Zyprexa and Key Opinion Leaders

Since the Zyprexa trial is ongoing in Alaska, I thought I should return to the wonderful world of Zyprexa. I encourage readers to follow the Zyprexa coverage at Furious Seasons, Pharmalot, and PharmaGossip. Today, I will discuss the link between key opinion leaders and the marketing of Zyprexa. To preface, a coveted Golden Goblet Nomination could be handed out to several individuals based on their involvement in Zyprexa marketing...

In March 2000, Zyprexa received FDA approval for treatment of manic episodes. One document laid out the multipronged marketing maneuvers that Lilly utilized to move Zyprexa shortly after its approval. Some of the details of this document have been well-covered in a terrific piece of investigative journalism at Furious Seasons. This post will provide some coverage of the link between Zyprexa and the key opinion leaders who helped popularize the drug across the nation.

Once approved for bipolar disorder, Lilly utilized several tactics to market Zyprexa for bipolar disorder, including a satellite conference beamed to about 6000 physicians, and 8000 treatment team members in 1000 facilities. The faculty providing this educational service included many of the big names in academic psychiatry, including Paul Keck, Jan Fawcett, Hagop Akiskal, and Alan Schatzberg.

Alan Schatzberg, you say? Yes, the same Alan Schatzberg who is set to become president of the American Psychiatric Association. Some have been less than pleased with his election as APA president, considering his background as a physician-marketer, a key opinion leader with large conflicts of interest. The same Alan Schatzberg who has been involved in marketing passing itself off as continuing medical education.

Lilly also bankrolled dinner meetings, anticipated to draw 150-400 physicians per sitting. Dr. Schatzberg was also listed as a speaker for such dinners. One mental health service provider was impressed enough with receiving such excellent medical education that you can find it on his CV.

In the document outlining Zypexa's big marketing launch, Paul Keck's name appears in the following contexts:

• Satellite symposium provider
• Trainer of "local speakers." I believe this means he would train local physicians in various markets to then discuss Zyprexa with their colleagues.
• Faculty for bipolar weekend symposia
• Faculty for audio conferences
  
• Faculty for a satellite CME workshop
• Faculty for "dissemination of Bipolar information to 30,000 customers"
• Faculty on a "closed symposium" resulting in a CME newsletter and a CME audiotape, both of which were mailed to 30,000 individuals
• Author of two journal supplement articles

Paul Keck was also a member of a task force chartered by the American Psychiatric Association that served to revise the organization's guidelines to provide a more favorable view of atypical antipsychotics (including Zyprexa) in the treatment of bipolar disorder. No conflict of interest there, eh?

Keck said in a 2002 interview that:

"Often," Keck said, "patients with bipolar disorder require complex treatment regimens to manage all phases of their illness, creating a compliance challenge for patients and a management challenge for clinicians. These studies suggest that physicians may be able to use olanzapine as a foundation to simplify patients’ treatment regimens, and the combination of olanzapine and fluoxetine could be an effective treatment choice

It is likely that Keck was not performing all of his "educational" functions for Lilly in exchange for lollipops. He was likely receiving a healthy dose of cold, hard cash. Yet in the article, nothing is written about his financial links to Lilly. Keck has also appeared in press releases saying nice things about Symbyax (fluoxetine/olanzapine combination).

To be fair, Keck has also stumped for Pfizer's Geodon in press releases. Oh, and he also said nice things about Abilify in a press release. I suppose that if one is going to be a true key opinion leader, a real mover and shaker, one should be prepared to say nice things about whatever new drug is released, since each new drug naturally represents an "important" treatment option. Keck, like Alan Schatzberg and Charles Nemeroff, is also currently listed as a member of the clinical advisory board for Neuroscience CME, a for-profit entity awash in drug industry money. Dr. Daniel Carlat has previously written that the "educational" content produced by this organization is biased, and I find that easy to believe. It's not hard to find examples of poorly done industry-funded CME. In fact, you might be interested in reading about a CME activity in which Nemeroff seems to have pulled data out of thin air.

In sum, the usual fun and games were in play when Zyprexa was initially being pushed for bipolar disorder. Some of the biggest names in psychiatry left their fingerprints all over the marketing of Zyprexa and one of these key opinion leaders recently won the presidential election for the American Psychiatric Association. I suppose, then, that American psychiatrists are generally either unaware of conflicts of interest or don't care about them.

The beautiful thing about being a key opinion leader is that one's name recognition is huge. Among psychiatrists, I bet that Schatzberg's name is better known than that of Bill Clinton, since Schatzberg's byline appears on journal supplements and CME so frequently. That can't hurt when running for president of the national professional organization. I will be very interested to see how Schatzberg handles questions about conflicts of interest and drug industry influence on his profession. Don't be expecting any major efforts at reform in the near future.

Key Opinion Leaders, Osteoporosis, Vioxx, Psychiatry, Science, and Patients

Remember Richard Eastell? To summarize briefly, he is a professor at Sheffield University who was lead author on a publication that showed positive results for the osteoporosis drug Actonel. One problem: the data did not actually provide good news for Actonel. In a key graph in the published paper, 40% of patient data was missing. Now that's an interesting form of science: Just eliminate the pesky 40% of the data that don't go along with your hypothesis and POOF!, you get exactly the results you are looking for. An excellent writeup of the situation can be seen in Jennifer Washburn's excellent piece in Slate. Making the plot more interesting, Eastell did not have the raw data; Procter & Gamble's (Actonel's sponsor) statisticians were in charge of the analysis. Hence the missing 40% of the data, which helped to cast Actonel in a more positive light. Read more on the topic here. When all data are included, the analysis does not support Actonel's marketing points. Eastell signed off on the original (misleading) paper saying that he had seen all of the data, which was, of course not true.

