

Yes, some of the "devices" (a blood pressure monitor for example) may have underlying issues, which the FDA regulations for "medical device records" are designed to identify. The FDA, as a governmental entity has no constitutional power to mandate certain devices or implementations are to be used.  [Now we're in la-la land of misinformation and distraction- ed.] The power that the FDA does have is to inspect that the manufacturer of a device keeps appropriate medical device records (e.g. a lot of syringes, or a batch of formulated drug) and addresses any complaints about the device to the satisfaction of the FDA.

My replies:

17. MIMD on May 31, 2012 8:51 PM writes...

#12

It seems that the concern, far from being that Health Information Technology is "killing" people, is that the Medical Device Records may contain duplicate reports for adverse health events because of health care providers encoding the data more than once for each event

Yes, fix just that little problem and then the problems with clinical IT are solved! (Actually,I'm not even sure what you're referring to, but the evidence is that fixing it as you suggest is the cure.)  [Sarcasm - ed.]

The FDA, as a governmental entity has no constitutional power to mandate certain devices or implementations are to be used.

You are also right about FDA. They were completely toothless even in this situation.  [Sarcasm again - ed.]

18. MIMD on May 31, 2012 9:10 PM writes...

#12

In other words, "Health Information Technology" is not some monolithic "device", and your conflation of "HIT" which is more properly an abstract term with the "devices" which are used to generate some forms of patient data is in my view the real distraction.

Those who conducted the Tuskegee experiments probably felt the same way.

It's all about definitions, not ethics, and not data - which FDA as well as IOM or the National Academies, our highest scientific body, among others, admits, as in the linked posts in #6, is quantitatively and structurally lacking on risks and harms.

I don't really mean to laugh at you, not knowing how little you really know about the Medical Informatics domain, but you bring to mind this Scott Adams adage on logical fallacy:

FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT’S IMPORTANT
Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!

And with that, I move on, letting others enjoy the risible comments from surely to follow! :-)

I could not have been more correct.

In typical industry shill/sockpuppet fashion comes this, with clear evidence of a not-so-clever liar which I've bolded:

19. Watson on June 1, 2012 12:35 AM writes...
@18

I read the articles you originally linked to, and my comments were based upon trying to interpret your meaning from those selections. I worked in the industry and had to deal with GMP, and had to make sure to follow all of the guidelines with respect to medical device manufacturing and electronic records. I understand the terminology very well. Luckily, I never had to deal with "health IT", but I did have to pore over enough pages of Federal Register legalese to know that what is sufficient is not necessarily what is best.  [Right.  See below - ed.]

Is that risible enough for you?

The link that you provided in @17 was a much more concrete example, and if you had referenced it in your original post, would have cleared up much of the confusion that I (and I assume @9) faced in understanding what it was you were trying to convey. It would have been useful if you had explained which device or devices you were talking about. If you had more than conjecture to back up the Chinese money trail, and if you had provided an example of a company that has been damaged by being a refusenik, those would have supported your argument as well. [Continuing haphazardly with the irrelevant as a distraction in an attempt to shift the focus from the ethical issue of nationally implementing HIT in a relative risk-information vacuum, having weakly conceded the main argument's been lost - ed.]

Straw man and ad hominem fallacies are pretty transparent around here, and I wish you the best with both. [Another attempt at diversion - ed.]

I assure you that I recognize what's important, that I have ethics, and that I care about people having reliable healthcare. [This seems a form of post-argument-lost attempt to seize the moral high ground - ed.]

