A Source of the Anechoic Effect Discovered: the Public Relations Person in the Room

A series of posts in journalism blogs last month revealed a mechanism used by health care organizational leaders to shape discussion of the issues that affect their interests, but one that is probably unfamiliar to most health care professionals and the public at large.  Let me provide the key quotes in chronological order.

First, from the Covering Health blog of the Association for Health Care Journalism (10 June, 2010):

Have you recently tried to get information from the federal government or arrange an interview with a federal official?

AHCJ’s Right-to-Know Committee is calling on journalists to report their experiences, as part of a continuing effort to pry open the doors of the federal government. We’re looking for recent anecdotes about journalists’ experiences with public information officers, especially at the Department of Health and Human Services and any of the agencies that are part of it (e.g., CDC, FDA, CMS etc.).

Please write to Felice J. Freyer, Right-to-Know Committee chair, at felice.freyer@cox.net, about problems you have encountered, including mandates to clear interviews with the press office, slow responses, refused interviews, burdensome requirements (such as written questions and answers only), extreme time limitations on interviews, PIOs listening in on your conversations, or anything else that made it hard for you to get the information and quotes that you needed in time.

The implication here, of course, is that the committee was concerned that journalists attempting to interview employees and officials of US government health agencies may encounter a variety of problems, including public information officers "listening in on your conversation."

Of course, just because the committee was concerned about a possible problem does not mean the problem exists, or is if it exists, is important.

However, a week later this post appeared in the Covering Health blog (17 June, 2010):

MedPage Today, an online breaking-news service for physicians, today instituted a rule requiring reporters to inform readers whenever a press officer has listened in on an interview.

'If a source’s comments are monitored by a press officer, then the person may not have been speaking freely,' said Peggy Peck, vice president and executive editor. 'That’s information readers should have.'

Peck instructed her staff to use phrases like 'said in a telephone interview that was monitored by a public information officer' whenever using quotes from such an interview.

Peck emphasized that a reporter’s goal should be to avoid having a press officer listening to calls or attending face-to-face interviews. 'But if that is the only way a researcher will talk, we need to let our readers know that,' said Peck’s memo to eight reporters.

Peck is a member of AHCJ’s Right-to-Know Committee, and the rule sprang from the committee’s work to end interference by public information officers in newsgathering, especially in the federal government.

'I applaud MedPage Today for taking this step and encourage reporters and editors everywhere to follow suit,' said Felice J. Freyer, chair of the Right-to-Know Committee and a member of AHCJ’s Board of Directors.

'Reporters have come to accept the presence of public relations people at interviews, but it’s really not acceptable. We all know that such eavesdropping hinders the free flow of information – and we need to let our readers know that this is happening.'

Now this is much more clear. Apparently some, maybe most of the information obtained by journalists from interviews of officials and employees of government health care agencies was monitored by public relations people, presumably to keep the interviewees "on message," and remind them not to say anything that did not fit the party line.  Furthermore, such monitoring was not often disclosed by the reports when they wrote about the interview. 

In addition, Paul Raeburn posted this on the Knight Science Journalism Tracker blog:

I’ve long been troubled by the insistence of some 'public' information officers (they are paid to work for their institutions, not the public, although the interests of the two can sometimes coincide) to listen in or sit in on interviews. Even if they don’t say a word, their presence inevitably changes the interview.

Imagine telling colleagues about the last story you wrote, and what you had to do to get it. Now imagine the same conversation with your colleagues while your editor–on whom your livelihood depends–listens in. I don’t imagine myself dissembling in either set of circumstances, but I can certainly imagine myself telling the story a little differently in each case.

The point is not that information officers are always trying to limit or shape the interview, although that clearly happens. The point is not to challenge the integrity of information officers, although, like reporters, some are better at what they do than are others. The point is that the presence of an institutional representative changes the interview. And we owe it to out readers to conduct interviews without that presence whenever possible.

Mr Raeburn seemed to make an effort to be exquisitely polite, but still managed to affirm that the public relations person in the room is a real and important phenomenon in reporting about health care.
This reinforces the notion that monitoring of interviews with journalists by public relations people is common practice, but one heretofore not discussed publicly.  It seems obvious that the point of this practice was to keep the interviewee on message, and to restrain any discussion that might not fit with the public relations persons' bosses interests.

If we did not know about the practice of keeping a public relations person in the room for interviews with people working for the government, it seems likely that we also did not know about similar practices affecting interviews with people in other kinds of health care organizations, e.g., for-profit corporations, and not-for-profit organizations.

We have frequently discussed the "anechoic effect," how important cases, stories, and data about the negative effects of concentration and abuse of power in health care, and about ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt leadership of health care organizations, and the unaccountable, unrepresentative, opaque, and often unethical governance that enables it are often just not discussed, and when discussed, produce few echoes.  Now we see another mechanism that maintains this effect.  Large health care organizations deploy substantial money and personnel to market their products and massage their messages.  These people apparently use a variety of tactics to control the flow of information to journalists.  While journalists seem to be provide much more information about the problems in health care we discuss on Health Care Renewal than professional and academic publications and meetings, we now see one more mechanism that has impeded them from doing so openly and fully.

In my humble opinion, disclosing that interviews were monitored by public relations personnel is one small, but important step in beginning free enquiry into what has gone wrong with health care.  Bravo to the people who have stood up for it. 

Insel Admits His Statements "May be Viewed as Misleading"

Dr Bernard Carroll has posted several times, most recently here, about shenanigans by "key opinion leaders" in psychiatry whose apparently academic writing and speeches have conveyed messages in line with the marketing agendas of drug and device companies, while they downplayed or concealed their financial ties to these companies.  Lately, Dr Carroll noted how the current director of the US National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH), Dr Thomas Insel, has defended Dr Charles Nemeroff, whose recent move to the University of Miami let him shed sanctions imposed by Emory University for his failure to disclose conflicts of interest while he was there. Dr Carroll wrote, "For the past three months, Insel has been trying to put some distance between himself and Nemeroff, but the public isn’t buying it. I have called his statements disingenuous...."

