Pfizer's 13th Legal Settlement - Will it be Enough to End the Impunity?

It has been almost two months since we lasted <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/10/when-clinical-trials-are-meant-for.html">noted</a> misbehavior by giant global pharmaceutical firm Pfizer Inc. With little fanfare, however, a few small news items noted the corporation's latest legal settlements.<br /><br /><b>Deceptive Marketing of Protonix </b><br /><br />The first settlement merited only a few paragraphs <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/us-pfizer-settlement-idUSBRE8BB19O20121212">from Reuters</a>.  The gist was:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span id="articleText"><span class="focusParagraph"><span class="articleLocatio</span>n"><i>Pfizer Inc will pay $55 million plus interest to settle charges that Wyeth promoted its acid reflux drug Protonix for unapproved uses and made unproven claims</i> about the medicine, the U.S. Department of Justice said on Wednesday.  </span></span></span><br /><br /><span id="articleText">The infractions took place between February 2000 and June 2001, long before the world's largest drugmaker acquired Wyeth in 2009 for $68 billion.</span></blockquote><br /><span id="articleText">A <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/pfizer-agrees-to-pay-55m-for-illegally-promoting-protonix">report</a> in the examiner explained that Wyeth did not merely go beyond the label in promoting Protonix, it went beyond the evidence.</span><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Wyeth allegedly promoted Protonix as the 'best PPI for nighttime heartburn' <i>even though there was never any clinical evidence that Protonix was more effective</i> than any other PPI for nighttime heartburn. </blockquote><br />Furthermore, the charges were that systemic efforts to mislead were sanctioned by top management:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"> The allegations in the complaint are that this superiority slogan was formulated <i>at the highest levels of the company</i>. Wyeth retained an outside market research firm, at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars, to ensure that sales representatives delivered that misleading superiority message.</blockquote><br />Finally, the government asserted that Wyeth corrupted physicians' continuing medical education in the process:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Finally, the government alleges that Wyeth<i> used continuing medical education (CME) programs to promote Protonix for unapproved uses. </i>CME programs are sponsored by accredited independent providers, such as universities, nonprofit organizations, or specialty societies. Pharmaceutical companies are permitted to provide financial support for CME programs, but they are not permitted to use CME programs as promotional vehicles for off-label indications.<br /><br />According to the complaint, Wyeth spent millions of dollars providing 'unrestricted educational grants' to CME providers, and <i>these grants invariably included promises that Wyeth would not attempt to influence the content of the program in any way. Nevertheless, the government alleges that one of Wyeth’s core marketing tactics for Protonix was to use CME programs to drive off-label use of the drug. According to the complaint, the Protonix 'brand team' influenced virtually every aspect of these CME programs: program topics, speaker selection, organization, and content.</i> In addition, the government alleges that <i>Wyeth even insisted that the CME program materials use the same color and appearance as Protonix promotional materials</i>–a tactic that Wyeth and the vendor called 'branducation.'</blockquote><br />So it seemed that the company put on quite an effort to promote what we have called elsewhere pseudo-evidence based medicine, yet, like many other legal settlements involving large health care organizations, this one involved no penalties of any type against the people within the organization who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior.  <br /><br /><span id="articleText"> <b>Misleading Marketing of Zyvox, Lyrica</b></span><b><span id="articleText"> </span></b><br /><br /><span id="articleText">Another settlement, for a few dollars less, got even less attention.  Fox Business news did <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/12/12/pfizer-will-pay-42-million-to-settle-unfair-marketing-charges-related-to-zyvox/">repor</a>t this:</span><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span id="articleText"> </span><i>Pfizer Inc. (PFE) agreed to pay a combined $42.9 million to North Carolina and 32 other states in a settlement of allegations that the drug maker used unfair and deceptive practices in the marketing of antibiotic Zyvox and nerve-pain medicine Lyrica.</i></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">I could find no detail about the sorts of deception allegedly involved in the news media.  What little more Fox provided did suggest that this case also involved pitching drugs in instances in which their use was unsupported by good evidence:</div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">The states had alleged that Pfizer had marketed Zyvox as superior to another antibiotic in fighting certain types of infections, though there allegedly <i>wasn't substantial evidence to support superior results </i>for some uses that Pfizer claimed.<br /><br />The states also alleged that Pfizer marketed Lyrica for some off-label, or unapproved, uses. </div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">There was no hint that again any individual would suffer any negative consequences for this particular set of deceits either.</div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><b>Avoiding Impunity as a Topic of Polite Discussion</b></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">We have discussed a seemingly endless parade of <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/legal%20settlements">legal settlements</a> by large health care organizations.  In almost none was there any consequence beyond a fine paid by the company, and sometimes a pledge that the company would thereafter behave better.  While these relatively small costs were diffused throughout the organizations, almost never did the people who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior pay any price or suffer any penalty.  