I then point out the nature of what is likely a bold-faced lie.  Someone who's read the Federal Register in depth would likely know FDA's authority is not a "Constitutional power", as bolded below: 20. MIMD on June 1, 2012 6:44 AM writes... @19 The FDA taxonomy of HIT safety issues in the leaked Feb. 2010 "for internal use only" document "H-IT Safety Issues" available at the link in my post #6 is quite clear: - errors of commission - errors of omission or transmission - errors in data analysis - incompatibility between multi-vendor software applications or systems This is further broken down in Appendices B and C, with actual examples. Both this FDA internal report and the public IOM report of 2011 (as well as Joint Commission Sentinel Events Alert on health IT of a few years ago, and others) make it abundantly clear there is a dearth of data on the harms, due to multiple cultural, structural and legal impediments to information diffusion. Yes, it's in the linked IOM report at #6 entitled "Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care". See for instance the summary pg. S-2 where IOM states about limited[ed] transparency on H-IT risk that "these barriers to generating evidence pose unacceptable risks to safety." Argue with them, not me. Back to my original point: national rollout of this medical device (whatever you call it is irrelevant to my point, but see Jeff Shuren's statement to that effect here) under admitted conditions of informational scarcity regarding risks and harms represents a cheapening of the value of patient's lives. Cybernetics Over All. As to your other misdirection, spare me the lecture. It's not ad hominem to call statements like "The FDA, as a governmental entity has no constitutional power to mandate certain devices or implementations are to be used" for what they are - laughable (and I am being generous). FDA's authority is statutory, not written in the Constitution. Same with their parent, HHS. To get quite specific, on human subjects experimentation, which the H-IT national experiment is, the statutory authority for HHS research subject protections regulations derives from 5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 300v-1(b); and 42 U.S.C. 28. [The USC or United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.  HHS revised and expanded its regulations for the protection of human subjects in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The HHS regulations on human research subjects protections themselves are codified at 45 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, aka Federal Register) part 46, subparts A through D. See http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/. - ed.] A real scientist would have known things like this before posting, or have made it their business to know. Tell me: are you in sales? Not to point fingers, but with your dubious evasion of the ethical issue that was the sole purpose of my post, and your other postings using misdirection and logical fallacy to distract, you fit that mindset. You certainly don't sound like a scientist. Any med chemist worth their salt (pun intendend) would have absorbed the linked reports and ethical issues accurately, the first time. I then pointed out I've moved this 'discussion' to the HC Renewal Blog, as it is not relevant per se to pharma, the major concern of In the Pipeline. Industry shill/sockpuppet (as in the perverse example at this link) or just a dull, ill-informed but opinionated person who happens to read blogs for medicinal chemists, where layoffs have been rampant in recent years, takes issue with my attacks on those practices, and defends health IT like a shill? You be the judge. Whether a shill or know-nothing contributed the cited comments, it is my hope this post contributes to an understanding of pro-industry sockpuppetry. -- SS

The Texas TMAP Trial as Illustration of a Systematic Stealth Marketing Campaign

Before it was abruptly ended by a sudden settlement for $158 million, the trial in Texas of a suit alleging unethical marketing of the drug Respirdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson opened yet another window on organized stealth marketing campaigns in health care. (Note that we first discussed this case here in 2006, and that this trial and the case was ably covered in detail on the 1BoringOldMan blog.) 

Even so, given all the recent attempts to dismiss critics of the pharmaceutical industry as "pharmascolds," (e.g., here), and to otherwise uphold the current status quo in our dysfunctional health care system, I thought it would be useful to rediscuss this case to show how systematic stealth marketing threatens the ideals of rational, evidence-based health care.

Evidence-based medicine may simply be viewed as medicine based on evidence and logic tempered with humanity. A slightly longer definition is practice based on the best evidence from clinical research derived from systematic searches, critically reviewed, used to maximize individual patients' benefits and minimize their harms according to their values.

In contrast, brief summaries of sworn testimony during the trial, and of a key report by an expert witness suggested how a commercial health care organization, in this case, the Jennssen subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson, could organize a stealth marketing campaign to promote practice based on deception and falsehoods, entangled in illogic and emotional and psychological manipulation. This was all done to market a product which could not so easily be supported by evidence and logic.

Deception and Falsehoods: Suppression of Medical Research

A Bloomberg report of the last day of the trial showed how the Respirdal stealth marketing campaign used the now classic mechanism of suppression of medical research:

Johnson & Johnson officials hid three studies showing some patients using Risperdal developed diabetes while claiming the antipsychotic drug didn’t cause the disease, a witness testified.

As early as 1999, Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit had researchers’ findings that about half the patients taking Risperdal in a study comparing its risks to those of Eli Lilly & Co.’s Zyprexa antipsychotic drug developed diabetes after a year on the medication, Joseph Glenmullen, a psychiatrist and Harvard Medical School instructor, told a Texas jury yesterday.

That study concluded Risperdal caused 'medically serious weight gain' that led study subjects to develop diabetes, Glenmullen testified in the trial of the state of Texas’s lawsuit over Janssen’s marketing of the drug. At the same time, Janssen salespeople were telling doctors that researchers concluded the drug didn’t cause the disease, Glenmullen added.