Dr Carroll is on vacation, so in his absence, I note the following from a brief article in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

The director of the National Institute of Mental Health, Thomas R. Insel, has softened his denial of a mutually helpful relationship with Charles B. Nemeroff, a university researcher found to have repeatedly collected undisclosed corporate payments. In an update to his official blog posting, Dr. Insel said his initial denial of job assistance from Dr. Nemeroff 'may be viewed as misleading,' and acknowledged that Dr. Nemeroff served in key positions related to Dr. Insel's hiring by Emory University.

This seems to corroborate Dr Carroll's skepticism. I wonder what other statements by Dr Insel, or Dr Nemeroff for that matter, ought to be "viewed as misleading?"

We have said repeatedly that commercially sponsored "key opinion leaders" are really part-time drug marketers disguising themselves as academics or distinguished practitioners. The deceptions inherent in these roles seem to lead to a certain habitually elastic approach to the truth.

Medical academics and practitioners will need a renewed commitment to honesty and transparency if they want to regain the respect of an increasingly skeptical, if not cynical public.

BLOGSCAN - Deceptive Pharmaceutical Marketing

Perhaps in honor of the recently concluded meeting organized by Dr Adriene Fugh-Berman and her colleagues at PharmedOut.org on the pharmaceutical industry and its influence on continuing medical education, three significant posts appeared this week about deceptive pharmaceutical marketing practices. 
On the Health Business Blog, David Williams analyzed how a former pharmaceutical and biotechnology executive spun the Vioxx case, blaming it all on the public's risk aversion. 
On the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma Blog, Dr Howard Brody summarized two significant articles by Kalman Applbaum on complex psychological campaigns, really versions of disinformation campaigns, used to to market pharmaceuticals. 
On the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, Dr Daniel Carlat published a letter about life at a medical school department lead by Dr Charles Nemeroff, one of the "key opinion leaders" most lavishly paid by pharmaceutical companies to help them market questionable drugs for questionable reasons, and giving observations on Dr Nemeroff's new career.

When a Key Opinion Leader Questions the Hand That Fed Him: from "Master Teacher to Someone Who Didn't Know What He Was Doing"

We just posted an update on the ongoing cozy relationship with medical device companies, in particular, those that make prosthetic hip and knee joints, and some orthopedic surgeons.  Some surgeons, including many prominent academic leaders and practitioners, have been paid huge amounts, and have often failed to make more than the most minimal disclosure to their patients, or to the audiences of their talks or the readers of their ostensibly scholarly articles.  Deferred prosecution agreements with device companies shed light on these payments, but did not curtail them.  Yet the surgeons and the companies who paid them defended the payments as legitimate consulting agreements, and royalties for worthy innovations. 

Now the New York Times has reported on a dispute between a well-paid consultant and an artificial joint manufacturer that provides new insights into these financial relationships. To summarize,

IT was a long, fruitful medical marriage that is fast becoming an angry public divorce, one that offers a rare look at a clash between a top-shelf consultant and his corporate patron over patient safety.

For years, Dr. Richard A. Berger designed surgical tools and artificial joints for Zimmer Holdings, trained hundreds of doctors to use its products and talked it up wherever he went. In return, Zimmer, an orthopedic implant maker, helped enrich Dr. Berger, portraying him as a master surgeon and paying him more than $8 million over a decade.

Those days are gone. Dr. Berger started complaining to Zimmer a while back that one of its artificial-knee models was failing prematurely, and he went public recently with a study that he says proves it. Zimmer told him that the problem was not the artificial knee, but his technique, and pointed to data overseas indicating that the knee was safe.

Last year, Zimmer did not give Dr. Berger a new contract. The company says it routinely rotates consultants.

'I trained hundreds of doctors for them and made them tens of millions,' Dr. Berger said in interview here, in which he also lambasted Zimmer executives as dissembling, out-of-touch bureaucrats. 'So was this just a coincidence? Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t.'

In more detail, here is how Dr Berger's relationship with Zimmer began:

The surgeon, a tall, balding man with a boyish manner, was finishing his fellowship at the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago at the time, one of the country’s top centers for joint replacement. The center has had long ties to Zimmer, whose headquarters is about two hours away, in Warsaw, Ind., and the young surgeon quickly came to the company’s attention.

'Rich has a very clever set of hands, and because of that he is enabled with the ability to innovate surgical techniques,' said Roy Crowninshield, who was Zimmer’s chief scientific officer.

Dr. Berger’s skills matched Zimmer’s marketing strategy. To distinguish itself from competitors, the device maker had started promoting minimally invasive surgery, a technique that uses smaller incisions than traditional surgery. Zimmer trained doctors in the procedure, using its device.

Soon, Dr. Berger, who was then pioneering a type of small-incision surgery that allowed patients to leave the hospital on the day of surgery, became a linchpin of Zimmer’s efforts. In 2002, he was prominently featured in a press release about Zimmer’s plans to build a training facility for minimally invasive surgery.

'We are clearly excited about Dr. Berger’s data,' J. Raymond Elliott, the company’s chairman and chief executive at the time, stated in the release.

Over the next few years, the physician estimates, he helped train hundreds of surgeons on Zimmer’s behalf.

And in more detail, here is how things went wrong: 

As he tells it, his relationship with Zimmer frayed over a version of a widely used Zimmer knee, known as the NexGen. The model at issue, called the NexGen CR-Flex, is designed to provide a greater range of motion than the standard NexGen.

Most surgeons implant an artificial knee using a cement-like adhesive to bond the thigh bone to the portion of the device that bends. But some specialists, like Dr. Berger, try to avoid adhesives because the cement can break down and cause device failure. So Zimmer also sells an uncemented version of the CR-Flex that relies instead on the bone naturally fusing with the implant.

Dr. Berger says that he gave the device, which is supposed to last about 15 years, to about 125 patients in 2005, the first full year he used it. But by early 2006, some X-rays showed lines where the implant met the thigh bone, an indication that the device was loose and had not fused completely. Patients could walk, but they were reporting pain, apparently a result of the loose joint.

He says he soon brought the problem to the attention of Zimmer officials, including the company’s new top scientist, Cheryl R. Blanchard. Zimmer executives pointed to the success of the NexGen, but the company did not have separate test data on the uncemented flexible model because the F.D.A. had not required the company to study it in patients before selling it.

Later, as more patients complained about the device and Dr. Berger had to replace some of them, he spoke to Ms. Blanchard again, he said. This time, he said, she and other Zimmer officials suggested that his technique was the problem because no other surgeon had complained.

