healthy4u: Martin Keller

Denying the Inconvenient Truth About Study 329

On 1BoringOldMan, Mickey, the semi-anonymous retired psychiatrist blogger, has updated the saga of <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/Study%20329">Study 329</a>.  The manipulation of Study 329 was a central part of the US government's case against GlaxoSmithKline that was recently settled for $3 billion and resulted in three guilty pleas by the company (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/07/giant-gsk-settlement-provides-reminder.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/09/twilight-of-anechoic-effect-new-england.html">here</a>.) Mickey's previous voluminous series of posts on this subject are listed <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/08/continuing-dissection-of-infamous-study.html">here</a>.  He and others, most notably Dr Jon Jureidini, have attempted to get the journal that published the now widely ridiculed Study 329 retracted.  His three recent posts on the subject are: <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/12/23/the-lesson-of-study-329-an-unfinished-symphony/" rel="bookmark">the lesson of Study 329: an unfinished symphony…</a>  <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/12/21/hide-and-go-seek/" rel="bookmark">hide-and-go-seek… </a>  <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/12/21/a-response-2/" rel="bookmark">a response… </a>  In the most recent of these, he argued, <blockquote class="tr_bq">In this particular case, there are no facts in question. It was a negative trial, declared negative by the people who did it. The paper was ghost-written and reviewed by the sponsor before any of the twenty two authors ever saw a manuscript. The science was jury-rigged to imply a positive outcome where none was supported using well-documented sleight of hand. None of that is speculative. And the article has been a centerpiece for court settlements worth billions of dollars.</blockquote> Yet, the  Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry refused to retract the article. Mickey's opinion in the second of the posts listed above, <blockquote class="tr_bq">One can only conclude that they found this article to be an inconvenient truth, and that Dr. Andres Martin and his colleagues in the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry believe that acknowledging that truth would do more harm than good [or maybe even found a way not to see the truth at all, though it's hard to imagine how]. Sooner or later, this whole tawdry saga is going to find its way out of the blogs and courtrooms and into the full light of day. And the question that’s going to be asked is why didn’t Medicine itself deal with the problem? Why didn’t the Journal itself retract the misinformation once they knew about it? Why didn’t the industry sponsor itself call for the retraction as part of their settlement with the DOJ? What possible reasonable reason could there be for leaving a paper that is a lie in their journal without even an expression of concern, much less a retraction? And there aren’t going to be any believable answers.</blockquote> Mickey concluded the most recent post, <blockquote class="tr_bq">The loser in this story is the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and ultimately psychiatry itself…</blockquote> The longer inconvenient truths are ignored or suppressed, the more inconvenient, and hazardous they will ultimately become.  ADDENDUM (26 December, 2012) - One more post on 1BoringOldMan: <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/12/26/telling-the-truth-as-a-liability/" rel="bookmark">telling the truth as a liability… </a> Its conclusion <blockquote class="tr_bq">By any criteria, the conclusion to the 2001 Keller et al article is wrong ["Paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents"]. That’s not the reason that some of us have been so persistent in pushing for retraction. The reason is that it was wrong at the time the article was published, and they knew it was wrong, but published it anyway. We want to make a statement about the integrity of the scientific literature. </blockquote>

Denying the Inconvenient Truth About Study 329

On 1BoringOldMan, Mickey, the semi-anonymous retired psychiatrist blogger, has updated the saga of Study 329 . The manipulation of Study 32...

Đọc thêm »