Thus we have opined again and again (e.g., most recently <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/11/phony-consulting-and-royalty-agreements.html">here</a>) that these settlements have become just another cost of doing business, and have no power to deter future bad behavior.<br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">In addition, we have noted not only have multiple organizations made such settlements, some organizations have settled again and again.  Yet even in the cases of these multiple organizational offenders, the individuals involved maintain their immunity from any negative consequences.  Thus these are examples of impunity.  </div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Transparency International declared 23 November, 2012, as the <a href="http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/international_day_to_end_impunity">International Day to End Impunity</a>, explained as follows:</div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">At Transparency International we view <i>impunity as getting away with bending the law, beating the system or escaping punishment. <b>Impunity is anathema</b> to the fight against corruption</i>.</div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />However, impunity is one of those concepts which never seems to be a subject of polite conversation in health care, or, as we say, it has become <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/anechoic%20effect">anechoic</a>.  </div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />Therefore, it is fascinating that while these two Pfizer settlements were announced almost simultaneously, each was discussed, such as it was, as if it occurred in a vacuum.  Moreover, it also seems that each settlement was crafted by law enforcers without any attention to the record of the company making the settlement.  Thus, any implications about impunity were avoided.</div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><b>Pfizer's Multiple Ethical Opfenses</b></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">In fact, during the time we have been posting on Health Care Renewal, Pfizer has become one of the great repeat ethical offenders in the health care arena.  Its track record since the beginning of the 21st century, (with yello colored background below, compiled from <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/08/pfizers-pforeign-pfiasco.html">this post</a>), is remarkable.</div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">In the beginning of the 21st century, <a href="http://articles.philly.com/2009-09-03/business/25267571_1_pfizer-employee-pfizer-sales-representatives-zyvox">according to the Philadelphia Inquirer</a>, Pfizer made three major settlements,</span> <br /><blockquote><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">October 2002: Pfizer and subsidiaries Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis agreed to pay $49 million to settle allegations that the company fraudulently avoided paying fully rebates owed to the state and federal governments under the national Medicaid Rebate program for the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">May 2004: Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million to settle DOJ claims involving the off-label promotion of the epilepsy drug Neurontin by subsidiary Warner-Lambert. The promotions included flying doctors to lavish resorts and paying them hefty speakers' fees to tout the drug. The company said the activity took place years before it bought Warner-Lambert in 2000.</span> </blockquote><blockquote><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;">April 2007: Pfizer agreed to pay $34.7 million in fines to settle Department of Justice allegations that it improperly promoted the human growth hormone product Genotropin. The drugmaker's Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. subsidiary pleaded guilty to offering a kickback to a pharmacy-benefits manager to sell more of the drug.</span></blockquote><span style="background-color: #fff2cc;"><br />Thereafter, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion settlement in 2009 of civil and criminal allegations and a Pfizer subsidiary entered a guilty plea to charges it violated federal law regarding its marketing of Bextra (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/09/pfour-legal-settlements-for-pfizer-why.html">here</a>).  Pfizer was involved in two other major cases from then to early 2010, including one in which a jury found the company guilty of violating the RICO (racketeer-influenced corrupt organization) statute (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/03/settlement-and-conviction-round-up.html">here</a>).  The company was listed as one of the pharmaceutical "big four" companies in terms of defrauding the government (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/12/drug-companies-are-now-no-1-when-it.html">here</a>).  Pfizer's Pharmacia subsidiary settled allegations that it inflated drugs costs paid by New York in early 2011 (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/02/pharmacia-or-maybe-pfizer-settles-only.html">here</a>).   In March, 2011, a settlement was announced in a long-running class action case which involved allegations that another Pfizer subsidiary had exposed many people to asbestos (see <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-22/pfizer-reaches-asbestos-settlement-that-may-end-quigley-unit-s-bankruptcy.html">this story</a> in Bloomberg).  In October, 2011, Pfizer settled allegations that it illegally marketed bladder control drug Detrol (see this <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-pfizer-v-few-consequences-for-long.html">post</a>). Finally, in August, 2012, Pfizer settled allegations that its subsidiaries bribed foreign (that is, with respect to the US) government officials, including government-employed doctors (see this <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/08/pfizers-pforeign-pfiasco.html">post</a>).  </span></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">By my count, the two current settlements would be numbers twelve and thirteen.  Of course, while I believe this list is accurate, it may be incomplete.