'Suddenly, I went from someone who was their master teacher to someone who didn’t know what he was doing,' he said.

BY 2007, Dr. Berger, although still a Zimmer consultant, had stopped using the device and had learned, he said, that several other surgeons had also experienced problems with it. But unlike Dr. Dorr, the physician who sent out the alert about Zimmer, Dr. Berger said he initially had hoped to avoid a public showdown with the company. So he followed a more traditional route by performing a study with another Rush surgeon, Dr. Craig J. Della Valle, who was also having to replace the Zimmer knee.

Dr. Berger and Dr. Della Valle first presented their study at a medical meeting last fall and again this year at a national meeting of the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons. They found that the uncemented Zimmer knee failed early in about 9 percent of some 100 patients studied. Also, the knee exhibited signs of looseness in about half of all patients and has since been replaced in some of them, Dr. Berger said.

But Zimmer was unswayed. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Zimmer made note of the study but also pointed to the knee’s very positive results in a large database of orthopedic patients in Australia. Officials there confirmed the low failure rate. The company also said that the cement-free CR Flex accounted for only a small fraction — about 2 percent — of its overall knee sales.

The most striking lesson of this case is that Dr Berger was only valued as a consultant as long as his work completely followed the marketing party line.  As soon as he questioned the company's product, or the executives who were promoting it, he became "someone who didn't know what he was doing."  Of course, a truly valued consultant should be respected, if not sought for honest advice, whether or not it fit  preconceived notions or marketing strategies.  Thus, how Dr Berger was finally treated suggested he really was hired to market product.  "Consultant" was just a pretty title.. 

We  (and many others) have discussed (e.g., here) how pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and device companies cultivate "key opinion leaders" who really are nothing more than salespeople with fancy academic titles or well-known practices.  The case of Dr Berger suggests that apparently distinguished academics and practitioners hired as "consultants" by such companies ought to be regarded as salespeople until proven otherwise.  Physicians who are wooed by company marketers to take on such consulting roles, often with praise for their ability to "innovate," "excite," or become a "master teacher," may want to consider whether those flattering them merely want to hire another high-profile part-time salesperson.  They may further may want to think about how they would look should this relationship be revealed for what it really is.  If something goes wrong, they should think about what it would be like to deal with "dissembling, out-of-touch bureaucrats."  Sometimes there is a price to pay for taking all that money.

I hope that Dr Berger will consider donating the $8 million he made to the cause of more honest teaching and research about orthopedic devices. 

Meanwhile, patients and physicians should be extremely skeptical about the pronouncements of paid consultants and key opinion leaders who work for corporations marketing health care goods and services.  We all should demand at least that those paid by such vested interests reveal such financial arrangements in detail if they expect us to listen to their spiels, take their advice, and particularly be subject to their decisions.  

Reading Between the Lines: "Scrappy" WellPoint as an Illustration of Contemporary Health Care's Flaws

Giant US for-profit insurance company/ managed care organization WellPoint has provided numerous examples of problems with the current way health care organizations are lead.  Here we discussed charges that recent rate increases by its Anthem subsidiary may have violated previous agreements not to directly fund from premiums the golden parachutes of executives who left after the merger of Anthem and WellPoint; that WellPoint used magical accounting to make administrative costs appear to be from patient care; and that WellPoint investigated patients who developed cancer to find minor errors in their policy applications, and  used these as excuses for post-hoc cancellations (rescissions) of their policies.  And here we discussed a long list of WellPoint's previous ethical issues.

Recently, Reed Abelson penned a discussion of WellPoint's leadership in the New York Times, entitled "A Scrappy Insurer Wrestles With Reform."  Reading between the lines suggests some fundamental flaws in our current model of leadership for health care organizations.

The Halo Effect

Over long years of service in the last century, many health care organizations built up sterling reputations. Blue Cross and Blue Shield health insurance plans, which were all originally not-for-profit, regionally (state-wide) based organizations, became known for paying for care rather generously and with little fuss. (However, in retrospect, this may have certainly contributed to rising health care costs.)  However, their reputation was clearly for good service leading to generous care.

However, in the last 20 years, many of these plans converted to for-profit corporations, and/or were bought out by for-profit corporations. WellPoint is now a for-profit corporation that operates many subsidiaries that still do business as "Blue Cross" and "Blue Shield."

Over the last decade, WellPoint has become one of the nation’s largest insurers by buying up the Blue Cross plans that dominate the individual and small group markets in their states.

So,

[WellPoint CEO] Ms. [Angela] Braly argues that WellPoint is well positioned because of its size and the strong appeal of the Blue Cross name. 'We have a lot of historical strengths,' she said in an interview

However, it is likely that the "strong appeal" of many of these Blue Cross plans is based on a halo effect. Many individuals and small businesses may still think that the plans are relatively local, not-for-profit organizations. If not, they may still believe the plans are run as mission-driven organizations, not subsidiaries of a massive for-profit corporation.

Thus many health care organizations may so profit by an outdated "halo effect." People may not realize that leadership of these organizations is no longer a calling, but a way to become very rich.  The strong appeal of the Blue Cross name may, in fact, be misleading.  Such confusing, if not deceptive marketing has become a hallmark of our era of commercialized health care.

Market Domination and Health Care Costs

Prior to almost every merger, one hears an argument that larger organizations and corporations are more efficient, and hence will charge lower prices and lead to lower costs. Mr Abelson wrote,

WellPoint now has about 34 million customers, putting it ahead of the UnitedHealth Group in membership, and $60 billion in revenue, second behind UnitedHealth. While UnitedHealth and the other national companies tend to focus on providing services to large employers with workers in multiple locations, WellPoint’s focus has been on the local markets. Its strong presence allows it to demand the lowest prices from doctors and hospitals, while still offering customers a broad network of providers from which to choose.

I doubt there is any good data to show that such market power has resulted in lower premiums or lower health care costs.

In fact, Mr Abelson also wrote,

Because of its dependence on the higher profit margins of its traditional business, WellPoint has also not been as adventurous in trying new approaches,....

If WellPoint really meant to use its market dominance to force down its costs, it appears that the main beneficiary of this has been the company's profit margin, not its policy-holders.

Furthermore,

Starting in 2014, WellPoint and its competitors will have to offer coverage to anyone who wants it, including people with potentially expensive pre-existing conditions, rather than carefully selecting the people they are willing to cover. As soon as next year, insurers will also have to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on providing health care to individual customers.

