healthy4u: Purdue Pharma

As the Door Turns - The Ongoing Interchange of Leaders Among Large Health Care Corporations, Those who Represent Them, and Government

The revolving door is the two-way conduit between leadership positions in government and industry that helps to enable health care, and maybe all of society, to be run by a group of insiders who can move easily between large or influential health care organizations and the government bodies that are supposed to regulate, oversee, and enforce laws relevant to them. It has been three months since our last <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/12/for-whom-door-revolves-from-for-profit.html">update</a> on the <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/revolving%20doors">revolving door</a> as it applies to health care, so here is our latest effort, according to the chronological order of the initial media coverage.  Foundation Leader with Ties to Eli Lilly and to Former Synthes CEO to the White House As <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/us/politics/new-obama-adviser-brings-corporate-ties.html">reported </a>by the New York Times in December, 2013, new White House senior adviser John D Podesta, who founded and ran the nominally non-profit organization Center for American Progress, had multiple ties to health care corporations and their leaders, e.g., to pharmaceutical maker Eli Lilly, <blockquote class="tr_bq">The pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly was also a donor because of what it said was the Center for American Progress’s advocacy for patients’ rights — and just as the debate heated up in Washington over potential cuts to the Medicare program that covers Lilly’s most profitable drugs.</blockquote> Although, for the record, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, said in an interview that the group frequently takes positions that conflict with the corporate agendas of its donors, including companies like Eli Lilly. </blockquote> Also an important but somewhat less obvious linkage was described thus by the Times,  <blockquote class="tr_bq"> In addition, he earned $90,000 as a consultant to the HJW Foundation of West Chester, Pa, according to an aide working with him on the disclosure report he is preparing. HJW is a nonprofit group run by Hansjörg Wyss, a billionaire businessman and major contributor to the Center for American Progress.</blockquote> What the Times did not say about Mr Wyss was that he is the former CEO of Synthes, a Swiss based medical device company, since merged into Johnson and Johnson   As we <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/12/it-was-best-of-times-it-was-worst-of.html">wrote</a> in 2011, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> Synthes USA, the American branch of a Swiss based device company, first settled charges that it had been paying surgeons with company stock to use its products in its clinical trials in 2009 (see <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/05/synthes-settles-agrees-to-stop-giving.html">this post</a>).  Then prosecutors alleged that these were not really rigorous trials. Instead, for marketing purposes, executives of Synthes subsidiary Norian persuaded surgeons to use its Norian XR product in a case series of spine surgery patients and then publish the results.  Three patients who received the product for this 'off-label' use died.  This scheme was alleged to have been directed by "person no. 7," whom journalists identified as the company CEO, Hansjorg Wyss (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/06/synthes-indicted.html">here</a>.)   In an unusual move, the prosecutors indicted four company executives, who then pleaded guilty.  They did not take any further action against Wyss, who turns out to be one of the world's richest men (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/12/person-no-7-also-known-as-83rd-richest.html">here</a>).</blockquote> However, at the time the former executives were sentenced, one of the executive's attorney's claimed, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Wyss was the undisputed leader of the company. 'He made some of the very critical decisions that put the trials on the ultimate pathway,' Gurney said. 'The culture of an organization is set at the top.'</blockquote> Former Deputy White House Press Secretary to Global Strategy Group, Whose Clients Include Pfizer, Purdue Pharma, and WellPoint As reported by the National Journal in December, 2013, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Bill Burton Old gig: Deputy White House press secretary New gig: Formed and ran Priorities USA Action, a super PAC that raked in more than $75 million during the 2012 campaign; recently joined the public affairs firm Global Strategy Group as a managing director. Clients <a href="http://globalstrategygroup.com/about/#our-clients">include</a> GE, Cisco, American Express, Comcast, and Pfizer.</blockquote> Other health care clients include health insurance company Empire BCBS, pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma, and for-profit health insurance company WellPoint Former National Health Information Technology Coordinator to Get Real Health As <a href="http://www.govhealthit.com/news/former-national-coordinator-lends-credo-vision-patient-engagement-company">reported</a> by Government HealthIT in February, 2014, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Three months after leaving the federal government, [former National Coordinator for Health Information Technology] Farzad Mostashari, MD, is joining the board of directors at the patient engagement company Get Real Health. The big-thinking, bow-tied public health veteran is currently studying accountable care policies full-time at the Brookings Institution, and said he’s joining the Get Real Health board to help it '‘stay’ real as it innovates and serves patients and providers.' The Rockville, Maryland-based company was founded in 2000, starting out as a connected health consulting outfit and then, after working with Microsoft’s HealthVault in 2007, launching its own health technology in 2012, the InstantPHR patient engagement platform.