</div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Since none of these posts involved any negative consequences for any individuals who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior, or who profited from it, and none involved any changed in the leadership or organization of the company, this becomes an amazing record of the impunity of Pfizer leadership over time and space. <br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><b>Will Impunity Finally Lead to Outrage? </b></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />Impunity, though, is a concept that is beginning to command some attention.</div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">The <a href="http://15iacc.org/about/declarations/the-brasilia-declaration/">Brasilia Declaration</a> which was published at the conclusion of the 15th International Anti-Corruption Conference (hosted by <a href="http://www.transparency.org/">Transparency International</a>) included:</div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">it is clear <i>we all face a common challenge in our work: impunity for those who abuse positions of power. </i></div></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">If impunity is not stopped, <i>we risk the dissolution of the very fabric of society and the rule of law, our trust in our politics and our hope for social justice.</i><br /><br />Activists, businesspeople, politicians, public officials, journalists, academics, youth and citizens who gathered in Brasilia to discuss the threat of corruption made it clear that <strong>impunity undermines integrity everywhere. </strong><br /><br />Whether we are investing collective efforts and resources in fighting poverty, human rights violations, climate change or bailing out indebted economies, <i>we need to give the people a reason to believe that impunity will be stopped.</i></div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">While the two latest Pfizer settlements barely got media coverage, maybe a $1.9 billion dollar settlement in the US by international banking giant will get more attention.  The charges in this case were not merely deceiving some doctors and patients about drug efficacy and safety.  The company was accused of aiding money laundering by drug cartels, and facilitating rogue regimes get around international sanctions.  As the New York Times <a href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/hsbc-said-to-near-1-9-billion-settlement-over-money-laundering/">reported</a>, </div><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">State and federal authorities decided against indicting HSBC<a class="tickerized" href="http://dealbook.on.nytimes.com/public/overview?symbol=HBC&inline=nyt-org" title="More information about HSBC Holdings PLC"></a> in a money-laundering case over concerns that criminal charges could jeopardize one of the world’s largest banks and ultimately destabilize the global financial system.<br /><br />Instead, HSBC announced on Tuesday that it had <i>agreed to a record $1.92 billion settlement with authorities. The bank, which is based in Britain, faces accusations that it transferred billions of dollars for nations like Iran and enabled Mexican drug cartels to move money illegally through its American subsidiaries.</i></div></blockquote><div style="background-color: white; border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div><span id="articleText">Unlike Pfizer's slow-motion impunity, this example got attention.  The Los Angeles Times <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/11/business/la-fi-hsbc-fine-20121212">noted</a>,</span><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The massive penalty still was not enough to appease some critics. No bank executives were charged as part of the investigation, leading some analysts to question the government's willingness to hold powerful Wall Street firms accountable.<br /><br />'<i>It's mind-boggling how they think you can have a financial system and allow this kind of impunity</i>,' said William Black, a former banking regulator who aided federal prosecutors during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s. <i>HSBC 'put the world at enormous risk.'</i></blockquote><span id="articleText"><br /></span><span id="articleText">A NY Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/opinion/hsbc-too-big-to-indict.html">editorial</a> opened,</span><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span id="articleText"><i>It is a dark day for the rule of law. </i>  Federal and state authorities have not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.  They have also not charged any top HSBC banker in the case, though it boggles the mind that a bank could launder money as HSBC did without anyone in a position of authority making culpable decisions.</span><br /><br /><span id="articleText">Clearly, the government has bought into the notion that too big to fail is too big to jail.  When prosecutors choose not to prosecute to the full extent of the law in a case as egregious as this, the law itself is diminished.  The deterrence that comes from the threat of criminal prosecution is weakened, if not lost.</span></blockquote><br /><span id="articleText">So maybe this huge financial case will prove to be the straw that breaks impunity's back.  So I will close by quoting the end of the Brasilia Declaration, in the hope that a few people will take it to heart in the context of health care, as well as in finance.</span><br /><br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">To take this important struggle forward the international anti-corruption community should promote greater people engagement and find ways to provide greater security for anti-corruption activists.<br /><br />Reducing impunity also requires independent and well-resourced judiciaries that are accountable to the people they serve.<br /><br />We call on leaders everywhere to embrace not only transparency in public life but a culture of transparency leading to a participatory society in which leaders are accountable.<br /><br />We call on the anti-corruption movement to support and protect the activists, whistleblowers and journalists who speak out against corruption, often at great risk.<br /><br />It is up to all of us in government, business and society to embrace transparency so that it ensures full participation of all people, bringing us together to send a clear message: <i>We are watching those who act with impunity and we will not let them get away with it.</i></blockquote>

Pfizer's 13th Legal Settlement - Will it be Enough to End the Impunity?