I noted in October 2006 that Eastell was chairing a session on osteoporosis, one that charged a hefty registration fee. The website promoting the session at the time mentioned: "This course is suitable for pharmaceutical industry personnel from clinical through to marketing disciplines." I suppose that Eastell is a key opinion leader in his field. Being willing to put one's name on a paper where the key graph knocks out 40% of the data is a good step toward becoming an influential academic these days. I suppose Eastell could at least claim ignorance, since he was unfamiliar with the underlying data.

In psychiatry, Charles Nemeroff, a key opinion leader, put his name on a continuing medical education presentation in which the data don't match with the published article that was based on the same data set. In the CME presentation, the medication (risperidone) outperformed placebo, although the published report indicated that risperidone did not beat a placebo, and in the CME presentation, risperidone was claimed to improve sexual functioning, which was never mentioned in the published article.

Eastell and a colleague recently received a roughly $7.5 million grant. Good for them. I've got nothing against the guy personally; I just find it interesting that he is getting rewarded nicely despite the whole Actonel fiasco. And I've only described a wee bit of that strange saga. The Scientific Misconduct Blog has much, much more. Like the part where he told Blumsohn to stop bothering Procter & Gamble about the data because P & G was a good source of income for the university. I've got no problem with excellence being rewarded. Perhaps Eastell has done many excellent things. However, during the P &G/Actonel fiasco, Eastell was willing to let the sponsors push him around, even if science was being bastardized in the process. Their money meant more than good science. And if patients took Actonel thinking that it was more effective than it actually was, who cares -- they're not the ones providing the research funding, right?

Think about this for a second. Many people have been up in arms about the recently unveiled Vioxx ghostwriting scandal. For a fantastic take on the scandal, see Health Care Renewal or Hooked. Briefly, Merck and its associated medical writers wrote manuscripts that said nice things about Vioxx. Then academic authors/key opinion leaders were found to review the papers and stick their names on as lead authors. Mind you, "reviewing" the papers often meant simply meant making minimal edits, if even putting in that much effort. Did they see the data? They saw tables and figures provided by Merck, but did they see the raw data? In most cases, apparently not. Doesn't that make them information launderers? They take industry data, and clean it up with their academic reputation. Oh, Dr. So-and-So is at Sheffield or Emory or Harvard... -- he must have made sure that the sponsoring drug company is portraying the data accurately. A veneer of credibility. And an extra publication for the key opinion leader, which makes the KOL that much more important in the academic world where publication envy runs rampant.

This system is not exactly set up to benefit patient outcomes, is it?

Bipolar Child Key Opinion Leader: I Get Money

As reported on the Wall Street Journal Health Blog, Dr. Melissa DelBello's tight financial ties to AstraZeneca are again under scrutiny. This should come as no surprise to my readers, as I noted in March that, in 2003-2004, DelBello had been the recipient of $180,000 from AstraZeneca (makers of Seroquel). I gleaned this information from results of an investigation by Senator Charles Grassley. The WSJ Health Blog noted that Grassley's investigation has continued, revealing that:

DelBello, who also has received NIH grants, also reported $100,000 in outside income between 2005 and 2007. But when Grassley asked AstraZeneca directly, the total value of its payments to DelBello during those three years came to $238,000.

So she claimed initially that she received $100k from 2005-2007, but she actually pulled in $238k from a single company and who knows how much from other outside entities. In fact, it is clear that DelBello has received funding from several other corporate interests. To quote her disclosure from a continuing medical education exercise:

Dr. DelBello has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer: Consultant; AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer: Speakers’ Bureau; and Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, and Shire: Research Support Recipient.

But wait, there's more! According to Grassley's investigation, DelBello has also established a company for "personal financial purposes." The company is called MSZ Associates and AstraZeneca put $60,000 in the coffers of the company. The address of MSZ Associates, according to Grassley, is the University of Cincinnati Department of Psychiatry (where DelBello works).

Again, as I've said earlier, I don't know Dr. DelBello, but from this information, I do indeed feel comfortable nominating her for a Golden Goblet Award. For background, read here and here. PharmaGossip's interesting visual representation of the situation can be seen here.

This is how one sets out to become a key opinion leader. DelBello quite likely has a mortgage and bills to pay, but is this confluence of commercial and academic interests really the best we can do for our patients?

Being a key opinion leader has one pleasant side effect: You Gets Mad Money.

(Warning: Video contains adult language)

Bipolar, Kids, Key Opinion Leaders, and Cash

The New York Times has just run a great story about just how much doctors in Minnesota have been stumping for various atypical antipsychotic meds and how this is related to the large upswing in their usage. Though the focus of the article is on kids, the same quite likely holds true for adults as well.

The patient who gets the most coverage in the story is Anya Bailey, who, at age 12, apparently developed an eating disorder and was prescribed Risperdal. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence to support such a prescription, but the doctor was apparently thinking the side effect of weight gain would be a bonus in her case.