</blockquote> From CareScience Inc to National Coordinator for Health Information Technology to Health Evolution Partners The <a href="http://www.govhealthit.com/news/former-national-coordinator-lends-credo-vision-patient-engagement-company">article</a> about Dr Mostashari also mentioned in passing a more complicated set of transitions involving an earlier national coordinator for health care information technology.    <blockquote class="tr_bq">Mostashari is not the only former national coordinators to step into the health IT private sector after federal service. David Brailer, MD, the first appointee to the role of the national coordinator for health IT, is now running the San Francisco private equity firm Health Evolution Partners.</blockquote> But in fact, according to his rather glowing Wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brailer">entry</a>, Dr Brailer also came from the commercial health care IT industry, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> In 1992, Brailer left academia and founded a company spun out of his Ph.D. thesis, inventing ways to measure health-care quality. This became CareScience Inc., a Philadelphia software firm that helped hospitals improve efficiency and prevent errors. Under Brailer, CareScience established the nation's first health care Application Service Provider (ASP). Brailer led the company through several financings, strategic partnerships, an initial public offering in 2000, and sale to global software firm Quovadx in 2003.</blockquote> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brailer#cite_note-11"></a> Then, in 2004, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Brailer was appointed as the first National Health Information Technology Coordinator, pursuant to an executive order by President George W. Bush on April 27, 2004, which called for widespread deployment of health information technology within 10 years.</blockquote> According to his Health Evolution Partners <a href="http://www.healthevolutionpartners.com/david-j-brailer-md-phd/">biography</a>, Dr Brailer is also now a member of the boards of directors of American Optical Services, CenseoHealth, Optimal Radiology, and Walgreen Co. From Aide to Congressman Young to a Lobbying Firm with Health Care Clients Then to Congress According to the <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/david-jolly-elected-to-represent-pinellas-county-in-congress/2169727">Tampa Bay Times</a>, yesterday Republican David Jolly won a special election to a congressional seat for Florida.  The article noted that Mr Jolly was "once an obscure aide to the late Republican U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young and then a Washington lobbyist,..." His past work was described in more detail in a <a href="http://www.republicreport.org/2014/jolly/">post</a> on the Republic Report blog, <blockquote class="tr_bq">David Jolly, the Republican congressional candidate vying for the special election in Florida next week, has not only made a career out of lobbying. Records reviewed by Republic Report show that Jolly’s clients won millions of dollars in taxpayer earmarks from his old boss, the late Rep. C.W. 'Bill' Young (R-FL), an appropriator known for his lavish use of the earmarking process. </blockquote> Futhermore, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Two of the firms that hired Jolly as a lobbyist - BayCare Health Systems and Alakai Defense Systmes - won lucrative earmarks from Young while paying Jolly to influence the committee where Young was a senior member. In 2009, BayCare Health Sytems retained Jolly and another former Young staffer named Douglas Gregory.  Later that year, Young secured a $1 million earmark for BayCare Health Systems for 'facilities and improvements.'</blockquote> Summary Note that the revolving door does not seem to discriminate according to political party or ideology.  The cases above involved both Republicans and Democrats. But the revolving door does discriminate against the not well connected, because it seems to provided preferred posts in the upper echelons of government for industry insiders, and preferred posts in the upper echelons of industry for government insiders.  As we have said many times before, the constant interchange of health care insiders among government, large health care corporations, and the lobbying and legal firms which represent them certainly suggests that health care, like many other sectors, seems to be run by an amorphous group of insiders who owe allegiance neither to government nor industry. However, those who work in government are supposed to be working for the people, and those who work on health care within government are supposed to be working for patients' and the public health.  If they are constantly looking over their shoulders at potential private employers who might offer big checks, who indeed are they working for? <div itemprop="articleBody"></div>Attempts to turn government toward private gain and away from being of the people, by the people, and for the people have no doubt been going on since the beginning of government (and since the Constitution was signed, in the case of the US).  However, true health care reform  would require curtailing the severe sorts of conflicts of interest created by the revolving door. Real heath care reform would require  multiyear cooling off periods before someone who worked in the commercial world can get a job in a government whose work has direct effect on his or her previous employer or industry sector, and before someone who worked in government whose work had direct effect on a particular economic sector can accept a job for a company in that sector.

