Nemeroff, Seroquel, and ACCME

Nemeroff, Seroquel, and ACCME<br /><br />Roy Poses has <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-on-misleading-promotion-of.html">discussed</a> the atypical antipsychotic drug Seroquel (quetiapine) several times on this site, pointing out manipulation of clinical research results to enhance the appearance of efficacy, and suppression of studies with unfavorable results. I call this augmenting the marketed profile of the drug. Daniel Carlat has commented on published Seroquel data <a href="http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2009/06/geodon-ineffective-for-bipolar.html">here</a> and ClinPsych <a href="http://clinpsyc.blogspot.com/search?q=Seroquel">here</a>.<br /><br />AstraZeneca, the marketer of Seroquel, has also been busy with continuing medical education (CME) programs that augment Seroquel’s profile. Last December 8, one such program went on line, aired by the provider CME Outfitters. The program’s title was “Atypical Antipsychotics in Major Depressive Disorder: When Current Treatments Are Not Enough.” The corporate logo for CME Outfitters is Education with Integrity. I will allow readers to decide if the company is meeting its mission statement in this respect.<br /><br />The key opinion leader engaged by CME Outfitters to discuss Seroquel and other atypical antipsychotic drugs was Charles Nemeroff of Emory University. He was joined by 2 KOLs-in-training, whom I will not name. The corporate sponsor that paid CME Outfitters and, indirectly, these presenters was AstraZeneca. I do not need to rehearse here the ethical issues that have surrounded Dr. Nemeroff for the past several years. Suffice it to say that, as a result of those issues, Dr. Nemeroff is no longer chair of the department of psychiatry at Emory University, he is no longer editor-in-chief of the ACNP journal Neuropsychopharmacology, he was removed from involvement with ongoing federally funded research grants at Emory University, and he was put on a short leash by the Emory administration.<br /><br />On December 23, 2008 I filed a formal complaint about Dr. Nemeroff’s program with ACCME. My bill of particulars was lengthy, detailed, and backed up by extensive<br />materials. In due course, ACCME investigated the complaint and found that the program did violate ACCME standards. With respect to content, ACCME determined that Dr. Nemeroff’s program lacked sufficient information about possible adverse effects of treatment with atypical antipsychotic drugs; and failed to emphasize sufficiently the efficacy of alternative treatments. With respect to commercial bias, ACCME determined that bias existed as a result of the absence of contrasting therapy data, and through downplaying the drawbacks related to treatment with atypical antipsychotic drugs in depressed patients.<br /><br />Following these findings by ACCME, the provider was notified of the violations in early September 2009, and the program was removed from the provider’s website. The sanitized statement of violations determined by ACCME does not capture the nuances of deceit, ineptitude, and deficient educational content in Dr. Nemeroff’s program. One remarkable example was Dr. Nemeroff’s citation of data, from one of his own publications, that were previously retracted. Did he think no one would notice?<br /><br />A second example involved biased presentation of the sponsor’s data for Seroquel. Two doses of Seroquel (150 mg and 300 mg) were tested. Only the results for the 300 mg dose were statistically significant. Nevertheless, in the video presentation one of the junior presenters stated very clearly that there was “significant improvement in both response and remission with both doses” of Seroquel. That is a falsification of the scientific record. That falsification does not meet ACCME requirements for fair, balanced, truthful, and honest teaching. As moderator, Dr. Nemeroff was required to correct this false statement made by his junior assistant, but Dr. Nemeroff failed to do so.<br /><br />The negative findings and sanction by ACCME against Dr. Nemeroff’s program are welcome, though I have to say it took ACCME an inordinately long time to complete their work. I also presented ACCME with several follow-on questions, which the Council is now considering. These are:<br /><br />• Did ACCME notify the presenters that their program violated ACCME policies? If not, why not?<br /><br />• Will CME credits be clawed back from physicians and other professionals who obtained credits through the noncompliant program? If not, why not? I believe this would be an effective form of negative feedback to the provider and the presenters.<br /><br />• Does ACCME have a process to require the provider and presenters to ascertain whether any patients were injured as a result of the violations that created biased and deficient information in this program? If not, why not?<br /><br />• Does ACCME require the provider to notify physicians and other professionals who completed the noncompliant program that the provider was sanctioned for violation of ACCME standards? If not, why not?<br /><br />• Does ACCME require the provider to furnish corrective materials to such professionals in order to remedy the bias and incompetence to which they were subjected through violation of ACCME standards, and thereby to remove potential danger to future patients? If not, why not?<br /><br />• Why did ACCME allow the noncompliant program to remain available long after the complaint was filed? I suggest that ACCME needs to place a hold on programs that are subject to active complaint. Had such a policy been in effect in December 2008, the violating program would not have been re-aired by the provider in early 2009, it would not have remained on-line for 9 months, and the damage to the continuing education community would have been contained.<br /><br />• Will ACCME issue a public listing of sanctions it has enforced against providers and presenters? If not, why not? State medical boards do exactly that in relation to physicians and other professionals who violate standards of practice.<br /><br />• Finally, I reminded ACCME that its primary constituents are patients, physicians and other professionals, not commercial or academic CME providers. It seems to me that ACCME was altogether too laissez-faire and dilatory in the way it handled this matter. At the time of my initial complaint last December, I requested expedited review precisely because additional airings of this violating program were scheduled.<br /><br />The good news is that ACCME seems to have got the message that things need to change. As one of their officers wrote to me recently, “We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put into participating in our complaints and inquiries process. You have raised important issues that the ACCME will review and address.” I await their next communications on the remaining questions.<br /><br />As for Dr. Nemeroff, he is yesterday’s news. The adverse findings by ACCME about his program serve as a reminder to corporate sponsors and CME companies that Dr. Nemeroff is so compromised by now that he has lost effectiveness as a front man for Pharma. Indeed, he is so toxic that he now glows in the dark.