Anya developed a “crippling knot in her back” as a result of treatment. Her mother alleges that she was never told that the evidence base behind such a prescription was nonexistent. The authors say it nicely (highlighting added):

Just as surprising, Ms. Bailey said, was learning that the university psychiatrist who supervised Anya’s care received more than $7,000 from 2003 to 2004 from Johnson & Johnson, Risperdal’s maker, in return for lectures about one of the company’s drugs.

Doctors, including Anya Bailey’s, maintain that payments from drug companies do not influence what they prescribe for patients.

But the intersection of money and medicine, and its effect on the well-being of patients, has become one of the most contentious issues in health care. Nowhere is that more true than in psychiatry, where increasing payments to doctors have coincided with the growing use in children of a relatively new class of drugs known as atypical antipsychotics.

These best-selling drugs, including Risperdal, Seroquel, Zyprexa, Abilify and Geodon, are now being prescribed to more than half a million children in the United States to help parents deal with behavior problems despite profound risks and almost no approved uses for minors.

SNIP

From 2000 to 2005, drug maker payments to Minnesota psychiatrists rose more than sixfold, to $1.6 million. During those same years, prescriptions of antipsychotics for children in Minnesota’s Medicaid program rose more than ninefold.

Those who took the most money from makers of atypicals tended to prescribe the drugs to children the most often, the data suggest. On average, Minnesota psychiatrists who received at least $5,000 from atypical makers from 2000 to 2005 appear to have written three times as many atypical prescriptions for children as psychiatrists who received less or no money.

Key Opinion Leaders: Let's talk about folks who are quick to try out new drugs, often for uses that have little supporting evidence. They are called “high flyers” or early prescribers, as well as some other terms. These are the docs most highly targeted by drug companies because they tend to yield the highest return on investment. How do you target docs? With key opinion leaders. Find a "respected" physician to talk with the high flyers (though other docs are also targeted). Use a KOL who will be seen as "objective" -- this will help convince the doctor to start using the new drug(s). Read the following snippet from a company that contracts with Big Pharma to develop KOLs to influence prescribing habits. All emphases are mine.

The professional networks of physicians play an important role in product adoption. A decision to adopt a product can be profoundly influenced by Key Opinion Leader (KOL) peers who have already formed a positive opinion about a product.

Through our uniquely created patent pending process we target those KOL’s focused on top prescribers of treatments for a given specialty. These leaders significantly influence the opinions, and behaviors of others through their knowledge, advice and enhanced perspective, creating advocates which, then help gain the adoption of the product.

In this case our highly trained engineers delivered a solution using the latest technology and our proven process in a matter of weeks. Our Successful KOL program strategies are based on systematic and rigorous methods for identification, new research techniques, and the use of the latest technologies. We leveraged these strategies so that BMS could establish long-term relationships of mutual trust with these leaders built on integrity and continuity.

Through our user-friendly methodology we have proven that successful marketing and adoption of a product requires a minimum of four steps. We incorporate these four steps as the basis for this successful solution:

1. Awareness: The physician recognizes the product by name.
2. Agreement: The physician evaluates and agrees to the theoretical premise of the product.
3. Adoption: The physician decides to use the product on a trial basis.
4. Integration: The physician incorporates the product into his daily practice of medicine.

Ain’t that neat? I think you’ll see how this relates to the remainder of the NYT article, to which we now return.

Stumping for Drug Companies: From the NYT piece...

In Minnesota, psychiatrists collected more money from drug makers from 2000 to 2005 than doctors in any other specialty. Total payments to individual psychiatrists ranged from $51 to more than $689,000, with a median of $1,750. Since the records are incomplete, these figures probably underestimate doctors’ actual incomes.

Anya’s doctor, George Realmuto gave several educational marketing speeches for Concerta, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, which also makes Risperdal. He had the following to say (and I hope he was misquoted) when asked about why he gives marketing speeches for drugs.

“To the extent that a drug is useful, I want to be seen as a leader in my specialty and that I was involved in a scientific study,” he said. [i.e. I wanna be a key opinion leader???]

The money is nice, too, he said. Dr. Realmuto’s university salary is $196,310.

“Academics don’t get paid very much,” he said. “If I was an entertainer, I think I would certainly do a lot better.”

Hey, can someone fetch me the Kleenex? Making $196,310 per year is a sign that he does not “get paid very much.” Cry me a river. In-blanking-credible.

As the interview continued, Dr. Realmuto said that upon reflection his payments from drug companies had probably opened his door to useless visits from a drug salesman, and he said he would stop giving sponsored lectures in the future.

Good for him. Now I’m not saying that his Concerta gig made him prescribe Risperdal in Anya’s case. Might having a cozy relationship with J & J lead to prescribing more J & J products? Perhaps, but I don’t know. What concerns me most is that, if he was quoted correctly and in context, he really thinks that a $200k salary is not enough income. If that’s the case, and he’s willing to put his stamp of approval on a drug via marketing speeches because a $200k salary is insufficient, then that level of greed is astounding by most standards.

Moving along…

The drug industry and many doctors say that these promotional lectures provide the field with invaluable education. Critics say the payments and lectures, often at expensive restaurants, are disguised kickbacks that encourage potentially dangerous drug uses. The issue is particularly important in psychiatry, because mental problems are not well understood, treatment often involves trial and error, and off-label prescribing is common.