As the Door Turns - The Ongoing Interchange of Leaders Among Large Health Care Corporations, Those who Represent Them, and Government

Đọc thêm »

13 Mar 2014

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

This may be a first.  A Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578173342657044604.html">story</a> announced that the "key opinion leader" who played a pivotal role in the promotion of  aggressive use of narcotics to treat non-malignant chronic pain has had a change of heart.   Background - Embracing Narcotics In the long ago time when I was in medical school, the wisdom was then that narcotics (that is, drugs like morphine or heroin, the latter not legal) should only be used in severe acute pain, like that due to bad trauma or occurring post-operatively, or for the pain of terminal illnesses, like cancer.  The reason their use was so restricted was that the drugs were believed to cause frequent adverse effects, from severe constipation, to addiction, to respiratory depression and death. However, starting in the 1990s, the conventional wisdom changed.  Suddenly, the focus was on the under-treatment of chronic, but not malignant pain, and it became permissible, or even preferable, to use potent narcotics for this purpose.  Physicians like me who were very conservative in their use of narcotics were chastised for under-treating pain. The Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578173342657044604.html">article</a> explained how this radical change in approach was apparently engineered by a few key opinion leaders, particularly Dr Russell Portenoy.  It opened, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Two decades ago, the prominent New York pain-care specialist drove a movement to help people with chronic pain. He campaigned to rehabilitate a group of painkillers derived from the opium poppy that were long shunned by physicians because of their addictiveness. Dr. Portenoy's message was wildly successful. Today, drugs containing opioids like Vicodin, OxyContin and Percocet are among the most widely prescribed pharmaceuticals in America. </blockquote> The article provided graphics showing that per capita prescription narcotic use has more than tripled since 1999,  A Change Driven by Wishful Thinking, not Evidence Unfortunately, as the article made clear, the radical change that seemed so odd to some of us physicians who were trained before the 1990s was not driven by any good evidence from clinical research. Per the WSJ, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Because doctors feared they were dangerous and addictive, opioids were long reserved mainly for cancer patients. But Dr. Portenoy argued that they could be also safely be taken for months or years by people suffering from chronic pain. Among the assertions he and his followers made in the 1990s: Less than 1% of opioid users became addicted, the drugs were easy to discontinue and overdoses were extremely rare in pain patients. </blockquote> However, Dr Portenoy's contention seemed to be based only on a small case-series of patients, lacking any sort of control group, and too small and likely too selective to generalize, particularly to patients with chronic, non-malignant pain.(Portenoy RK, Foley KM.   Chronic use of opioid analgesics in non-malignant pain: report of 38 cases. Pain 1986; 25:171-86.  This article does not seem to be available online.) <blockquote class="tr_bq">In 1986, at the age of 31, he co-wrote a seminal paper arguing that opioids could also be used in the much larger group of people without cancer who suffered chronic pain. The paper was based on just 38 cases and included several caveats. Nevertheless, it opened the door to much broader prescribing of the drugs for more common complaints such as nerve or back pain. </blockquote>  Dr Portenoy also cited <blockquote class="tr_bq">the statistic that less than 1% of opioid users became addicted. Today, even proponents of opioid use say that figure was wrong. 'It's obviously crazy to think that only 1% of the population is at risk for opioid addiction,' said Lynn Webster, president-elect of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, one of the publishers of the 1996 statement. 'It's just not true.' The figure came from a single-paragraph report in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980 describing hospitalized patients briefly given opioids.</blockquote> The reference here appears to be a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine ( Porter J, Jick H. Addiction rate in patients treated with narcotics. New England Journal of Medicine 1980; 302:123.  Link <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198001103020221">here</a>.)  This was literally one paragraph long, so the methods of the research it reported cannot be rigorously evaluated.  