Continuing Dissection of the Infamous Study 329

On the 1BoringOldMan blog, semi-anonymous blogger Mickey has been dissecting in detail the infamous Study 329 that GlaxoSmithKline used to promote Paxil (Seroxat, paroxetine) as safe and effective for children and adolescents, when the study data, rigorously analyzed, showed that was not the case.  Study 329 was an important part of the US Department of Justice case against GSK that resulted in a record $3 billion settlement (see this <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/07/giant-gsk-settlement-provides-reminder.html">post</a>).  The posts so far are: <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/08/19/26298/">A Pretty Rotten Era   </a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/08/21/a-movement/">A Movement</a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/08/22/to-make-distortion-possible/">To Make Distortion Possible</a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/08/24/the-lesson-of-study-329-the-basics/">The Lesson of Study 329: the Basics</a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/08/25/the-lesson-of-study-329-efficacy-drift-to-trends-and-2s/">The Lesson of Study 329: Efficacy Drifts to Trends and 2s</a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/08/26/the-lesson-of-study-329-conventions-and-protocols/">The Lesson of Study 329: Conventions and Protocols</a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/08/29/the-lesson-of-study-329-uh-oh/">The Lesson of Study 329: Uh-oh</a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/08/29/the-lesson-of-study-329-data-transparency/">The Lesson of Study 329: Data Transparency</a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/08/30/the-lesson-of-study-329-the-authors/">The Lesson of Study 329: the Authors</a> This does not seem to be the end of the series, but the last post yesterday did have a striking conclusion: <blockquote>But, for the moment, I am stuck on the piece that is, to me, the most fundamental lesson from this story, and unfortunately many similar stories in the industry-funded clinical trial literature that fills our journals. The authors of this study did not function as physicians, clinicians, scientists, or even authors. Some were there because of their previous credentials. Others were there to build up future credentials. But they weren’t there to do what they presented themselves as doing. Researchers are practicing medicine too. I might be seen as naive to see this as the center of this story. If that’s the case, I’ll go to my grave being naive. Medicine has been my life, and this isn’t Medicine. There’s no place or tradition for physicians, particular physicians in high places, taking part in this kind of bullshit – particularly all the while claiming otherwise. The fact that it has been a widespread practice isn’t an excuse. That’s also an even stronger indictment. There are many principled neuroscientists working in this difficult area of medical science who’ve been tarnished by this kind of pseudoscience. There are many psychiatrists and other practitioners who’ve actually trusted these deceitful articles. And there are untold numbers of patients who’ve been medicated un-necessarily or even directly harmed by this and other capricious advise coming out of these studies – this one in particular. Rather than functioning as the advisers of ill people, these were physicians who actively participated in capitalizing on patients’ illness. </blockquote>However, despite the seriousness of these concerns, and their corroboration in the Justice Department document that pushed GSK to settle for so much money, my alma mater, Brown University, where Dr Martin Keller, the lead author of Study 329, was Chair of Psychiatry, has consistently refused to revisit the study, and consistently failed to publicly refute the accusations against Dr Keller, nor to accept them and take appropriate action.  The University supposedly conducted an internal investigation of the matter, but has not seen fit to make it public.  When <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Researchers-Escape/133325/">asked again</a> about this, Brown's new President, Christina Paxson, referred the inquiry to the public relations people: <blockquote>'The recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice did not suggest that any further reviews of the paper by the university are immediately warranted,' Darlene Trew Crist said in a written response. 'We have no further statement to make at this time.'</blockquote> Given the seriousness of the allegations, and the <a href="http://www.brown.edu/about/mission">University's mission</a>: <blockquote>The mission of Brown University is to serve the community, the nation, and the world by discovering, communicating, and preserving knowledge and understanding in a spirit of free inquiry, and by educating and preparing students to discharge the offices of life with usefulness and reputation. </blockquote>the logic of the administration's refusal to have a public discussion of this case escapes me. As I have <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/09/brown-university-student-journalists.html">said before </a>(in 2008!), the appearance of continued stonewalling, now going on for years, can easily be interpreted to imply that the institution has something really big and bad to hide. Also see comments by Alison Bass <a href="http://alison-bass.com/blog/2012/08/why-academic-researchers-involved-in-fraudulent-paxil-study-escape-scrutiny/">on the Alison Bass blog</a>, and by Dr Howard Brody <a href="http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2012/08/ghostwriting-still-no-consequences-for.html">on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog</a>. ADDENDUM (4 September, 2012) - There have been two additional posts on the 1BoringOldMan blog on Study 329: <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/09/02/the-lesson-of-study-329-the-hurdles/" rel="bookmark">the lesson of Study 329: the hurdles… </a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/09/04/the-lesson-of-study-329-naked-emperors-fractious-queens/" rel="bookmark">the lesson of Study 329: naked Emperors, fractious Queens… </a> ADDENDUM (4 September, 2012) - See also <a href="http://alison-bass.com/blog/2012/09/calls-for-action-against-authors-of-fraudulent-paxil-study-are-getting-louder/">this post</a> on the Alison Bass blog. ADDENDUM (5 September, 2012) - See <a href="http://www.pharmalot.com/2012/09/controversial-paxil-study-author-retires-from-brown/">this post</a> on the retirement of Dr Keller by Ed Silverman on PharmaLot. ADDENDUM (10 September, 201) - See the final two posts in the 1BoringOldMan series: <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/09/06/the-lesson-of-study-329-were-only-as-sick-as-our-secrets/" rel="bookmark">the lesson of Study 329: “we’re only as sick as our secrets”… </a> <a href="http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2012/09/08/the-lesson-of-study-329-epilogue/" rel="bookmark">the final lesson of Study 329: epilogue… </a> His conclusion in the next to last post of the series: <blockquote>Something terrible happened in psychiatry, an alliance between the pharmaceutical industry and a number of our leaders who allowed their academic credentials to be used for commercial purposes. It happened on a large scale, and in the process shamed all of us, whether we were involved or not. Many of the people we looked to to guide us fell into the role of key opinion leaders – a marketing term that meant that they could influence what we did and how we practiced. And in that new role, medical degrees, academic positions, the methods of science, and psychiatric experience became little more than marketing tools in a commercial campaign. Such was the case with Study 329 – an article that has become exemplary because it is now so painfully well known – a symbol for the failings of an era. It needs to be retracted simply because it was wrong on purpose – and we all know it. And yet no involved person, institution, or organization highlighted in that last paragraph has swallowed their pride, or guilt, or denial, or arrogance and called for retraction.</blockquote>[Italics and bold typeface added for emphasis]

Continuing Dissection of the Infamous Study 329

On the 1BoringOldMan blog, semi-anonymous blogger Mickey has been dissecting in detail the infamous Study 329 that GlaxoSmithKline used to p...

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>, <blockquote>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. </blockquote> As was the case for nearly every other <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/legal%20settlements">legal settlement</a> we have discussed, <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. 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 <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. 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 <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.  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: 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 <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.'" 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, <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.  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, <blockquote>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.</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. Bribing Physicians to Prescribe <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> One really creative way to pay physicians to be exposed to marketing: <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, <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> Use of Key Opinion Leaders as Disguised Marketers <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 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.</blockquote> 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, <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> In particular, <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> Also, <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> Manipulation of Continuing Medical Education <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> Furthermore, <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> 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 <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. 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 <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/10/medical-school-leaders-conflicts-of.html">here</a>). 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>). 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. In fact, as the New York Times reported, <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. '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> 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 <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. 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 man...

Đọc thêm »