So WellPoint used its market power to "carefully select" the people it insured so as to avoid anyone who might get sick, thus making a mockery of the concept of health insurance. Furthermore, the implication is that WellPoint spent more than 20% of premiums on management and administration (including the breathtaking compensation of its top leaders), and less than 80% on actually paying for health care.

As Mr Abelson noted, (as we did here), just how personally remunerative WellPoint's market power has been for its top leader:

Ms. Braly, ... received $13.1 million last year in compensation....

In fact, as we should have learned in this country more than 100 years ago, market domination leads to higher profits for the dominant company, higher compensation for its employees, and higher prices. However, in health care, for some reason people still believe that concentration of power leads to efficiency.

Health Care Leaders Who Know Little About Health Care

Ms Braly appears to have no direct experience, training, or expertise in health care, medicine, public health, or biologic science.

Ms. Braly, 48, a native of the Dallas area who received a law degree from Southern Methodist University, worked as a lawyer before she became general counsel to a small Blue Cross insurer in Missouri. She eventually ran that company, which is now part of WellPoint. Before being picked for WellPoint’s top job in June 2007, Ms. Braly worked as both a corporate executive and the company’s general counsel.

Her selection as C.E.O. surprised many analysts and investors. While some believed that she would bring a warmer touch to the company, others worried that she did not have enough years as a manager to navigate a highly regulated and often highly political environment.

In the last year, WellPoint became a favorite example of Congress and the administration for why health care overhaul was needed. Even people inside the industry say the company has been painfully slow to recognize consequences of some of its controversial actions, whether canceling a sick patient’s coverage or raising premiums on policies that lawmakers already call too expensive. And some say that Ms. Braly’s quickness to argue with WellPoint’s critics, revealing her training as a lawyer, is not always productive.

'WellPoint is the most incredibly tone-deaf insurance company in an industry full of deaf executives,' says Mr. Laszewski, the Virginia consultant. He criticizes Ms. Braly, who received $13.1 million last year in compensation, as being insensitive to the politics involved in running a health insurer, at both the state and federal levels. 'I don’t think she has the scar tissue and experience,' he says. 'I don’t think she has the marketplace instincts.'

Ms. Braly says her experience in government affairs makes her well suited for handling a complex regulatory environment.

Ms. Braly's background was cited as unusual for a health care CEO not because she has no obvious experience in direct health care, or its scientific or social scientific bases, but because she is a lawyer, not an MBA. It is interesting that we as a society have become so used to health care run by businesspeople that nothing in the article even obliquely suggested that Ms. Braly could benefit from some direct knowledge of or experience in caring for patients (or in biology, epidemiology, public health, etc), much less some sympathy for the values of health care professionals.

So I submit that this profile of the leadership of WellPoint provides another reason to reconsider why we have journeyed so far from an era when the AMA asserted, "the practice of medicine should not be commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade."  Current commercial health insurance (and the power that generally has been concentrated in large health care organizations) has certainly turned medicine into a commercialized venture, and treated the work of the individual health care professional as a commodity in trade.  Yet so far, what we have called health care reform in the US has just reinforced the power of large health care organizations. 

It also suggests that true health care reform ought to address the power now concentrated in large health care organizations, and ought to foster more honest and less profuse marketing by companies lead by people who have some knowledge of health care, and sympathy for its values.  We need to reinforce the neglected idea that health care ought to be a calling, not simply a way for some to become rich.

Who Guards the Guardians? - the Case of Boston Scientific

The fallout from the case of the faulty implantable cardiac defibrillators continues.  To summarize the story thus far,

We started posting about Boston Scientific's travails in 2005, starting with allegations that Guidant, which is now a Boston Scientific subsidiary, hid information about defects in the implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) the company manufactured. As we noted in early 2005 here, Guidant executives allegedly knew that ICDs made from 2000-2002 were at risk for short-circuiting and failing, thus making them unable to deliver potentially life saving electrical shocks meant to prevent cardiac arrests, but the company only revealed the problem in 2005. By failing to notify physicians and the public, Guidant executives let expensive and profitable, but potentially useless devices to continue to be implanted, potentially increasing the risk of sudden death for the patients who received them. Then here we noted reports that Guidant continued to ship failure-prone devices even after it had designed and started to manufacture new ICDs that were supposed to be less likely to fail. By June, 2005 we posted that Guidant had recalled thousands of ICDs, including models that were previously not identified as likely to fail. Later that year, the case rated an article by Robert Steinbrook in the New England Journal of Medicine. Towards the end of 2005, we noted that Eliot Spitzer had sued Guidant for fraud.  At the end of the year, more information appeared, suggesting that Guidant knew the ICDs were flawed, but continued to sell them. Still more appeared early in 2006. Then the business media became interested in the bidding war between Johnson and Johnson and Boston Scientific for Guidant, provoking a bit more interest in the tale of the suppression of data about the flawed ICDs.

Then all was quiet until 2009, when Guidant, now a Boston Scientific subsidiary, pleaded guilty to two criminal misdemeanor charges that it failed to properly notify the FDA about problems with its ICDs (see post here). Later, the Guidant subsidiary of Boston Scientific settled charges that it gave doctors kickbacks as part of a "seeding study" to use its devices. At that time, it came to light that Boston Scientific had made another settlement, in 2007, of civil lawsuits alleging that the company hid problems with its products (see post here).

More details about this guilty plea have just been reported.  As noted by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune,

A federal judge on Monday delayed a decision on whether to accept a $296 million plea agreement between the U.S. Justice Department and Boston Scientific Corp.'s Guidant subsidiary, which was charged with concealing critical safety information involving some of its top-selling heart devices.

If approved, the criminal penalty would rank as the largest ever in medical technology for a company that violated the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. But lawyers representing victims implanted with the potentially faulty devices threw a wrench into what was expected to be a routine hearing by demanding a piece of the settlement.

It appears that this settlement would not do any specific good for patients who claim to have been harmed by being implanted with a device that the manufacturer knew at the time to be faulty.

Also, the Star-Tribune noted:

Boston Scientific bought Guidant Corp., whose cardiac rhythm division is based in Arden Hills, for $27 billion in 2006. Though troubled, the division that makes pacemakers and defibrillators reported $2.6 billion in sales last year and still employs 2,000 people locally.