In particular,

Glenmullen, testifying as an expert for the state, told jurors Janssen officials didn’t turn over Study 113, which found Risperdal posed a higher diabetes risk than Zyprexa, to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration when regulators began probing links between anti-psychotic medications and the disease in 2000.

The drugmaker also didn’t turn over the results of two other later studies that found Risperdal and Zyprexa posed comparable diabetes risks to the FDA.

Suppression of research is a severe threat to evidence-based medicine because it can severely bias the clinical evidence base on which it depends.
Deception and Falsehood: Ghostwriting

A summary of the 86 page report by Professor David Rothman commissioned by the Texas Attorney General published in the Houston Press provided this example of ghostwriting:

A member of J&J's Speakers Bureau, [University of Texas Professor of Psychiatry Dr Alexander] Miller collected at least $82,000 from Janssen and its contractors. He declined to comment for this story, saying he may be called as a witness in the lawsuit.

Miller was a 'guest author' for one of Janssen's ghostwritten articles. Upon receiving the manuscript, Miller wrote, 'Yes, I am happy to be included as a co-author. I made a few minor edits and comments in the manuscript.'

In addition, another article in the Houston Press summarizing the issues before the trial provided this overview of the ghostwriting process:

As described in the AG's expert witness report, a company called Excerpta Medica was hired to draft some of Janssen's Risperdal articles.

In 2003, according to Rothman, Excerpta Medica issued 'Risperidone Publication Program Status Reports,' indicating that 30 of the 145 articles to be published had authors listed as 'to be determined.'

Rothman also examined what he considered a signature ghostwritten piece meant to boost Risperdal's pediatric profile; the study is included in the 2010 parameters.

Rothman cited a barrage of e-mails between Excerpta Medica and J&J in crafting the article. At one point, an Excerpta Medica employee wrote, 'It would be very helpful to receive some guidance in relation to the flow, format and subject in this paper and whether you think this is too marketing oriented or not, in order to prepare a next draft. Besides that we would like [to] have some suggestions for external authors on this paper. Maybe [a] U.S. and a European KOL? Your input will be much appreciated.''

The article eventually appeared in a 2007 volume of the European Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. For a lead author, J&J scored a heavy hitter: Dr. Peter Jensen, former associate director of child and adolescent research at the National Institute of Mental Health, and the founding director of the Center for the Advancement of Children's Mental Health at Columbia University. Now with the Mayo Clinic, Jensen declined to comment for this story.

This indicates the scope of this particular ghostwriting initiative: 145 articles were planned.  Thus, ghostwritten articles could comprise a major proportion of the apparently scholarly literature relevant to Risperdal.  Ghostwriting is fundamentally deceptive because it allows marketing to appear in the guise of scholarly work.  Ghostwritten reviews can deceptively shift the focus from the questions that need to be addressed by the evidence-based process to benefit patients to those whose answers would benefit marketers.


Deception and Falsehoods: Key Opinion Leaders
Emotional and Psychological Manipulation: Creation of Conflicts of Interest

An important element of most stealth marketing campaigns is the creation of key opinion leaders.  These are academics or professionals who can promote products in the guise of unbiased expertise. 

A summary of the 86 page report by Professor David Rothman commissioned by the Texas Attorney General published in the Houston Press provided the example of Dr Steven Shon:

As the head of the state's mental health agency, Shon was perhaps Janssen's most crucial key opinion leader; his influence in pushing ­Risperdal was invaluable.

He accepted at least $47,000 from Janssen and its medical ghostwriter, Excerpta Medica, and signed an agreement to be a member of Johnson & Johnson's Speakers Bureau. Rothman writes, 'The medical director of the state's mental health agency should not be serving as an official spokesperson for a pharmaceutical company whose product state agencies are purchasing.'

The company paid for his trips across the country, and even overseas, to promote ­Risperdal as a safe and effective medication. (But the romance between Janssen and Shon was not without its bumps; Shon would get 'upset' if the checks he accepted from Janssen were made out to the MHMRA instead of directly to him. Apparently, those were more difficult to funnel into his personal account.)

Shon retired in 2005, allowing him to collect his taxpayer-funded pension. He moved to Las Vegas, where he's the director of psychiatry for a mental health and substance abuse clinic called Harmony Healthcare.