In any event, the letter appears to have retrospectively documented an observation of hospitalized patients who were given at least a single dose of narcotics, and thus appears not relevant to the effects of long-term narcotics on patients with chronic pain.  Thus, Dr Portenoy's enthusiasm for aggressive use of narcotics in non-malignant chronic pain was never based on any good evidence from well designed and performed randomized controlled trials with long-term followup that showed that narcotics were safe and effective in this setting.  At best, Dr Portenoy's and colleagues' contentions that narcotics should be liberally utilized for such patient were based on wishful thinking, not good evidence. A Change Driven by Stealth Marketing The WSJ article documented how Dr Portenoy was a prime mover in what appeared to be deceptive stealth campaigns to market narcotics for chronic, non-malignant pain.  Dr Portenoy's 1986 case-series <blockquote class="tr_bq">opened the door to much broader prescribing of the drugs for more common complaints such as nerve or back pain. Charming and articulate, he became a sought-after public speaker. He argued that opioids are a 'gift from nature' that were being forsaken because of 'opiophobia' among doctors. 'We had to destigmatize these drugs,' said Dr. Portenoy. He rose to chairman of pain medicine and palliative care at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York. His small office is studded with awards and evidence of his offbeat sense of humor. He prominently displays a magazine mock-up that jokingly dubs him 'The King of Pain.' At medical conferences, his confident, knowing manner helped smooth the way for his message. Before an audience of government regulators, he once joked that he might tell a patient at low risk of abuse: 'Here, [have] six months of drugs. See you later,' he said, according to a Food and Drug Administration transcript. Amid laughter, he added, 'It's just hyperbole. I don't actually do that.' Steven Passik, a psychologist who once worked closely with Dr. Portenoy and describes him as his mentor, says their message wasn't based on scientific evidence so much as a zeal to improve patients' lives. 'It had all the makings of a religious movement at the time,' he says. 'It had that kind of a spirit to it.' </blockquote> So Dr Portenoy became a respected opinion leader.  His influence was demonstrated by how he generated disciples <blockquote class="tr_bq"> Dr. Portenoy's ideas about opioids reached into mainstream medicine and attracted outspoken advocates. In a 1998 talk in Houston, Alan Spanos, a South Carolina pain specialist, said patients with chronic noncancer pain could be trusted to decide themselves how many painkillers to take without risk of overdose. According to a recording, Dr. Spanos said he understood that a patient would simply 'go to sleep' before stopping breathing. While asleep, he said, the patient 'can't take a dangerous dose. It sounds scary, but as far as I know, nobody anywhere is getting burned by doing it this way.'</blockquote> Dr Portenoy was affiliated with organized efforts that facilitated the marketing of narcotics for chronic malignant pain.  The marketing used clinical practice guidelines to push narcotics <blockquote class="tr_bq">Dr. Portenoy helped write a landmark 1996 consensus statement by two professional pain societies that said there was little risk of addiction or overdose among pain patients. </blockquote> The campaign enlisted government regulators, and thus seemed to include an element of regulatory capture, <blockquote class="tr_bq">One of Dr. Portenoy's chief complaints was that doctors were reluctant to prescribe opioids because they feared scrutiny by regulators or law enforcement. In the second half of the 1990s, he and his followers campaigned successfully for policies to change that. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=9551150" name="U90171026145MLH"></a>In 1998, the Federation of State Medical Boards released a recommended policy reassuring doctors that they wouldn't face regulatory action for prescribing even large amounts of narcotics, as long as it was in the course of medical treatment. In 2004 the group called on state medical boards to make undertreatment of pain punishable for the first time.</blockquote> This case demonstrated the direct involvement of pharmaceutical companies who sold narcotics, <blockquote class="tr_bq">That policy was drawn up with the help of several people with links to opioid makers, including David Haddox, a senior Purdue Pharma executive then and now. The federation said it received nearly $2 million from opioid makers since 1997. The federation says it derives the majority of its funding from administering medical licensing exams, credential verification, and data services. A federation-published book outlining the opioid policy was funded by opioid makers including Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Soluttions Inc, and others, with proceeds totaling $280,000 going to the federation. . </blockquote>  The campaign also involved an important hospital accrediting organization <blockquote class="tr_bq">In 2001, the Joint Commission, [JCAHO] which accredits U.S. hospitals, issued new standards telling hospitals to regularly ask patients about pain and to make treating it a priority. The now-familiar pain scale was introduced in many hospitals, with patients being asked to rate their pain from one to 10 and circle a smiling or frowning face. The Joint Commission published a guide sponsored by Purdue Pharma. 