It has been almost two months since we lasted noted misbehavior by giant global pharmaceutical firm Pfizer Inc. With little fanfare, however, a few small news items noted the corporation's latest lega…

Đọc thêm »

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 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-agrees-to-pay-3-billion-in-fraud-settlement.html">summarized by the New York Times</a>,<br /><blockquote>In the largest settlement involving a pharmaceutical company, <em>the British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay <strong>$3 billion</strong> in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved use</em>s 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. </blockquote><br />As was the case for nearly every other <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/legal%20settlements">legal settlement</a> we have discussed,<br /><blockquote>No individuals have been charged in any of these cases.</blockquote>Thus, how well even such a large settlement will deter future wrong-doing is not clear.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the documents released with it provide good documentation about how pervasive systematic, deceptive stealth marketing campaigns have become in health care.  <br /><br />In particular, the <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/gsk/us-complaint.pdf">official "complaint" filed by the US Department of Justice</a> emphasized all these elements in the stealth marketing of paroxetine (Paxil, Seroxat in the UK) to adolescents.<br /><br /><strong>Manipulation of Clinical Research</strong><br /><br />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 <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/manipulating%20clinical%20research">manipulation</a> that increases the likelihood that the results will be favorable to their vested interests, usually the products and services they sell.  <br /><br />We have previously discussed the manipulation of Study 329 to promote the marketing of Paxil (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/04/selective-reporting-of-study-329.html">here </a>and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/09/brown-university-student-journalists.html">here</a>).  However, the US DOJ document makes these concerns more official.  It included:<br /><br /><u>Manipulation of Study Endpoints</u><br /><br />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]." <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><u>Manipulation of Data</u><br /><br />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...."  <br /><br /><u>Manipulation of Dissemination </u><br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/gsk/complaint-ex2.pdf">here</a>. ) 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.'"<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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." <br /><br />Later, GSK marketing materials described the results of the study thus,<br /><blockquote>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."</blockquote>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.  <br /><br /><strong>Suppression of Clinical Research</strong><br /><br />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, <br /><blockquote>GSK Did Not Publicize the Results of Studies 377 and 701<br />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.<br />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.<br />45. GSK did not inform its sales representatives about the results of Studies 377 and 701.</blockquote>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.<br /><br /><strong>Bribing Physicians to Prescribe</strong><br /><br /><blockquote>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.... </blockquote><br />One really creative way to pay physicians to be exposed to marketing:<br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote>Thus GSK simply paid physicians to use its drug, a practice characterized as kickbacks in the official complaint.  An <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/03/glaxosmithkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals">article in the Guardian </a>noted that the US Attorney involved in the case put it even more bluntly,<br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br /><strong>Use of Key Opinion Leaders as Disguised Marketers</strong><br /><br /><blockquote>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 <em>used these individual to communicate marketing messages focused on the drug's marketing campaigns</em> 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.</blockquote><br />Thus key opinion leaders were paid specifically to market drugs, and as a reward, a bribe for prescribing drugs.<br /><br /><strong>Consulting Fees as Kickbacks</strong><br /><br />In general,<br /><blockquote>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,....</blockquote><br />In particular,<br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />Also,<br /><blockquote>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. </blockquote><br /><strong>Manipulation of Continuing Medical Education</strong><br /><br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br />Furthermore,<br /><blockquote>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.</blockquote><br /><strong>Summary</strong><br /><br />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.  <br /><br />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 <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/stealth%20marketing">stealth marketing campaigns</a> have come to light through legal action, and many other instances of <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/manipulating%20clinical%20research">manipulation</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/suppression%20of%20medical%20research">suppression</a> of clinical research, use of <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/key%20opinion%20leaders">KOLs</a> as disguised marketers, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/kickbacks">kickbacks</a> and bribes, and manipulation of <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/continuing%20medical%20education">CME</a> have been documented.