The analysis of Minnesota records shows that from 1997 through 2005, more than a third of Minnesota’s licensed psychiatrists took money from drug makers, including the last eight presidents of the Minnesota Psychiatric Society.

The psychiatrist receiving the most from drug companies was Dr. Annette M. Smick, who lives outside Rochester, Minn., and was paid more than $689,000 by drug makers from 1998 to 2004. At one point Dr. Smick was doing so many sponsored talks that “it was hard for me to find time to see patients in my clinical practice,” she said.

“I was providing an educational benefit, and I like teaching,” Dr. Smick said.

Giving so many speeches pimping new drugs that you can’t find time to see patients? Dr. Smick is hereby officially nominated for a Golden Goblet Award (1, 2). That’s Pimpin’ it Hard.

Even the immediate past president of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Steven Sharfstein, chimed in, pointing out that it’s sure odd that Lexapro is the most prescribed antidepressant in the absence of evidence that it’s better than generic antidepressants – could it be that Lexapro still has key opinion leaders talking up the drug, Forest Labs has reps pushing Lexapro in office visits, and that Lexapro is featured in quite a bit of medical journal advertising? Hey, do you think that the meteoric rise of Cymbalta might also be due to marketing rather than scientific evidence?

Child and Adolescent Bipolar: The controversy continues. From the NYT article…

The sudden popularity of pediatric bipolar diagnosis has coincided with a shift from antidepressants like Prozac to far more expensive atypicals. In 2000, Minnesota spent more than $521,000 buying antipsychotic drugs, most of it on atypicals, for children on Medicaid. In 2005, the cost was more than $7.1 million, a 14-fold increase.

SNIP

Many Minnesota doctors, including the president of the Minnesota Psychiatric Society, said drug makers and their intermediaries are now paying them almost exclusively to talk about bipolar disorder.

On to the “research” regarding treating bipolar in children and adolescents. As discussed in the NYT article, there was a study done, in which 30 adolescents took either Depakote + placebo or Depakote + Seroquel. The combined treatment group did better at the end, but about half of the adolescents in the Depakote + Seroquel group dropped out of the study. So basically the study was a wash. Yet, in the published paper, it was stated that Depakote + Seroquel “is more effective for the treatment of adolescent bipolar mania” than just Depakote + placebo. Nice.

Melissa DelBello (author of aforementioned study) and Robert Kowatch (both of the University of Cincinatti), conducted another study on treatment of adolescent bipolar, in which Seroquel showed about equal results (perhaps a slight advantage) to Depakote. Both DelBello and Kowatch also give marketing talks for Seroquel – no doubt they are both considered “key opinion leaders.”

There have been a few other studies done, but it is safe to say the evidence base is pretty weak for treatment of child and adolescent bipolar disorder. Data on longer-term (like longer than a month or two) treatment is sorely lacking.

Here’s what one Minnesota psychiatrist had to say regarding the meager evidence base on child/adolescent bipolar:

“We don’t have time to wait for them to prove us right,” said Dr. Kent G. Brockmann, a psychiatrist from the Twin Cities who made more than $16,000 from 2003 to 2005 doing drug talks and one-on-one sales meetings, and last year was a leading prescriber of atypicals to Medicaid children.

Wait a minute, Kent Brockmann – take away one ‘n’ on his name and you’ve got this guy. HA! Anyway, Dr. Brockman needs to give kids atypicals because it is urgent – maybe he buys into the 75% of “bipolar” children become suicidal line. This line of "prescribe new meds because it's an urgent, urgent emergency" makes me wonder if the docs who are all over the atypicals now are the same ones who were prescribing Neurontin for everything as well because they "couldn't wait" for the data to vindicate their prescribing practices. As it turns out, Neurontin for psych disorders turned out to be a flop, but that didn't stop it being prescribed like candy by many docs. Maybe I'm wrong -- the Neurontin crowd could be entirely different than the atypicals for everything (and bipolar is everywhere) crowd -- I'm just taking a guess.

Oh, and as for safety…

In 2006, the Food and Drug Administration received reports of at least 29 children dying and at least 165 more suffering serious side effects in which an antipsychotic was listed as the “primary suspect.” That was a substantial jump from 2000, when there were at least 10 deaths and 85 serious side effects among children linked to the drugs. Since reporting of bad drug effects is mostly voluntary, these numbers likely represent a fraction of the toll.

Summary: The bipolar diagnosis in kids is highly controversial (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and there is pert-near no evidence favoring treatment using atypical antipsychotics to manage their “bipolar” symptoms. Key opinion leaders have done a nice job of pimping atypicals – the $170 - $250k many of these folks earn in academia just ain’t enough – they have to provide “education” to their colleagues regarding these “life-saving” medications. Drug companies decide to push a diagnosis and recruit KOLs (as well as utilizing other tricks) to persuade doctors to prescribe the new meds, regardless of supporting evidence.

Thank whomever designed the law in Minnesota requiring disclosure of industry funding. This set of data regarding industry funding could just keep giving... And thank the good folks at the New York Times, specifically Gardiner Harris, Benedict Carey and Janet Roberts, for their insightful piece of work.