Thus, the financial penalty to be paid by Boston Scientific only would amount to little over ten percent of the yearly sales generated by the division which failed to disclose the faulty devices.

Adding to the sense that Boston Scientific and its leadership will feel little pain from the "largest criminal penalty ever assessed against a medical device company" (see this AP report) was this op-ed in the Boston Globe. It summarized just how richly the former CEO of Boston Scientific, Jim Tobin, who presided over the acquisition of Guidant and thus became responsible for its ethical lapses, and the current CEO, Ray Elliott have been compensated, in contrast to this supposedly large penalty. Re Tobin:

Tobin came to Boston Scientific in 1999 with similar instructions to clean up somebody else’s mess. He had to close facilities, ward off competitors, and, yes, settle patent lawsuits even back then. His carrot: A million stock options, a big deal in those days.

Tobin did fix some problems, and he brought the company’s new drug-eluting stent to market. Boston Scientific shares climbed, and he made about $39 million on options over the years. But Tobin also collected problems, the ones now in Elliott’s lap, and Boston Scientific shares fell again.

So here’s what the board did in February last year: It awarded Tobin 2 million more stock options, just a few months before announcing his retirement.

Adjusting for a stock split, the second option grant is the same size as what he got upon arrival.

And re Elliott:

Elliott, the man named as CEO of Boston Scientific Corp. last summer, became one of the best-paid chief executives in America in 2009. Separate national surveys published in the past week by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, although incomplete, come up with just one or two large-company CEOs with compensation packages that could outdo Elliott’s $33.5 million payday.

And see also this Health Care Renewal post. 

TheBoston Globe editorialist asked "so what exactly was the point of the second award [to Tobin]?"  Perhaps this question should be directed to the Boston Scientific board who approved it, and also approved Elliott's outsize pay package. 

The current board includes two co-founders of the company and the current CEO, two retired politicians, a few others with whom I am not familiar, but also two academics who may be quite familiar to Health Care Renewal readers. 

Recalling that Boston Scientific tried to plead guilty to charges of "making false statements ... to the FDA," and "failing to promptly notify regulators," it is striking that both these academics have had issues with transparency and free speech.  We just posted about the repeated failure of Prof Uwe Reinhardt to acknowledge the conflict of interests generated by his numerous memberships in the boards of health care companies, including Boston Scientific, when writing about health policy issues.  We have previously posted about the the conflicts of Marye Anne Fox, the Chancellor of the University of California - San Diego and hence leader of its medical school and academic medical center.  Chancellor Fox has just been criticized by FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) for allowing the silencing of a student publication and television station which had published or broadcast opinions that apparently offended university leaders.

So who in this sorry tale will stand up for quality care of patients?  The US Department of Justice is to be commended for pursuing deception by a large medical device company, but apparently could not bring itself to request a punishment for unethical practices likely to even inconvenience those responsible for the bad behavior.  The previous and current company CEOs have become quite rich without having to stand up for honesty, or patient safety.  The board of directors who are supposed to take responsibility for the overall direction of the company seem to have been happy just to go along.

As I have said before, endlessly, we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences.  Relatively small fines imposed on large corporations pain workers on the line and stockholders while sparing the richly paid top hired management and the boards that will not reign them in. 

Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich. 

Who Guards the Guardians? - the Case of Boston Scientific

The fallout from the case of the faulty implantable cardiac defibrillators continues.  To summarize the story thus far,

We started posting about Boston Scientific's travails in 2005, starting with allegations that Guidant, which is now a Boston Scientific subsidiary, hid information about defects in the implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) the company manufactured. As we noted in early 2005 here, Guidant executives allegedly knew that ICDs made from 2000-2002 were at risk for short-circuiting and failing, thus making them unable to deliver potentially life saving electrical shocks meant to prevent cardiac arrests, but the company only revealed the problem in 2005. By failing to notify physicians and the public, Guidant executives let expensive and profitable, but potentially useless devices to continue to be implanted, potentially increasing the risk of sudden death for the patients who received them. Then here we noted reports that Guidant continued to ship failure-prone devices even after it had designed and started to manufacture new ICDs that were supposed to be less likely to fail. By June, 2005 we posted that Guidant had recalled thousands of ICDs, including models that were previously not identified as likely to fail. Later that year, the case rated an article by Robert Steinbrook in the New England Journal of Medicine. Towards the end of 2005, we noted that Eliot Spitzer had sued Guidant for fraud.  At the end of the year, more information appeared, suggesting that Guidant knew the ICDs were flawed, but continued to sell them. Still more appeared early in 2006. Then the business media became interested in the bidding war between Johnson and Johnson and Boston Scientific for Guidant, provoking a bit more interest in the tale of the suppression of data about the flawed ICDs.

Then all was quiet until 2009, when Guidant, now a Boston Scientific subsidiary, pleaded guilty to two criminal misdemeanor charges that it failed to properly notify the FDA about problems with its ICDs (see post here). Later, the Guidant subsidiary of Boston Scientific settled charges that it gave doctors kickbacks as part of a "seeding study" to use its devices. At that time, it came to light that Boston Scientific had made another settlement, in 2007, of civil lawsuits alleging that the company hid problems with its products (see post here).

More details about this guilty plea have just been reported.  As noted by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune,

A federal judge on Monday delayed a decision on whether to accept a $296 million plea agreement between the U.S. Justice Department and Boston Scientific Corp.'s Guidant subsidiary, which was charged with concealing critical safety information involving some of its top-selling heart devices.

If approved, the criminal penalty would rank as the largest ever in medical technology for a company that violated the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. But lawyers representing victims implanted with the potentially faulty devices threw a wrench into what was expected to be a routine hearing by demanding a piece of the settlement.

It appears that this settlement would not do any specific good for patients who claim to have been harmed by being implanted with a device that the manufacturer knew at the time to be faulty.

Also, the Star-Tribune noted:

Boston Scientific bought Guidant Corp., whose cardiac rhythm division is based in Arden Hills, for $27 billion in 2006. Though troubled, the division that makes pacemakers and defibrillators reported $2.6 billion in sales last year and still employs 2,000 people locally.

Thus, the financial penalty to be paid by Boston Scientific only would amount to little over ten percent of the yearly sales generated by the division which failed to disclose the faulty devices.