Shon was so influential that Janssen grew paranoid and possessive when it learned that other companies sought his partnership as well. When J&J employee Yolanda Roman heard that Eli Lilly had flown him to their headquarters on a private jet, she wrote, "Steve I suppose is enjoying the vast attention and response he can command from Industry...Obviously, Steve has the right to be served by all Industry, let's hope he remains fair [and] balanced and remembers who PLACED HIM ON THE 'TMAP' MAP."

Meanwhile, another employee busted out the caps-lock to warn that "WE WILL NOT LET LILLY OR PFIZER PREVAIL WITH OUR MOST IMPORTANT PUBLIC SECTOR THOUGHT LEADER."

Similarly, a Bloomberg report of Dr Shon's trial testimony included:

Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen unit paid a Texas mental health official to speak around the U.S. about state guidelines on prescribing antipsychotic drugs that gave preference to medicines like the company’s Risperdal, the official said.

Steven Shon accepted honorariums to fly to Arizona, Florida and New Jersey to discuss Texas guidelines developed in 1999 advising doctors that a newer class of drugs like Risperdal were a “first choice or option” for schizophrenia, he testified today in state court in Austin.

Also,

Attorneys for Jones questioned Shon, who served as medical director of the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation until he involuntarily retired in 2006.

Shon testified that he served on Janssen advisory boards, was a board member of a Janssen publication called 'Mental Health Issues Today' and was a continuing medical education speaker in programs sponsored by the company.

Shon was asked about six trips in which he got honorariums of $3,000 from Janssen to discuss the TMAP project. In several cases, he kept those payments, he said.

In testimony yesterday, a Texas Medicaid investigator said Shon signed several consulting agreements with Janssen, and the company paid him $47,587 over several years.

Dr Shon's value to Janssen derived from his position as the respected leader of the state's mental health agency. While he was apparently paid by Janssen marketers who saw him as an ally, his marketing was all the more effective because it seemed to come from an unbiased expert. As such it was deceptive.

The Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest defined them as "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." The report, and indeed much of the discussion of conflicts of interest in health care assumes that most secondary interests are "-within limits - legitimate and even desirable goals." For example, an academic physician who also was a basic scientist could be paid by a pharmaceutical company to do a specific assay on samples used in research. In that case, the payments could conceivably create a risk that the academic's professional judgment in a clinical setting would be unduly favorable to the products of the company. However, the relationship hardly seems intended to cause such a bias. Notions that conflicts of interest are "inevitable" but "manageable" may stem from consideration of conflicts of interest like this.

However, conflicts of interest deliberately created as perverse incentives may be much more consequential, and as this example shows, perhaps not rare. It appears that Janssen paid Dr Shon not to do some task that was unrelated to how he fulfilled his primary entrusted responsibilities as director of mental health, but in order to influence how he fulfilled them. We have noted previous examples in which corporate marketers consider paid key opinion leaders as sales people (see posts here and here). Such conflicts are deliberately created so that the recipient of payments uses his or her entrusted responsibilities to serve the vested interests of the payer may be deceptive, as noted above.  Furthermore, by being intended to induce changes in how the payee performs his or her primary responsibilities, these conflicts are particularly likely to lead to abuse of these entrusted responsibilities. Given that the Transparency International definition of corruption is abuse of entrusted power for private gain, we need a new and more incisive term to described this variety of conflicts of interest.

The motivation of key opinion leaders by created conflicts of interest can result in powerful manipulation of the key opinion leaders, but more importantly of their audience. 

Emotional and Psychological Manipulation: Intimidation

Another Bloomberg report included testimony about how someone who attempted to blow the whistle about the Respirdal stealth marketing campaign was intimidated:

Allen Jones testified yesterday in state court in Austin, Texas, that he was an investigator in the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General in 2002 when he looked into an unregistered bank account run by Steven Fiorello, the pharmacist. Fiorello was on a Pennsylvania committee weighing whether to require doctors to give priority to newer, more expensive drugs like Risperdal in state-funded treatment of mental-health patients, Jones said.

Jones, 57, said he found a $4,000 check from J&J’s Janssen unit to Harrisburg State Hospital that was sent “\'to the attention of' Fiorello. The check covered a Fiorello trip to New Orleans to discuss Pennsylvania’s drug guidelines. Another check for $1,766 to the hospital account was sent 'in care of' of Fiorello, Jones said. Fiorello controlled the account and didn’t register it with the state, Jones said.