Note that I'm not saying everyone who does drug-sponsored speaking gigs is a gold-chain wearing, cane-toting pimp. What I am suggesting is that conflicts of interest often influence people, even when they think they are not being influenced. I'm all about the openness. Patients should probably be aware if their doctors are receiving income on the side through promotion of a certain medication or medications. Is that too much to ask?

Also, what world do people live in when they think that a $200k salary is insufficient? Is this a sign of entitlement, poor money management, really rich tastes, or what? How many McKinnells do people think they're worth, anyway?

Hat Tip: Furious Seasons.

Key Opinion Leader Syndrome

I ran across a rather hilarious article from Medical Hypotheses, in which David Healy described "Krapelin-Fraud Syndrome", which I have also dubbed "Key Opinion Leader Syndrome." See below for the diagnostic criteria.

In line with current neo-Kraepelinian thinking, we put forward operational criteria for this new disorder for provisional inclusion in ICD-XI or DSM-V. An affected subject should meet at least 2 of criteria A–D and 2 more from criteria E–J. Fulfillment of all criteria A–D in the absence of any other features of the disorder will make the diagnosis, although this may represent a syndromal variant.
(A) A pervasive pattern of travelling to scientific conferences and talking about research data that he has had no involvement in generating.
(B) Episodic logosagnosia.
(C) Unusual abilities to compartmentalise information.
(D) Will have a significant number of ‘‘ghost-written” articles.
(E) Actively seeks admiration by peers and subordinates.
(F) An exaggerated sense of own talents, which can be inferred from expectations of recognition as an expert in the absence of commensurate achievements. Happy in the role of opinion leader.
(G) Has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment from symposium and congress organisers.
(H) Liable to profound dysphoria if not involved with the ‘‘academic action”.
(I) May be unreasonably envious of the scientific achievements of others and is liable to denigrate these. Would also be unhappy if his colleagues had appeared on ‘‘educational” videos and he had not.
(J) Is unaware of the disorder quality of the syndrome.

Two case studies are included, one of which reads in part:

One of the striking features of his lecturing is the dissociation between his reputation as a critical and skeptical lecturer when dealing with topics on the main programme of the meeting and the extent to which he may be prepared to offer apparently enthusiastic and uncritical endorsement for a compound in a satellite symposium. Very frequently this uncritical endorsement will involve the recycling of outdated ideas, which it is difficult to believe that either B or indeed many of his audience can conceivably believe and which indeed he may contradict within the hour at another symposium.

Hmmmm. Enthusiastic and uncritical endorsement of [insert product name here]. That reminds me of a post or two I've written... I made a rough list of symptoms for KOL Syndrome in July 2008. Different symptoms, but same idea.

Wanted: Drug Pimp/Key Opinion Leader

Daniel Carlat from the Carlat Psychiatry Blog received an invitation to the key opinion leader club from the good people at Schering-Plough. The company wanted him to read their slides to other physicians in order to promote their brand spanikn' new antipsychotic/mood stabilizer Saphris (asenapine). Because, of course, if he reads the slides, they are more credible than if read by one of those sleazy drug reps; it's so much more classy and believable if an "independent" psychiatrist reads the company's marketing copy.

Carlat posted the documents used in the attempt to recruit him (cover letter, speaker bureau arrangement, pimp, er, speaker fees) Everyone should read them. Speakers are only allowed to rake in $170,000 of dirty money through this program. I suppose anything more would make them look like shameless drug pimps. But if you were to take, say, $50k for your "educational" services, that would be totally acceptable, right? I hereby nominate anyone who accepts Schering-Plough's generous offer for the much coveted Golden Goblet Award.

What's the deal with this Saphris drug, anyway? One neuropsychologist reviewed the data and found that it promises to be yet another also-ran atypical antipsychotic, at best. Some have also raised questions of whether the drug deserved FDA approval at all. Get ready for some ghostwritten articles that present the evidence surrounding Saphris in a ridiculously biased manner, for key opinion leaders to travel to conferences extolling its virtues, and for the rest of the usual marketing tricks.

Key Opinion Leader Is Unfairly Disparaged

Or so she said. I've written about key opinion leader, University of Cincinnati child psychiatrist Melissa DelBello a few times (here, here, and here). One key point was she was quoted as saying "Trust me. I don't make much" in regards to income received from AstraZeneca for giving favorable talks for its antipsychotic drug Seroquel. I had missed that in 2007, she claimed she was misquoted in an interesting piece on Inside Higher Ed:

[University of Cincinnati spokesperspon] Puff said that DelBello’s comment in May that she did not “make much” money from drug companies had actually come in response to the reporter’s question “about how much money she was given for making a single, individual presentation. Her comment was misrepresented and then repeated by Sen. Grassley.” Added DelBello: “I was and have been misquoted by the NYT.” (The Times reporter, Gardiner Harris, could not be reached Sunday to respond to the suggestion that he had misrepresented DelBello’s comment.)

Puff also said that “the implication of what Sen. Grassley said was that she was disingenuous in what she was paid. She has been completely open in disclosing her payments. She’s made complete disclosures to the university and its IRB. Furthermore, she’s made full disclosure to the Senate Finance Committee.... Additionally, Dr. DelBello has disclosed her funding at all speaking engagements and she’s disclosed in the patient consents of her studies.”