Adding to the sense that Boston Scientific and its leadership will feel little pain from the "largest criminal penalty ever assessed against a medical device company" (see this AP report) was this op-ed in the Boston Globe. It summarized just how richly the former CEO of Boston Scientific, Jim Tobin, who presided over the acquisition of Guidant and thus became responsible for its ethical lapses, and the current CEO, Ray Elliott have been compensated, in contrast to this supposedly large penalty. Re Tobin:

Tobin came to Boston Scientific in 1999 with similar instructions to clean up somebody else’s mess. He had to close facilities, ward off competitors, and, yes, settle patent lawsuits even back then. His carrot: A million stock options, a big deal in those days.

Tobin did fix some problems, and he brought the company’s new drug-eluting stent to market. Boston Scientific shares climbed, and he made about $39 million on options over the years. But Tobin also collected problems, the ones now in Elliott’s lap, and Boston Scientific shares fell again.

So here’s what the board did in February last year: It awarded Tobin 2 million more stock options, just a few months before announcing his retirement.

Adjusting for a stock split, the second option grant is the same size as what he got upon arrival.

And re Elliott:

Elliott, the man named as CEO of Boston Scientific Corp. last summer, became one of the best-paid chief executives in America in 2009. Separate national surveys published in the past week by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, although incomplete, come up with just one or two large-company CEOs with compensation packages that could outdo Elliott’s $33.5 million payday.

And see also this Health Care Renewal post. 

TheBoston Globe editorialist asked "so what exactly was the point of the second award [to Tobin]?"  Perhaps this question should be directed to the Boston Scientific board who approved it, and also approved Elliott's outsize pay package. 

The current board includes two co-founders of the company and the current CEO, two retired politicians, a few others with whom I am not familiar, but also two academics who may be quite familiar to Health Care Renewal readers. 

Recalling that Boston Scientific tried to plead guilty to charges of "making false statements ... to the FDA," and "failing to promptly notify regulators," it is striking that both these academics have had issues with transparency and free speech.  We just posted about the repeated failure of Prof Uwe Reinhardt to acknowledge the conflict of interests generated by his numerous memberships in the boards of health care companies, including Boston Scientific, when writing about health policy issues.  We have previously posted about the the conflicts of Marye Anne Fox, the Chancellor of the University of California - San Diego and hence leader of its medical school and academic medical center.  Chancellor Fox has just been criticized by FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) for allowing the silencing of a student publication and television station which had published or broadcast opinions that apparently offended university leaders.

So who in this sorry tale will stand up for quality care of patients?  The US Department of Justice is to be commended for pursuing deception by a large medical device company, but apparently could not bring itself to request a punishment for unethical practices likely to even inconvenience those responsible for the bad behavior.  The previous and current company CEOs have become quite rich without having to stand up for honesty, or patient safety.  The board of directors who are supposed to take responsibility for the overall direction of the company seem to have been happy just to go along.

As I have said before, endlessly, we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences.  Relatively small fines imposed on large corporations pain workers on the line and stockholders while sparing the richly paid top hired management and the boards that will not reign them in. 

Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich. 

The Editorial that Wasn't: Evidence for Systematic Research Manipulation Undetectable by Critical Review

Woe to those of us who have been advocates for evidence-based medicine.  A short description of the evidence-based medicine is medicine whose practice is informed by critical, rigorous review of the best available evidence from clinical research as revealed by systematic search of the published research literature, as well as by the clinician's understanding of biology and the medical and biopsychosocial context, and by the patient's own values.

Evidence-based medicine is based on some key assumptions.  One is that a systematic review will reveal all the results of research studies that are relevant to the issue at hand.  A second is that while the research studies may be flawed and imperfect, they are reported honestly.

Unfortunately, as we have repeatedly discussed, there is more and more evidence that a systematic review will not reveal all relevant results, because research studies may be suppressed, perhaps often, when their results are unfavorable to vested interests.  (Look here for further discussion.)  There is also considerable anecdotal evidence that the design, implementation, and analysis of research studies may be manipulated to make the results more likely to favor vested interests.  (Look here for further discussion.)

An article by Vedula et al just published in the renowned New England Journal of Medicine suggests that such manipulation might be systemic, and that the reporting of manipulated studies may not clearly show what manipulation was done. (1)

To summarize, the authors got access through legal proceedings to internal study protocols and research reports from clinical trials sponsored by Parke-Davis (later merged into Pfizer Inc) of gabapentin (Neurontin) for a variety of clinical problems other than seizures.  Gabapentin was originally marketed as an anti-seizure drug, but Pfizer later "admitted guilt for off-label marketing."  (We discussed the stealth marketing campaign for Neurontin here.)  Vedula et al compared the primary outcome variables specified in the original research protocols, internal research reports, and any publications of the trials' results.  They identified 21 trials, 13 of which were published.  For 12 of the 13, the authors had access to the internal protocol, report, or both.  The main results were:

For 8 of the 12 published trials, there was a disagreement between the definition of the primary outcome in the protocol and that in the published report.... Sources of disagreement included the introduction of an entirely new primary outcome in the published report (in the case of 6 trials); failure to distinguish between primary and secondary outcomes in the published report, even though the protocol did distinguish between them (2 trials); relegation of a primary outcome in the protocol to a secondary outcome in the published report (2 trials); and failure to include in the published report one or more primary outcomes specified in the protocol (5 trials).

Furthermore, it appeared that failure of published articles to clearly and fully report results in terms of the original, pre-specified primary outcome variables occurred when these comparisons were not favorable to gabapentin. As the authors summarized:

Thus, trials with findings that were not statistically significant (P≥0.05) for the protocol-defined primary outcome, according to the internal documents, either were not published in full or were published with a changed primary outcome.

As shown in Figure 3, all the changes that took place between what was specified in the protocol, what was known before publication (as presented in the internal company research reports), and what was reported to the public led to a more favorable presentation in the medical literature of gabapentin's efficacy for unapproved indications.

They concluded:

We are concerned that the reporting practices observed in our analysis do not meet the ethical standards for clinical research or maintain the integrity of scientific knowledge. Fair and honest treatment of patients enrolled in clinical trials of any kind requires full, open, and unbiased reporting. Journal publication, a formalized platform for scientific discourse and dissemination of knowledge, should not be used as a marketing tool for off-label drug use.