Nemeroff, Seroquel, and ACCME

Nemeroff, Seroquel, and ACCMERoy Poses has discussed the atypical antipsychotic drug Seroquel (quetiapine) several times on this site, pointing out manipulation of clinical research results to enhance…

Đọc thêm »

BLOGSCAN - More on Senate Hearings on Industry Funded CME

<span style="color:#006600;">There has been considerable coverage of the remarkable hearings by the US Senate Special Committee on Aging on industry funded continuing medical education (CME). See </span><a href="http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2009/07/senate-cme-hearing-impressions-more.html"><span style="color:#006600;">reporting</span></a><span style="color:#006600;"> by Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, and </span><a href="http://blog.prescriptionproject.org/?p=745"><span style="color:#006600;">by the Prescription Project </span></a><span style="color:#006600;">on their Postscript Blog. See also the </span><a href="http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2009/07/ban-industry-funded-cme-and-accme-while.html"><span style="color:#006600;">comments </span></a><span style="color:#006600;">by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog. Some key points were that the Senators failed to see why physicians cannot afford to pay for their own CME, and therefore must depend on corporate funding to support; and the Senators failed to buy the argument that medical progress vitally depends on health care corporations paying for and influencing the education physicians get. </span>

BLOGSCAN - More on Senate Hearings on Industry Funded CME

There has been considerable coverage of the remarkable hearings by the US Senate Special Committee on Aging on industry funded continuing medical education (CME). See reporting by Dr Daniel Carlat on…

Đọc thêm »

BLOGSCAN - Live-Blogging Senate Hearing on Conflicts of Interest and Continuing Medical Education

<span style="color:#006600;">Dr Daniel Carlat is </span><a href="http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2009/07/live-blogging-senate-hearing-on.html"><span style="color:#006600;">live-blogging </span></a><span style="color:#006600;">the US Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing on conflicts of interest and continuing medical education on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, and <a href="http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=15621">so is </a>Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries.</span>

BLOGSCAN - Live-Blogging Senate Hearing on Conflicts of Interest and Continuing Medical Education

Dr Daniel Carlat is live-blogging the US Senate Special Committee on Aging hearing on conflicts of interest and continuing medical education on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, and so is Prof Margaret Solt…

Đọc thêm »

BLOGSCAN - The Mysterious Disappearance of a Report Critical of Industry Funding of CME

<span style="color:#006600;">On the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, Dr Daniel Carlat </span><a href="http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2009/03/ama-ethics-and-404-not-found.html"><span style="color:#006600;">discussed</span></a><span style="color:#006600;"> the mysterious disappearance of a report by the AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) which recommended the end of commercial funding of continuing medical education (CME). The report was tabled, and is now no longer available on the AMA web-site. (Although, it has not completely vanished off the webs. See the comments on Dr Carlat's post.) Meanwhile, the AMA has posted a series of "fact sheets" from their </span><a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/education-careers/continuing-medical-education/events/national-task-force-cme-provider-industry.shtml"><span style="color:#006600;">National Task Force on CME Provider/Industry Collaboration</span></a><span style="color:#006600;"> which seem notably friendly to "collaboration" among educators and industry. </span>

BLOGSCAN - The Mysterious Disappearance of a Report Critical of Industry Funding of CME

On the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, Dr Daniel Carlat discussed the mysterious disappearance of a report by the AMA's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) which recommended the end of commercial f…

Đọc thêm »