I wonder if she has made disclosures about her company (MSZ Associates) that Senator's Grassley's investigation claims was set up for "personal financial reasons"and well-funded by AstraZeneca. Also, does the above mean that DelBello disclosed that she has personally received hundreds of thousands of dollars from AstraZeneca and other sources in the consent forms for her studies? I have to admit I'm pretty skeptical about that, but I could be wrong. As far as full disclosure to the Senate, Grassley's most recent findings seem to contradict this claim. Hey, maybe Grassley is just making things up, so either DelBello is being unfairly persecuted or her story is simply not adding up.

Why am I making such a big deal about this? Well, such a gigantic hidden conflict of interest doesn't exactly engender my faith, and DelBello is a person who can take at least responsibility for the widespread treatment of children with antipsychotic medications. Due to her research findings that some claim support the use of antipsychotics in kids and her many marketing speeches for AstraZeneca and others, the landscape for badly behaving children is changing, and likely not for the better (1, 2, 3).

Pharmalot reports that the University of Cincinnati is unresponsive to his requests for comment. Perhaps they're going for the time-honored tradition of remaining in silence under the belief that this publicity cannot possibly last much longer.

Another Key Opinion Leader Contradicts Himself

It appears that Lindsay DeVane, who called his own continuing medical education article (appearing in CNS Spectrums) a "commercial piece of crap" has retracted his story (via the excellent Carlat Psychiatry Blog). Apparently, his take on the former "crap" piece has now changed to "there should be no question about the integrity of the CNS Spectrums publication as a CME activity" The article went from, in his own words, a "ridiculous text" to an article that reflects "the inherent limitations in providing practicing clinicians with fundamental descriptions of complicated issues." Is he implying that practicing clinicians lack the intellectual fortitude to understand "complicated issues," so he had to dumb it down to meet their limited capacity? Perhaps there is another interpretation.

He also changed his tune to "all three co-authors were heavily involved in multiple edits before agreement was reached on a final manuscript" from stating originally that he had not actually read the manuscript. That is quite a change indeed. One can only wonder which individuals pressed DeVane to change his story. Here's what I don't understand. DeVane has been in the game for a long time. Does he really have that much to lose by pointing out the joke that it today's continuing medical education system? I want to know who spoke with him and how he was persuaded to change his mind. This is such a ridiculous turnaround in stories that it makes Larry Craig look like a straight shooter. I am 99.9% doubtful that DeVane would have changed his story without significant influence from others. Drs. Charles Nemeroff and Sheldon Preskorn were the coauthors. I can't help but wonder if one or both of them took exception to DeVane's labeling of the piece as "crap" and read him the riot act. Does DeVane not realize that this turnaround in story is farcical?

Read the full story here. Two further glittering examples of continuing medical education in psychiatry gone awry can be read here and here. To see another key opinion leader contradict himself, go here.

Key Opinion Leader Contradicts Himself

In depression, is there a serotonin deficiency or not? Let’s ask a key opinion leader. Dr. Charles Nemeroff stated in a continuing medical education piece released in March 2007 that

There is a large body of evidence that the serotonin system is awry in depression in many, if not most, patients. There is truly a real deficiency of serotonin in depressed patients.

In the same piece, he stated that

Taking this together, one would suggest that the overwhelming evidence is of a relative deficiency of serotonin in the brains of patients with depression.

Yet in an article published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research in April 2007 (accepted for publication in May 2006), Nemeroff states

It is likely that no single fundamental neurobiological defect underlies severe depression.

Oh, so there is a serotonin deficiency and there is likely not a serotonin deficiency. Now I get it. That clears it up. Sounds like doublethink.

How could one contradict oneself on such an issue? This is a core problem in medicine. If these are the leaders of medicine, the scientific gurus whose opinions are thought to influence the practice of physicians throughout the world, then shouldn’t their thoughts be consistent from one day to the next? My humble guess is that this instance was due to one or both pieces being ghostwritten and the author not checking the final version of the paper. If it has your name on it, then shouldn’t you be responsible for the content of the piece? This is a lesson recently learned through the “commercial piece of crap” incident reported first on the excellent Carlat Psychiatry blog, with a similar incident being discussed on this site. The CME piece mentioned in this post is the same article on which Dr. Nemeroff did not disclose a highly relevant conflict of interest, as reported here.

For more on Dr. Nemeroff, please see this post.

Key Opinion Leader With A Very Short Fuse

Psychiatrist Joe "Short Fuse" Biederman of Harvard University is really in hot water now. The sordid details can be seen in a fantastic article by Gardiner Harris of the New York Times. Here's just one snippet:

In a November 1999 e-mail message, John Bruins, a Johnson & Johnson marketing executive, begs his supervisors to approve a $3,000 check to Dr. Biederman as payment for a lecture he gave at the University of Connecticut. “Dr. Biederman is not someone to jerk around,” Mr. Bruins wrote. “He is a very proud national figure in child psych and has a very short fuse.” Mr. Bruins wrote that Dr. Biederman was furious after Johnson & Johnson rejected a request that Dr. Biederman had made for a $280,000 research grant. “I have never seen someone so angry,” Mr. Bruins wrote. “Since that time, our business became non-existant (sic) within his area of control.”

Mr. Bruins concluded that unless Dr. Biederman received a check soon, “I am truly afraid of the consequences.”