Reporting biases such as those we describe here increase the likelihood that interventions will appear to be effective when they are not. Such biases can lead to the omission of negative findings in systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness and in evidence-based guidelines. For example, the 2005 Cochrane systematic review regarding the effectiveness of gabapentin for acute and chronic pain concluded that it is effective on the basis of published findings and should now be updated with the inclusion of unpublished information made available through litigation.

I believe that the article by Vedula et al is particularly important because it shows what appears to be systematic manipulation of the analysis and reporting of multiple clinical trials of the same drug (but for different indications) that had the effect of making the drug appear efficacious when it likely was not. Furthermore, the manipulation was concealed. The published research articles did not completely describe what the intended primary efficacy outcome variables were, did not provide results in terms of these variables, and instead provided results only in terms of variables that were chosen post-hoc as new primary outcome variables.

To address that latter point, I independently reviewed three of the research publications cited by Vedula et al.(2,3,4) All three were noted to have reported significant results favoring gabapentin in terms of a primary efficacy outcome variable that was not identified as such in the corresponding studies' original research protocols or reports (see the supplementary data provided with the New England Journal article.) Per my review, none of the three published articles offered any hint that what they reported as primary outcome variables were not the variables originally chosen in that capacity, nor did they identify what those original primary outcome variables were, or how comparisons made using them turned out.

The implications of the article by Vedula et al are very important. Hence, I was surprised that the article appeared without an accompanying editorial to discuss these implications, and that its publication did not generate much media interest.

So that gives me an opportunity to comment further.

One could start with the implications for evidence-based medicine. As noted above, a short description of the evidence-based medicine is medicine whose practice is informed by critical, rigorous review of the best available evidence from clinical research as revealed by systematic search of the published research literature, as well as by the clinician's understanding of biology and the medical and biopsychosocial context, and by the patient's own values. Evidence-based medicine depends on critical, rigorous review, but the review process is generally done under the assumptions that research publications honestly describe what was done and what its results were. The review process was never designed to detect dishonest reporting or find information that was deliberately concealed. Manipulation of research (design, analysis, and implementation), concealment of that manipulation, and outright suppression of research threaten the foundations of evidence-based medicine. Yet the article by Vedula et al is part of a growing body of evidence that such manipulation, concealment and suppression are widespread, and done to serve vested interests, often commercial.

That is a huge problem for proponents of evidence-based medicine, but also for physicians who want their practices to be based on science, for patients who want their care to be based on science, and for all those in society who see the advancement of medical science as a way to improve peoples' lives.

As senior author Professor Kay Dickersin noted in an interview with Bloomberg "The trouble is, as a scientist, the publication has always been held up to me as the truth. It's the scientific record. What this study indicated is we can't believe that record."

Furthermore, to be a bit more concrete, most physicians, patients, and policy makers depend on what appears to be honest clinical research to make decisions about individual care and health policy. Deliberate and deceitful manipulation of clinical research to favor sponsors' products has likely lead to excessive use of and payments for drugs and devices that are less effective than advertised, if not useless or dangerous. Thus, it is likely that such manipulation is partially responsible for ever increasing health costs and poor health outcomes.

Finally, we need to start thinking about how we can detect and compensate for manipulation of clinical research in the past, and deter such manipulation in the future. One possible deterrent would be, as was noted by Vedula et al, detailed clinical trials registries that contain complete information about trial protocols.  For this to be effective, there need to be mechanisms to assure compliance, and penalties for non-compliance.  Moreover, since clinical research is now global, the registries must have global scope, and enforced assurance of compliance must also be global.

Registries might decrease future manipulation and suppression of research.   No one has suggested, as far as I know, a systematic way to detect and correct for previous manipulation. It would require a major, global investigative effort to uncover manipulation, and it would be a major scientific and policy endeavor to reveal most suppressed research and correct most manipulations.

However, before anything is done, patients, physicians and policy makers must acknowledge and understand the problem.  Yet it seems that even discussing these may be topics that are very uncomfortable for some of us. The longer we shrink from addressing them, however, the worse will be the results for patients, physicians, science and society.

References

1. Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K. Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored tirals of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1963-1971. Link here.

2. Mathew NT, Rapoport A, Saper J et al. Efficacy of gabapentin in migraine prophylaxis. Headache 2001; 41: 119-128. Link here.

3. Vieta E, Goikolea JM, Martinea-Aran A et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, prophylaxis study of adjunctive gabapentin for bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatr 2006; 67: 473-477.  Link here.

4. Caraceni A, Zecca E, Bonezzi C et al. Gabapentin for neuropathic cancer pain: a randomized controlled trial from the gabapentin cancer pain study group. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2909-2917. Link here.

The Editorial that Wasn't: Evidence for Systematic Research Manipulation Undetectable by Critical Review

Woe to those of us who have been advocates for evidence-based medicine.  A short description of the evidence-based medicine is medicine whose practice is informed by critical, rigorous review of the best available evidence from clinical research as revealed by systematic search of the published research literature, as well as by the clinician's understanding of biology and the medical and biopsychosocial context, and by the patient's own values.

Evidence-based medicine is based on some key assumptions.  One is that a systematic review will reveal all the results of research studies that are relevant to the issue at hand.  A second is that while the research studies may be flawed and imperfect, they are reported honestly.

Unfortunately, as we have repeatedly discussed, there is more and more evidence that a systematic review will not reveal all relevant results, because research studies may be suppressed, perhaps often, when their results are unfavorable to vested interests.  (Look here for further discussion.)  There is also considerable anecdotal evidence that the design, implementation, and analysis of research studies may be manipulated to make the results more likely to favor vested interests.  (Look here for further discussion.)