'The account was used to deposit money from drug companies,' Jones said yesterday in the trial’s third day of testimony. 'There were real problems here. On many levels, the account was improper.'

Janssen also paid $2,000 directly to Fiorello as an honorarium for his speaking at a company-sponsored event in 2002, Jones said. Jones said he followed the money trail and explored efforts by Janssen to promote, on a state-by-state basis, Texas guidelines favoring drugs like Risperdal. The funds sent to the hospital account helped pay travel expenses for programs related to setting up the Texas guidelines in Pennsylvania, he said.

The state adopted the guidelines that favored Risperdal in 2003, Jones said.

Note that this testimony appears to be about yet another KOL paid to promote guidelines that would in turn promote the marketing of Respirdal. So this is yet another case of a conflict of interest apparently deliberately created to influence the individual's primary responsibility.

However, then

Jones said his boss told him to ease off his probe. He said he was told, 'Stay away from the drug companies. This is a personnel issue. Stay away from the drug companies, stay away from TMAP.


Jones said his boss said, 'Drug companies write checks to both sides of the aisle. Stay away from it.' His boss told him that 'morally and ethically I was correct, but politically, this was dead.'

Jones said that later he was removed as the lead investigator from the case, and he was 'marginalized completely.' He continued to pursue the case on his own time, and spoke to the New York Times for a story that ran Feb. 1, 2004. He said he was fired for talking to the newspaper.

So Jones was intimidated to the extent that he lost his job. Note further that the implication is that this intimidation stemmed from yet more conflicts of interest created by Janssen, payments to politicians. This underlines how stealth marketing campaigns become complex systems.

Note further that in retrospect, Jones' complaints were deemed true by a court of law and a state commission:

Fiorello, once the chief pharmacist for Pennsylvania’s public welfare department, was convicted in December 2008 of felony conflict-of-interest charges for taking payments from drug companies, including Janssen and Pfizer Inc. He was sentenced to 18 months of probation and fined $3,000. He also paid more than $27,000 in civil fines after the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission cited him.

In a sense, intimidation and created conflicts of interest are two sides of the same coin.  Both involve the deliberate imposition of incentives, either positive or negative.  These incentives are designed to further marketing aims and organizational interests, not to improve patient care or public health, or advance science.  Thus they are powerful tools of emotional and psychological manipulation.
Summary

Note that even the brief summaries of trial evidence suggested how systematic the campaign was, and how within it, the elements of deception and falsehoods (instead of evidence), and emotional and psychological manipulation (instead of logic and humanity) were predominant. This should be added to previous discussion of stealth marketing campaigns, including such examples as that of Neurontin here).

Stealth marketing campaigns are complex examples of how behavior meant to further vested interests may directly threaten evidence-based practice, physicians' professionalism, and ultimately patients' and the public's health.

There have been many calls (e.g., see recent posts here and here) for increased "collaboration" among health professionals and academics and industry.  Often they are justified by the need for "innovation," while resulting conflicts of interest are deemed "manageable."  The current examples show how the vested interests of health care organizations operating within a laissez faire, anything goes environment may make such collaboration poisonous.

"I'm Not Here to Sell Drugs" - Then Why Use Company Provided "Correct" Slides?

In October, 2010, we discussed a series of reports by Pro Publica and multiple other respected news organizations about payments by seven pharmaceutical companies to thousands of doctors.  Industry often claims that they only pay the best and the brightest physicians and academics to provide education relevant to their products.  However, the ProPublica et al report suggested that they mainly recruited physicians who already showed their favor to their products by prescribing them often, but soothed their consciences by dubbing them "thought leaders" or "key opinion leaders."  While some of the physicians were well-known academics, others had notably blemished records. 

Since then, news media around the US have looked into interactions among local physicians and academic medical institutions and the seven pharmaceutical companies.  In November, 2010, here we discussed cases that suggested that pharmaceutical companies like physician speakers because they are more "believable" than pharmaceutical representatives, and choose physicians who already are prolific prescribers of the drug to be promoted, and that suggested that some physicians realized that speaking for pharmaceutical companies influenced their own prescribing.

Since then, more investigations of local physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies have appeared that reinforced contrasts between rationalizations that physicians and drug companies use to support continued payments for "drug talks," and what these talks are really about.