<br /><br />This means that any claims that:<br />- commercially sponsored clinical research provides clear, unbiased data that should drive clinical decisions<br />- 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<br />- commercially sponsored medical education provides clear, unbiased teaching<br />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 <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/10/medical-school-leaders-conflicts-of.html">here</a>). <br /><br />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 <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/02/logical-fallacies-in-defense-of.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/if-medical-school-is-just-part-of.html">here</a>).<br /><br />Although the current settlement will require a huge payment, as I have said many times before (as early as 2008, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/07/amerigroup-settles.html">here</a>), 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.<br /><br />In fact, as the New York Times reported,<br /><blockquote>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.<br /><br />'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.' </blockquote><br />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.<br /><br />Hat tip to Dr Howard Brody whose Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog <a href="http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2012/07/inside-paxil-study-329-courtesy-justice.html">scooped me </a>on the details of the settlement relevant to study 329.<br /><br />ADDENDUM (11 July, 2012) - see also <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/07/06/another-shot/">this post</a> on the 1BoringOldMan blog.

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 …

Đọc thêm »

Logical Fallacies in Defense of the European Society of Cardiology's Lenient Approach to Conflicts of Interest

The European Society of Cardiology just published its recommendations for interactions between medical societies and industry.(1)   The report emphasized the supposed benefits of industry relationships and funding, and suggested few restrictions on current practices.  Like other defenses of leniency towards conflicts of interest, its arguments seemed to rest on a series of logical fallacies.   <br /><br /><strong>Wonderful "Innovations ... Through Productive Collaboration" - Appeal to Belief and the Fallacy of Division</strong><br /><br />The report made several arguments about the benefits of professional - industrial interaction.  These included:<br /><blockquote>In recent decades, cardiology has been a fast-moving medical speciality. <em>Many advances have come from basic and clinical research conducted by universities and by pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Innovations have been realized in part through productive collaborations between clinicians, academia, and industry. Such links are essential</em> and need to be encouraged and supported by appropriate investment if medical progress is to be sustained. </blockquote><br />The notion that interactions between physicians and industry is a source, perhaps the most important source of wonderful "innovations" is often used to justify the sorts of interactions, involving payments by industry to academia and physicians, that are now prevalent. In this report, this first appears as an assertion without any evidence to justify it.<br /><br />Later, the report noted:<br /><blockquote>The Association of American Medical Colleges has stated that there are benefits from effective partnerships between industry and academic medical centres.</blockquote><br />This statement came with a citation, to a 2008 report entitled "Industry Funding of Medical Education."(2) This AAMC report, in turn, contained many similar assertions, e.g., <br /><blockquote><em>An effective and principled partnership between academic medical centers and various health industries is critical in order to realize fully the benefits of biomedical research and ensure continued advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease</em>.</blockquote>However, the AAMC report also failed to cite any evidence in support of these assertions.<br /><br />There are two major problems with these assertions, which form the foundations of both reports. The first is they do not seem to have a clear evidence base. <br /><br />While the notion that current research efforts marked by substantial interaction between physicians, academia and industry are producing wonderful innovations is appealing, what evidence there is suggests that clinically important innovation is rare. For example, I quote a 2009 review of global drug discovery by Light(3) on whether new drugs represent advances over older treatments:<br /><blockquote>the best evidence of clinical quality comes from systematic efforts to assess therapeutic advantage and adverse effects compared with existing drugs. A detailed analysis of therapeutic quality in new drugs over the past twenty years found that 14 percent of all new chemical entities are either therapeutic breakthroughs or substantially superior to existing medications. Likewise, a comprehensive review of all new drugs approved between 1989 and 2000 in the United States concluded that 14.8 percent were new chemical entities that provided significant clinical improvement, and a Canadian review board concluded that 10.7 percent of new chemical entities in 2000–2004 did so.</blockquote>Thus while many new drugs are introduced, only a few introduced recently were chemically unique or had effects different than older treatments.  I would argue that most of these will prove not to be truly clinically innovative, in that good clinical research will not show that they produce substantial improvements in clinical outcomes without major adverse effects for a good number of patients with not uncommon problems.  (It is not hard to think of really important innovations developed before the era of major industry-academic-physician interactions: antisepsis for surgery, anesthesia for surgery, antibiotics, hormone replacement therapy with insulin, thyroid hormone, etc, smallpox vaccination, polio vaccination, etc, etc)  However, it is actually very hard to think of more than a handful of new drugs or devices discovered in the last 20 years which were that hugely innovative.  (The closest might be multi anti-viral drugs used to treat HIV, and Gleevec for chronic myelogenous leukemia.)  If there has been very little really important innovation in the last 20 plus year era of enhanced industry-academic-physician interactions, these collaborations could not have produced tremendous innovation.  <br /><br />So the report's arguments rests on an assertion that is not clearly justified, and which appears to be at best a huge exaggeration. Resting an argument on a belief that is not further supported by evidence amounts to a obvious logical fallacy.  It is an <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-belief.html">appeal to belief</a>.<br /><br />Furthermore, while both reports emphasize physician-industry collaboration or interaction, there are many ways interaction or collaboration can occur without involving substantial payments by the latter to the former. It is possible for two people or organizations to work together without one paying the other.  Yet both reports use the broad assertions about interaction and collaboration to justify interactions and collaborations in which industry makes substantial payments to physicians or academic institutions. This appears to be an example of the <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/division.html">fallacy of division</a>, that is, an unjustified assertion that "what is true of a whole must also be true of its constituents."<br /><br /><strong>CME Would Wither if Financing Were Reduced, and Industry is the Only Possible Source of Such Money - A Slippery Slope and a False Dilemma</strong><br /><br />The ESC report made the argument that without industry funding, CME would wither. For example,<br /><blockquote>Should Europe choose to follow the strategy proposed in the USA, severing links between industry and medical societies, <em>CME could be severely compromised. Relying completely on public funding is not a viable option</em> for Europe at the moment. The removal of industry support for medical associations would be followed by increased fees and <em>reduced attendance</em> at congresses especially by clinical trainees and young fellows. It is the view of the ESC that in the absence of alternative funding, or until alternative funding is identified, maintaining links with industry is appropriate....</blockquote><br />The argument is that CME would fail if financial support for it would be reduced, and that industry is the only possible source of financial support at the current level. The notion that CME must inevitably fail if financing of it were reduced is a <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html">slippery slope</a> fallacy, that is, a statement that a inevitably causes b when such inevitability is not proven. Why could not adequate CME be done at a lower cost, even if the result were less luxurious? Furthermore, the notion that industry is the only source of funding is a <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html">false dilemma</a> fallacy. In fact, there are other possibly sources of funding. Given that physicians are among the world's best paid professionals, why could they not pay for their own CME?<br /><br /><strong>"Conflicts of Interest are Unavoidable and ... They Cannot Be Abolished" - False Dilemma</strong><br /><br />The third major argument on which the report bases its recommendations is encapsulated above, and was buttressed by:<br /><blockquote>The risk of bias in medical education is not restricted to activities that are supported by industry. It can affect any type of scientific communication, even an educational meeting organized independently by a university or medical association.</blockquote><br />Underlying these assertions seem to be extremely broad definitions of bias and conflicts of interest, coupled with unwillingness to see a distinction between trivial and serious varieties of each. This again appears to be a false dilemma. The distinctions should be between no conflicts, trivial conflicts, and serious conflicts, not between no conflicts and any conflicts, even if trivial.  This also could be called an example of how "the perfect is the enemy of the good."  Even if perfectly preventing all conflicts of interest is impossible, does this imply that preventing serious conflicts of interest is not worthwhile.    <br /><br /><strong>Summary</strong><br /><br />We have noted that logical fallacies are increasingly deployed to defend the status quo in health care, and particularly to defend the interests of those who are profiting the most from the current dysfunctional system.  We have noted that several defenses of the conflicts of interest generated by financial relationships between physicians and medical academics on one hand and commercial health care firms on the other, were based on logical fallacies.  (See examples <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/03/once-more-with-feeling-another-defense.html">here</a>, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/11/there-you-go-again-richard-epstein-says.html">here</a>,  <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/09/latest-version-of-argument-that-we-are.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/using-logical-fallacies-to-scold.html">here</a>.)  