'Some clinicians have inaccurate and exaggerated concerns" about addiction, tolerance and risk of death, the guide said. "This attitude prevails despite the fact there is no evidence that addiction is a significant issue when persons are given opioids for pain control.'</blockquote> A Change Leading to Personal Enrichment Meanwhile, Dr Portenoy was personally profiting from his relationships with pharmaceutical companies <blockquote class="tr_bq">Over his career, Dr. Portenoy has disclosed relationships with more than a dozen companies, most of which produce opioid painkillers. 'My viewpoint is that I can have those relationships, they would benefit my educational mission, they benefit in my research mission, and to some extent, they can benefit my own pocketbook, without producing in me any tendency to engage in undue influence or misinformation,' he said. Dr. Portenoy and Beth Israel declined to provide details of their funding by drug companies. A 2007 fundraising prospectus from Dr. Portenoy's program shows that his program received millions of dollars over the preceding decade in funding from opioid makers including Endo, Abbott Laboratories, Cephalon, Purdue Pharma and  Johnson & Johnson.  </blockquote> He currently also appears to be on the advisory boards of  <a href="http://www.insideview.com/directory/zars-pharma-inc">Zars Pharma Inc</a>,  <a href="http://www.relevarepharma.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=13">Relevare Therapeutics</a>, and <a href="http://www.cytogelpharma.com/board-of-managers.html">Cytogel Pharma</a>. Thus, it seems that Dr Portenoy fit the usual definition of <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/key%20opinion%20leaders">key opinion leader</a>.  He was regarded as an authority in his area and his opinions were obviously influential.  He was paid by health care corporations with interests in selling their goods or services, in this case, narcotic drugs, and was using his influence to promote individual patient care decisions and policy decisions that facilitated the widespread use of these drugs.  A Change Leading to Sick and Dead Patients Since the campaign to "destigmatize" narcotics began, the US has seen what many have called an epidemic of narcotic adverse effects.  The WSJ article provided graphs showing that narcotic related deaths and hospital admissions both increased more than five times since 1999.   As the WSJ put it, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> some specialists now question whether the drugs should be prescribed so freely for months or years to people with chronic pain that isn't related to cancer, as Dr. Portenoy proposed 25 years ago. "People lost sight of the fact that these are dangerous drugs that are highly addictive," said Jane Ballantyne, a pain specialist at the University of Washington. She once agreed with Dr. Portenoy and proponents of broad opioid use but now believes they need to be used more selectively.</blockquote> Dr Portenoy Recants What is most remarkable about this case is that it seems to be the first in which a highly influential industry paid key opinion leader has publicly had a change of heart. <blockquote class="tr_bq">Now, Dr. Portenoy and other pain doctors who promoted the drugs say they erred by overstating the drugs' benefits and glossing over risks. 'Did I teach about pain management, specifically about opioid therapy, in a way that reflects misinformation? Well, against the standards of 2012, I guess I did,' Dr. Portenoy said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. 'We didn't know then what we know now.'</blockquote> I would note there is some sophistry there.  There was never good evidence for narcotics' effectiveness or safety for patient with chronic, non-malignant pain. In fact, Dr Portenoy also admitted that, sort of, <blockquote class="tr_bq">'Data about the effectiveness of opioids does not exist,' Dr. Portenoy said in his recent Journal interview. To get a painkiller approved, companies must prove that it is better at reducing pain than a sugar pill during short trials often lasting less than 12 weeks. 'Do they work for five years, 10 years, 20 years?' Dr. Portenoy said in the Journal interview. 'We're at the level of anecdote.'</blockquote> Again, it is not that the data that supported the use of the drugs has disappeared, or that new data has been developed that contradicts the old data.  