A series of documents described the goals behind establishing the Johnson & Johnson Center for the study of pediatric psychopathology, where Dr. Biederman serves as chief. A 2002 annual report for the center said its research must satisfy three criteria: improve psychiatric care for children, have high standards and “move forward the commercial goals of J.& J.,” court documents said.

And from Bloomberg,

Biederman “approached Janssen multiple times to propose the creation of a Janssen-MGH center,” according to an e-mail from a J&J executive. The center would “generate and disseminate data supporting the use” of Risperdal in children, the e-mail said. Pediatric use was approved by U.S. regulators in August 2007.

Wow. And the plot sickens, er, thickens from there. Normally, being caught with one's hands this deep into the cookie jar would lead me to write a much more blistering piece, but the day job shows no signs of abating in its workload. Fortunately, Philip Dawdy is rolling with the story at Furious Seasons (1, 2).

Let's see if Biederman's defenders can defend him in another op-ed as they did a few months ago. Or maybe we can leave Joe to defend himself. Here's what he said a few months ago when facing criticism:

Biederman dismisses most critics, saying that they cannot match his scientific credentials as co author of 30 scientific papers a year and director of a major research program at the psychiatry department that is top-ranked in the "US News & World Report" ratings.

"The critics 'are not on the same level. We are not debating as to whether [a critic] likes brownies and I like hot dogs. In medicine and science, not all opinions are created equal,' said Biederman, a native of Czechoslovakia who came to Mass. General in 1979 after medical training in Argentina and Israel.

Nope, most of his critics cannot match his credentials of apparently shaking down hundreds of thousands of dollars from Johnson & Johnson. But maybe I just like brownies and he likes hot dogs. Another key opinion leader whose reputation is deservedly shot to shreds. Nemeroff, Biederman, and the list goes on.

The Incredible Vanishing Key Opinion Leader

Charles Nemeroff, former chair of psychiatry at Emory University and key opinion leader extraordinaire has vanished. Not quite vanished from the face of the Earth, but from Medscape CME and now from a Georgia mental health commission. Nemeroff was found to have not disclosed a whole boatload of money he received from Big (and little) Pharma according to an investigation by Senator Charles Grassley. For example, it appears that Nemeroff received about $20,000 in cash from GlaxoSmithKline in one month in exchange for promoting GSK products to his peers.

I have previously written about a number of, um, "interesting" behaviors on the part of Nemeroff, which I recommend you read in order to understand that Nemeroff has, on several occasions, engaged in behavior that certainly appears to have placed the causes of his corporate sponsors over science. Not good for an "independent" researcher.

And now, it seems that Chuck Nemeroff is vanishing. Dr. Bernard Carroll noted that Nemeroff's continuing medical education offerings had vanished from Medscape and offered the following:

Well, good for Medscape. They came in for their share of criticism, here and here, a while back. Now they deserve credit for displaying ethical standards. Meanwhile, we are waiting for another company called CME Outfitters to get the message. Dr. Nemeroff is slated to moderate a raft of new programs for this company in the coming weeks, sponsored by corporations like Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Ortho-McNeil Janssen. CME Outfitters' logo, after all, is Education with Integrity. Sooner or later the pharmaceutical corporations, like the CME companies, will understand that they are not helping themselves by trotting out a shopworn and sleazy KOL figurehead like Nemeroff for their marketing efforts. And other KOLs who up to now were willing to "wet their beaks" in these CME forums controlled by the Boss of Bosses Nemeroff will now be leery of associating with him.

Well, CME Outfitters is still rolling with Nemeroff. For example, he has an upcoming program called "Atypical Antipsychotics in Major Depressive Disorder: When Current Treatments Are Not Enough," which is a scary thought given that he appears to have been pulling data from thin air for a prior CME exercise in which he pimped risperidone as a treatment for refractory depression. Specifically, Nemeroff's presentation claimed that risperidone improved sexual function in a clinical trial, when the published article based on the trial's results said no such thing. In addition, Nemeroff's claim that risperidone had shown efficacy in a short-term study versus placebo for depression was also unsupported. So I'm thinking the upcoming program on antipsychotics for depression might be a fantastic example of marketing beating the crap out of science.

Georgia appointed a commission to address several issues within the public mental health system. They have completed a report. Interestingly...

The final version also does not contain the name of commission member Charles Nemeroff, an Emory psychiatry professor who has been a subject of a U.S. Senate Finance Committee investigation into whether drug company money paid to doctors and academics compromises medical research and scholarship. Nemeroff, an internationally known expert on depression, did not attend recent commission meetings.

But Nemeroff was appointed to the commission with some fanfare. The press release listing Nemeroff's accomplishments is pretty lengthy. The Georgia state legislator who appointed Dr. Nemeroff said, "I am confident that Charles will be an asset to this commission and will serve as a strong advocate for the people of Georgia being served [by] our mental health systems"

Yet Nemeroff was not on the final report. If it weren't for his work on CME Outfitters, I would be worried that we might need to file a missing persons report for Dr. Nemeroff.

Update (12-18-08): The Wall Street Journal Health Blog has two interesting posts on Dr. Nemeroff (1, 2). Read them and feel free to file them under "bizarre."

Ghosts, Goblins, and Serotonin: Boo!