I have yet to see a coherent, logical, fact-based argument that the benefits for patients' and the public's health of physicians and medical academics working part-time as consultants, advisers, speakers, and directors of health care corporations outweigh the obvious risks of biasing medical decision making, education and research in favor of vested interests.<br /><br />So we add to our ongoing series how, based on a series of logical fallacies, the European Society of Cardiology provided a series of recommendations that allowed nearly any kind of relationship among CME speakers and selection committees and industry, as long as the relationships were disclosed.  The only relationships banned were those "which would represent a significant conflict of interest" for the Chairperson of a Congress Programme Committee.  Similarly, the only stipulations for the society's cardiology journals were that interests affecting editors and editorial board members must be declared, and board members and reviewers should decline reviews of manuscripts "relating to topics, drugs, or devices, in which they have significant commercial of academic interests."  The rules for guideline committees were somewhat more rigorous, but "receipt of consultancy fees or fees for lecturing would not debar an individual from being a member of a committee but must be fully disclosed."<br /><br />It is discouraging that the web of conflicts of interest that currently enmeshes much of academic medicine and many medical professionals is so heavily defended.  It is more discouraging that its defenders include so many prominent academics and practicing physicians.  It is more discouraging that so many well trained people resort to logical fallacies to make their arguments, and do so in prestigious scholarly journals.<br /><br />Our continuing series about how logical fallacies are used to support the status quo and the powers that be in health care suggests, if nothing else, that health care professional education ought to include courses in logic.<br /><br />Finally,  in 2011, I <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/using-logical-fallacies-to-scold.html">noted</a>, "I have also yet to see an argument in favor of conflicts of interest made by anyone who does not have such conflicts."At least, however, up to that point I had not noted any such arguments made by people who had much power to enforce their views, as opposed to the ability to just express them.  Last month, however, I <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/02/logical-fallacies-in-defense-of.html">discussed</a> how the leader of one of the most acclaimed US medical schools made an argument in support of conflicts of interest based on logical fallacies,  Now we have just seen such arguments made by the leaders of European cardiology.  The new paper suggested that disclosure is the best way to manage conflicts of interest.  True to this belief, the paper included a disclosure section that took up an entire journal page.<br /><br />It seems likely that number and magnitude of ongoing commercial interests so disclosed may have influenced the content of the position paper.  Yet while it may be unsurprising, it is most disappointing that conflicts of interest are now being uncritically and illogically publicly defended by people in positions to exert so much influence on health care.<br /><br />The noted cognitive psychologists George Loewenstein, Sunita Sah, and Daylian Cain just asserted in JAMA(4): <br /><blockquote>Conflicts of interest, including fee-for-service arrangements, are at the heart of the astronomical increases in health care costs in the United States, and transparency is not substitute for more substantive reform.</blockquote>True health care reform requires such substantive reform of the financial arrangements among corporations that sell health care services or products and health care professionals, others who make decisions about patients' or the public's health, and academic health care institutions. To decide how to accomplish such reform, we need a better discussion informed by logic and evidence, sans logical fallacies. Those who lead health care ought to be able to participate in this discussion under these conditions. <br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size: x-small;">References</span></strong><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">1. ESC Board. Relations between professional medical associations and the health-care industry, concerning scientific communication and continuing medical education. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 666-674. Link </span><a href="http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/5/666.long"><span style="font-size: x-small;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">.</span><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">2. Association of Americian Medical Colleges. Industry Funding of Medical Education. Washington, DC: AAMC, 2008. Link </span><a href="http://www.ucsfcme.com/news/IndustryFundingMedicalEduation.pdf"><span style="font-size: x-small;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">.</span><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">3. Light DW. Global drug discovery: Europe is ahead. Health Aff 2009; 28: w969-w977. Link </span><a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/5/w969.full"><span style="font-size: x-small;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">. </span><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">4. Loewenstein G, Sah S, Cain DM. The unintended consequences of conflict of interest disclosure. JAMA 2012; 307: 669-670. Link </span><a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/307/7/669?etoc"><span style="font-size: x-small;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">.</span>

Logical Fallacies in Defense of the European Society of Cardiology's Lenient Approach to Conflicts of Interest

The European Society of Cardiology just published its recommendations for interactions between medical societies and industry.(1)   The report emphasized the supposed benefits of industry relationship…

Đọc thêm »