There never has been any good data, that is, from well designed and performed randomized controlled trials that demonstrate that the benefits of narcotics outweigh their harms for patients with chronic, non malignant pain.  It does not exist now and it never existed. Dr Portenoy also admitted, <blockquote class="tr_bq">'I gave innumerable lectures in the late 1980s and '90s about addiction that weren't true,' Dr. Portenoy said in a 2010 videotaped interview with a fellow doctor. The Journal reviewed the conversation, much of which is previously unpublished. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">In it, Dr. Portenoy said it was 'quite scary' to think how the growth in opioid prescribing driven by people like him had contributed to soaring rates of addiction and overdose deaths. 'Clearly, if I had an inkling of what I know now then, I wouldn't have spoken in the way that I spoke. It was clearly the wrong thing to do,' Dr. Portenoy said in the recording. </blockquote> So not only did the Wall Street Journal article describe how the overuse of narcotics for chronic, non-malignant pain came from wishful thinking energized by the possibility of corporate and personal profit, it showed how the chief medical cheer leader for these drugs now admits he was wrong. Summary In summary, it appears that the huge increase in the use of narcotics to treat chronic, non-malignant pain was never based on clear convincing evidence from well-designed studies.  At best it was based on irrational enthusiasm and wishful thinking by some very vocal and persuasive advocates.  These advocates seemed to become "key opinion leaders," that is, influential people who promoted the use of pharmaceuticals while they were being paid by pharmaceutical companies, and were likely involved in what appears to be systematic stealth marketing campaign by the pharmaceutical companies that make narcotics.  These campaigns included production of clinical practice guidelines promoted as authoritative, and enlistment of accrediting organizations and government regulatory agencies. One particularly disturbing part of this story was the involvement of numerous people and organizations  entrusted by society to promote good medical care.  It shows how physicians, other health professionals, and the public at large must be very skeptical of vocal advocates of new, aggressive, "innovative" approaches, of clinical practice guidelines even those developed by apparently prestigious professional societies, of accrediting organizations, and of government regulators.  That is discouraging, and could lead to the cynical approach of simply not trusting anyone. I would note, however, that two ways the headlong rush to over-use of narcotics could have been derailed would have been: -  employment of extreme skepticism of people paid by narcotics manufacturers advocating increased use of these drugs, no matter how distinguished, scholarly, or influential these people appear to be.  This suggests the need for general skepticism of people with financial relationships with health care corporations pushing the goods or services these corporations provide, or pushing policies that would aid the selling of those goods or services -  a rigorous evidence-based medicine approach, meaning making clinical and policy decisions based on the best evidence found by systematic search from rigorously evaluated clinical research about the benefits and harms of these decisions, informed by patients' values.  Such an approach would have revealed there was never any good clinical evidence to support long-term use of narcotics for chronic, non-malignant pain, the particular "innovation" being pushed in this case. So I would argue that the case of the legal narcotics pushers underlines the need for utmost transparency about conflicts of interest affecting people and organizations that advocate for particular approaches to health care, and to the management of individual patients; continuing movement to bar at least the most egregious conflicts, as per the Institute of Medicine report on the topic (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/04/institute-of-medicine-report-on.html">here</a>); and the need for the very skeptical, rigorous application of true evidence-based medicine approaches.   Finally, I must note that this seems to be the first time that a prominent, highly influential key opinion leader  has recanted.  Maybe he will write an article entitled "Dr Drug Pusher?" - just joking, but at least one former  key opinion leader did write the confessional  "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/11/most-popular-dr-drug-rep.html">Dr Drug Rep</a>."  Maybe this is the beginning of a movement toward health care based on logic and evidence rather than wishful thinking, irrational enthusiasm, or ideology, or even worse, on deception or personal enrichment.