An article by Vedula et al just published in the renowned New England Journal of Medicine suggests that such manipulation might be systemic, and that the reporting of manipulated studies may not clearly show what manipulation was done. (1)

To summarize, the authors got access through legal proceedings to internal study protocols and research reports from clinical trials sponsored by Parke-Davis (later merged into Pfizer Inc) of gabapentin (Neurontin) for a variety of clinical problems other than seizures.  Gabapentin was originally marketed as an anti-seizure drug, but Pfizer later "admitted guilt for off-label marketing."  (We discussed the stealth marketing campaign for Neurontin here.)  Vedula et al compared the primary outcome variables specified in the original research protocols, internal research reports, and any publications of the trials' results.  They identified 21 trials, 13 of which were published.  For 12 of the 13, the authors had access to the internal protocol, report, or both.  The main results were:

For 8 of the 12 published trials, there was a disagreement between the definition of the primary outcome in the protocol and that in the published report.... Sources of disagreement included the introduction of an entirely new primary outcome in the published report (in the case of 6 trials); failure to distinguish between primary and secondary outcomes in the published report, even though the protocol did distinguish between them (2 trials); relegation of a primary outcome in the protocol to a secondary outcome in the published report (2 trials); and failure to include in the published report one or more primary outcomes specified in the protocol (5 trials).

Furthermore, it appeared that failure of published articles to clearly and fully report results in terms of the original, pre-specified primary outcome variables occurred when these comparisons were not favorable to gabapentin. As the authors summarized:

Thus, trials with findings that were not statistically significant (P≥0.05) for the protocol-defined primary outcome, according to the internal documents, either were not published in full or were published with a changed primary outcome.

As shown in Figure 3, all the changes that took place between what was specified in the protocol, what was known before publication (as presented in the internal company research reports), and what was reported to the public led to a more favorable presentation in the medical literature of gabapentin's efficacy for unapproved indications.

They concluded:

We are concerned that the reporting practices observed in our analysis do not meet the ethical standards for clinical research or maintain the integrity of scientific knowledge. Fair and honest treatment of patients enrolled in clinical trials of any kind requires full, open, and unbiased reporting. Journal publication, a formalized platform for scientific discourse and dissemination of knowledge, should not be used as a marketing tool for off-label drug use.

Reporting biases such as those we describe here increase the likelihood that interventions will appear to be effective when they are not. Such biases can lead to the omission of negative findings in systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness and in evidence-based guidelines. For example, the 2005 Cochrane systematic review regarding the effectiveness of gabapentin for acute and chronic pain concluded that it is effective on the basis of published findings and should now be updated with the inclusion of unpublished information made available through litigation.

I believe that the article by Vedula et al is particularly important because it shows what appears to be systematic manipulation of the analysis and reporting of multiple clinical trials of the same drug (but for different indications) that had the effect of making the drug appear efficacious when it likely was not. Furthermore, the manipulation was concealed. The published research articles did not completely describe what the intended primary efficacy outcome variables were, did not provide results in terms of these variables, and instead provided results only in terms of variables that were chosen post-hoc as new primary outcome variables.

To address that latter point, I independently reviewed three of the research publications cited by Vedula et al.(2,3,4) All three were noted to have reported significant results favoring gabapentin in terms of a primary efficacy outcome variable that was not identified as such in the corresponding studies' original research protocols or reports (see the supplementary data provided with the New England Journal article.) Per my review, none of the three published articles offered any hint that what they reported as primary outcome variables were not the variables originally chosen in that capacity, nor did they identify what those original primary outcome variables were, or how comparisons made using them turned out.

The implications of the article by Vedula et al are very important. Hence, I was surprised that the article appeared without an accompanying editorial to discuss these implications, and that its publication did not generate much media interest.

So that gives me an opportunity to comment further.

One could start with the implications for evidence-based medicine. As noted above, a short description of the evidence-based medicine is medicine whose practice is informed by critical, rigorous review of the best available evidence from clinical research as revealed by systematic search of the published research literature, as well as by the clinician's understanding of biology and the medical and biopsychosocial context, and by the patient's own values. Evidence-based medicine depends on critical, rigorous review, but the review process is generally done under the assumptions that research publications honestly describe what was done and what its results were. The review process was never designed to detect dishonest reporting or find information that was deliberately concealed. Manipulation of research (design, analysis, and implementation), concealment of that manipulation, and outright suppression of research threaten the foundations of evidence-based medicine. Yet the article by Vedula et al is part of a growing body of evidence that such manipulation, concealment and suppression are widespread, and done to serve vested interests, often commercial.

That is a huge problem for proponents of evidence-based medicine, but also for physicians who want their practices to be based on science, for patients who want their care to be based on science, and for all those in society who see the advancement of medical science as a way to improve peoples' lives.

As senior author Professor Kay Dickersin noted in an interview with Bloomberg "The trouble is, as a scientist, the publication has always been held up to me as the truth. It's the scientific record. What this study indicated is we can't believe that record."

Furthermore, to be a bit more concrete, most physicians, patients, and policy makers depend on what appears to be honest clinical research to make decisions about individual care and health policy. Deliberate and deceitful manipulation of clinical research to favor sponsors' products has likely lead to excessive use of and payments for drugs and devices that are less effective than advertised, if not useless or dangerous. Thus, it is likely that such manipulation is partially responsible for ever increasing health costs and poor health outcomes.

Finally, we need to start thinking about how we can detect and compensate for manipulation of clinical research in the past, and deter such manipulation in the future. One possible deterrent would be, as was noted by Vedula et al, detailed clinical trials registries that contain complete information about trial protocols.  For this to be effective, there need to be mechanisms to assure compliance, and penalties for non-compliance.  Moreover, since clinical research is now global, the registries must have global scope, and enforced assurance of compliance must also be global.

Registries might decrease future manipulation and suppression of research.   No one has suggested, as far as I know, a systematic way to detect and correct for previous manipulation. It would require a major, global investigative effort to uncover manipulation, and it would be a major scientific and policy endeavor to reveal most suppressed research and correct most manipulations.

However, before anything is done, patients, physicians and policy makers must acknowledge and understand the problem.  Yet it seems that even discussing these may be topics that are very uncomfortable for some of us. The longer we shrink from addressing them, however, the worse will be the results for patients, physicians, science and society.

References


1. Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K. Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored tirals of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1963-1971. Link here.


2. Mathew NT, Rapoport A, Saper J et al. Efficacy of gabapentin in migraine prophylaxis. Headache 2001; 41: 119-128. Link here.


3. Vieta E, Goikolea JM, Martinea-Aran A et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, prophylaxis study of adjunctive gabapentin for bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatr 2006; 67: 473-477.  Link here.


4. Caraceni A, Zecca E, Bonezzi C et al. Gabapentin for neuropathic cancer pain: a randomized controlled trial from the gabapentin cancer pain study group. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2909-2917. Link here.