"Leaders in Their Field" vs Sanctions and Crimes

 Many pharmaceutical (and other health care corporations) have repeated the mantra that the physicians they hire to give talks are the best and the brightest.  The physicians who give the talks sometimes get to believe this.  For example, a ProPublica follow-up report[1] on discrepancies between data the pharmaceutical companies put on the web and gave to state regulators noted:

Pfizer, for example, told the state it paid Dr. Randy Schapiro $1,770 last year. But on the firm’s website, it reported spending $43,827 on him in the second half of 2009 alone.

It then quoted Dr Schapiro:

Schapiro said the doctors paid by pharmaceutical companies are 'leaders in their fields,' and patients should want to see their physician among them. 'If their doctor is not on the list,' he said, 'maybe they should look for a different doctor.'

On the other hand, several of the local news articles focused on physicians who were paid drug company speakers despite having chequered backgrounds, shall we say. In the Elmira Star Gazette[2]:

Tulio Ortega, a Rochester psychiatrist who made $144,548 from Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca for speaking to groups of peers during the last two years - was put of [sic] probation for two years in 2008 and ordered to pay a $7,500 fine after being sanctioned for negligence and incompetence.

Also,

Lilly also paid Yonkers physician Ali Sherzoy $4,334 in the first two quarter of this year, even though he had his license suspended in New York and New Jersey earlier this year after pleading guilty to a count of criminal sexual contact in 2008.

Sherzoy told ProPublica the incident involted his family's nanny and had nothing to do with his ability to practice medicine.

Other New York doctors were sanctioned for incidents ranging from deficiencies in handling controlled substances to being convicted of tax evasion.

Another article by the same author[3] noted two more cases:

In 1991, Johnson City doctor Louis Mateya was charged with professional misconduct after a 22-year-old woman accused him of unzipping his pants and fondling himself during an examination.

Mateya admitted guilt to the charge. The State Board for Professional Medical Conduct suspended his license for two months, followed by a 58-month probationary period, during which he was monitored by a psychiatrist and a health professional selected by the board.

During the last nine months of 2009, GlaxoSmithKline paid Mateya, an internist at United Health Services, $1,750 to speak on behalf of Lovaza, Glaxo's prescription omega 3 fish oil, according to an e-mail from a United Health Services spokeswoman.

Also,

A second Southern Tier physician, Robert Douenias, of Corning, was also paid by Glaxo: $20,000 during the same time frame to deliver speeches, even though he received sanctions in 1992.

According to the Office for Professional Medical Conduct (OPMC) records, Douenias lied about a previous criminal conviction on his application for a New York medical license. He received a censure and reprimand from the OPMC, was ordered to perform 200 hours of public service and was placed on probation for two years. Douenias said on his application he had never been convicted of a crime in any state or country, even though he had a previous conviction, according to OPMC records.

Note that the original ProPublica reporting from their database emphasized cases of physicians paid to speak by pharmaceutical companies who also had been sanctioned by medical boards or the criminal justice system (see post here).

Although drug marketers like to tell physicians they are selected as "thought leaders" because of their brilliance, it appears that the selection of such "key opinion leaders" is not necessarily based on sterling character.

"I'm Not There to Sell a Drug," But Then Why Use the Company's Slides?

A number of the reports featured physicians who asserted their independence, at least from marketing goals. 

For example, as reported by the Duluth (MN) News Tribune[4],

A Duluth psychiatrist has received more than $525,000 since 2002 in payments from pharmaceutical companies, far more than any other Northland doctor, an analysis by the News Tribune shows.

Dr. Tracy Tomac of St. Luke’s hospital was paid by the companies to give presentations on health and drug issues.

Furthermore,

'I’m there as an educator and resource,' she said. 'I’m not in business to do a sales pitch. I’m not a salesperson.'

Also,

In 2007, [Dr] Tomac said her presentations included content that was screened and approved by the FDA,....

However, other reporting suggested that content "screened and approved by the FDA" was content provided by the pharmaceutical companies.

For example, The Tennessean noted[5]:

Dr. Jan Brandes heads the Nashville Neuroscience Group, a clinic that's now part of Nashville-based Saint Thomas Health Services. She made $111,150 in outside income over the past two years, largely in speaker fees paid by drug company GlaxoSmithKline, which markets a wide array of brand-name drugs, literally from A to Z.

Dr Brandes also asserted,

'The real point is I'm not there to sell a drug,' Brandes said. 'I'm there to interpret trial results, talk about disease states and help physicians understand where this research might fit in the context of their practice.'