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

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

Đọc thêm »

17 Dec 2012

How Marketing Mixes Into Medical School Curricula - an Example from Canada

Misery loves company, so here is an interesting case reported by the Canadian Press, <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20101223/university-of-toronto-pain-course-revised-101223/">via CTV News</a>, about how students in a pain management course at the University of Toronto complained that marketing seemed to have been mixed into their curriculum: <blockquote>The complaint centered around students being provided a book on managing chronic pain that was funded and copyrighted by the maker of the prescription pain killer OxyContin. The book had been brought in by a non-faculty lecturer with financial ties to the drug company. </blockquote> It turned out that: <blockquote>From 2002 to 2006, the pain course was funded by donations, included $117,000 in unrestricted educational grants from four drug companies -- Merck-Frosst, Purdue Pharma, Pharmacia Canada and Pfizer -- although they had no input into course content. Since 2007, the program has been funded solely from faculty budgets. [Dean of Dentistry Dr David] Mock said Purdue's copyrighted book on pain management had been brought in by Dr. Roman Jovey, an unpaid guest lecturer and co-author of the book who left copies 'for anyone to take.' Jovey, medical director for a chain of clinics called the Centres for Pain Management, is a member of Purdue's speakers' bureau, paid by the company to conduct workshops and lectures. </blockquote> Dr Jovey defended handing out the free book produced by his part-time employer: <blockquote>Jovey confirmed he had left copies of the 371-page book, entitled 'Managing Pain: The Canadian Health Care Professionals Reference,' for students. 'It was a gift from Purdue. I'm not at all embarrassed or ashamed. I think it's a darn good book. "If we all want to be politically correct and have the appearance of being politically correct, then I guess I get it, that nothing that has any kind of pharma logo or name or ownership should be given out to medical students,' he said Wednesday. 'But the losers are the medical students because I think it's a high-quality book, it's very readable and they're deprived of it this year because of this controversy. And I guess they will be in the future.' </blockquote> However, it appeared that the "darn good" book's content was biased in favor of Purdue's product, Oxycontin: <blockquote>Dr. Irfan Dhalla said he has concerns about the content of the book, which a medical student taking the course brought to his attention. 'There are definitely things that are not consistent with the evidence,' said Dhalla, a staff physician at St. Michael's Hospital and a lecturer at the university. 'For example, oxycodone ... is listed as a moderate-potency opioid, when I think everybody agrees it's a very strong opioid, up to twice as strong as morphine.' While it's appropriate to prescribe oxycodone for severe acute pain or cancer pain, Dhalla said the book suggests that physicians can prescribe the drug for chronic non-cancer pain with relative safety for the patient. 'And I think people with experience know that that is just not the case. When you prescribe to people with chronic non-cancer pain, it's very difficult to do that safely,' he said, noting that the book pays little attention to issues of addiction and deaths from overdose. 'The book in several places makes reference to a claim that the rates of addiction if opioids are used for chronic non-cancer pain are very low. And they're not nearly as low as is claimed in the book.' In fact, a study by Dhalla and colleagues published last year showed prescription rates for opioids -- including OxyContin, a long-acting form of oxycodone -- soared in Ontario over the last two decades, as did the number of deaths linked to the narcotic. </blockquote> A subsequent inquiry has recommended revising the curriculum and dispensing with the drug company funded book. This is another example of how marketing has infiltrated medical education. It suggests that market influenced education likely includes not only opinions in favor of the specific product being marketed, but distortions of fact to support the product that are hardly evidence-based. Furthermore, it shows how conflicts of interest facilitate marketing influenced medical education. Note that the bringer of the biased textbooks in this case was being paid honoraria to speak on behalf of the pharmaceutical company, but presumably not to teach the particular course in question. However, his enthusiasm readily carried over to his work in that course. We have <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/key%20opinion%20leaders">discussed</a> how pharmaceutical marketers regard the "key opinion leaders" whom they pay to speak as salespeople. One would expect salespeople to be enthusiastic for their product even outside of their normal working hours. In my humble opinion, this is why no medical academic should be allowed to simultaneously be a commercially paid "key opinion leader." By the way, note that this case also suggests how the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal are relevant globally, not just to the US. I tend to be wary of blogging about cases in other countries, since there may be subtle difference in context across countries that might make interpretation of cases more difficult when viewing them from abroad. However, I think that the facts and language here are straightforward enough for me to be fairly confident about what was going on. Nonetheless, if any Canadian think I have got this wrong, please let me know. Meanwhile, if anyone is blogging about similar issues from beyond the US shores, please let me know so I can add their work to our blog roll. Hat tip <a href="http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=28432">to Prof Margaret Soltan</a> on the University Diaries blog.

How Marketing Mixes Into Medical School Curricula - an Example from Canada

Misery loves company, so here is an interesting case reported by the Canadian Press, via CTV News, about how students in a pain management course at the University of Toronto complained that marketing…

Đọc thêm »

28 Dec 2010

Load more posts