However,

Most drug companies now require physicians to use the company's slides and presentations if they pay them to speak at an event. The industry says that is to ensure that all U.S. Food and Drug Administration rules are met and that physicians don't wander off into discussing uses for a particular product that haven't been approved by regulators.

Also, an article in the Alexandria (VA) Gazette Packet[6] noted:

Whistleblower lawsuits filed in recent years have accused firms of using doctors to push pills for unapproved uses during dinnertime talks, prompting at least 10 firms to settle cases for nearly $7 billion in the last three years. Since that time, pharmaceutical companies have tightened control over what happens during presentations given on their dime. Last year, for example, GlaxoSmithKline instituted a new policy prohibiting doctors from using their own slides during presentations. Starting in 2010, all doctors giving speeches sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline must use slides presented by the pharmaceutical company in the order specified.

'We want to make sure that everything is correct,' said Mary Anne Rhyne, a spokeswoman for GlaxoSmithKline. 'The best way to do that is to have our team prepare the slide.'

Note that Dr Brandes above was paid mainly by GlaxoSmithKline, who presumably also provided all her slides and made sure that everything she said was "correct," at least in terms of what GlaxoSmithKline thought was correct.

And one more example per MyFoxAtlanta[7]:

Some of Georgia's highest paid physicians? .... and Roswell psychiatrist Dr. Michael Banov: over $68,000, also from Lilly.

Dr Banov asserted:

We don't sell medications. We simply educate physicians about data, and they make their own mind up.

However,

Banov says, the drug company - not him - creates the materials used in his speeches, and he says there's a reason for that.

'We are only able to present the data. We're not able to present our personal opinions. Our personal preferences, how we use the medication off label. any of that. So we're held to a very tight standard by the FDA,' said Banov.

Drug companies may say they make their paid physician speakers use slides provided by the company to prevent them from talking about "off-label" uses.  However, there is no reason for a physician-educator not to talk about "off-label" uses, and physicians can prescribe any legal drug for whatever purpose they see fit, whether or not the drug is on or "off label." 

But drug companies are prohibited by law from promoting off-label uses.  Requiring physicians to use drug companies' slides and preventing them from talking about "off-label" uses demonstrates that the physicians are functioning as marketers, not educators. 

Summary

As local reporters look into more cases, it becomes increasingly clear that up to now, pharmaceutical companies have been none too fussy about which physicians they pay to speak about their products. It is self-serving, but inaccurate for both sets of parties to assert that the companies choose only the "best and the brightest." 

Furthermore, it has now become glaringly obvious that the purpose of "drug talks" is, well, to sell drugs.  Some physicians paid by drug companies to speak may bluster about their independence, but if they are using company provided slides, who can deny they are influenced  by the company.  Furthermore, when companies insist not merely on providing slides, but on ensuring that "everything is correct," then it is clear that it is the companies' talks that the physicians are giving.  Physicians giving company talks cannot be speaking independently, and hence must be regarded as company sales personnel, whose disguises as independent doctors or medical academics are now in tatters.

Doctors who still choose to go to "drug talks" should have no illusions that they are being exposed to anything other than marketing.  Thus, I urge my colleagues to forgo the nice meals and the company prepared "correct" slides, and spend the time trying to more critically assess the clinical evidence. 

References


1.  Ornstein C, Weber T. In Minnesota, drug company reports of payments to doctors arrive riddled with mistakes.  ProPublica, Dec 10, 2010.  Link here.
2. Hunter J. Rochester psychiatrist, sanctioned for incompetence, made $144K from drug companies. Elmira Star-Gazette, Dec 4, 2010.
3. Hunter J. Despite sanctions, physicians hired as drug company pitchmen. PressConnects.com, Dec 4, 2010. Link here.
4. Stahl B. Duluth doctor denies payments from drug companies sway decisions.  Duluth News Tribune, Dec 20, 2010.  Link here.
5. Ward G. They say they prescribe based on patients, not Big Pharma. Tennessean, Dec 19, 2010. Link here.
6. Pope ML. Conflict of interest? - Alexandria doctors receive thousands of dollars from Big Pharma.  Alexandia Gazette Packet, Jan 13, 2010.  Link here.
7. Galvin B. Health watch: doctors and drug companies. MyFoxAtlanta, Dec 29, 2010. Link here.