In an earlier post, I noted that I thought a key opinion leader had contradicted himself across two articles regarding the role of serotonin in depression. One reader posted a comment that challenged my assertion, to which I reply via this post. The reader, “Alan,” stated, in part, that

He only said what he said -- that [serotonin] is clearly disordered and deficient in many if not most people with depression. And he is right. There's overwhelming evidence for that. (There's also great evidence for the therapeutic value of serotonergic interventions in depression, which he did not mention.) That's not to say that other things are not playing a role, or that serotonin is the sole problem area -- the "single fundamental neurobiological defect". He only said what he said. And this blogger is jumping all over him. Why?

Okay. Two issues here. One: Did the key opinion leader (Charles Nemeroff) contradict himself? Two: Is serotonin deficient in depression? This post will deal with issue two – people can read the old post and decide for themselves if Nemeroff’s statements were contradictory or if I was in error. You decide.

Part 1: Does a Serotonin Deficiency Cause Depression?

Let’s break this thing down to make it really simple to understand. Statement 1 from Alan: [serotonin] is clearly disordered and deficient in many if not most people with depression... There's overwhelming evidence for that.

Really? Drug companies certainly use serotonin to market their antidepressants, but is there solid evidence for a serotonin imbalance in depression? Actually, no.

Despite making excellent marketing copy, studies have found no consistent abnormality in serotonin in depressed people. Doubt me? Read this excellent article by Lacasse and Leo (published in PLoS Medicine) that describes the gap between the marketing of serotonin in depression and the scientific literature.

One quote from the PLoS Medicine article:

Consider the medical textbook, Essential Psychopharmacology, which states, “So far, there is no clear and convincing evidence that monoamine deficiency accounts for depression; that is, there is no ‘real’ monoamine deficit” [44]. Like the pharmaceutical company advertisements, this explanation is very easy to understand, yet it paints a very different picture about the serotonin hypothesis.

But since SSRI’s impact depression and also impact serotonin, depression must be due to a serotonin deficiency. Um, no. Again, I’ll leave it to Lacasse & Leo:

With direct proof of serotonin deficiency in any mental disorder lacking, the claimed efficacy of SSRIs is often cited as indirect support for the serotonin hypothesis. Yet, this ex juvantibus line of reasoning (i.e., reasoning “backwards” to make assumptions about disease causation based on the response of the disease to a treatment) is logically problematic – the fact that aspirin cures headaches does not prove that headaches are due to low levels of aspirin in the brain. Serotonin researchers from the US National Institute of Mental Health Laboratory of Clinical Science clearly state, “[T]he demonstrated efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors…cannot be used as primary evidence for serotonergic dysfunction in the pathophysiology of these disorders” [12].

I could quote the article extensively, but I’d prefer that you read it yourself. Whether you have a scientific background or not, it’s easy to understand and it shows that the serotonin emperor is wearing no clothes. Don’t take my word for it. After you’ve read the article, if you’d like to do your own independent investigation on the topic, go ahead. Please report your findings showing a strong link between serotonin dysfunction and depression right here in the comment section. I’m waiting.

It is true that variations in the serotonin transporter gene can predispose people toward experiencing depression. I don’t deny that. And given that our understanding of the brain is still rather primitive, there may be some point where we figure out that serotonin plays a certain role in depression. But at this point, there is no evidence supporting a specific serotonin deficiency in depression. Again, please correct me if you disagree.

Part 2: Do SSRI’s Work?

Another piece from Alan’s comment:

There's also great evidence for the therapeutic value of serotonergic interventions in depression.

Like what? Try that about 80% of the drug effect is replicated by placebo – there is about a 20% difference in efficacy between placebo and antidepressant (Kirsch et al., 2002). Is that “great evidence” of efficacy? It’s more encouraging than 0% better than placebo, but I remain less than fully convinced. And about those sexual side effects and increased risk of suicidal thinking and suicide attempts… If depression was really due to poor serotonin function, then one would expect treatments that increase serotonin transmission would have a much stronger advantage over placebo.

I appreciate Alan’s comment as well as its timing. It is only appropriate on Halloween, I should discuss the serotonin-depression link, as it is about as well supported scientifically as many of the ghost stories often told on such a holiday.

Nemeroff Confirms Kirsch: SSRIs Offer Little Benefit

This post will discuss how the latest meta-analysis claiming to show public health benefits for Effexor actually also showed that antidepressants aren't up to snuff. Part 1 detailed how the study authors found a very small advantage for Effexor over SSRIs, which they then suggested meant that Effexor offered significant benefits for public health over SSRIs. Ghostwriters, company statisticians, questions about transparency, etc. Even the journal editor jumped on board. All the usual goodies.

Bad News for SSRIs: But now, on to part deux. Remember that the authors used a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale of 7 or less as indicative of remission, which was the one and only outcome measure of import in their analysis. In their database of studies analyzed in the meta-analysis, there were nine studies that had an Effexor group, an SSRI group, and a placebo group. In these studies, there was a 5.5% difference in remission rates for SSRIs versus placebo. Read it again: there was a 5.5% difference in remission rates for SSRIs versus placebo. You should be shaking your head, perhaps cursing under your breath or even aloud. Using the number needed to treat statistic that the authors used in their analysis of Effexor versus SSRIs, that means you would have to treat 18 people with SSRI instead of a placebo to get one additional remission that you would not get if all 18 had received a placebo. Damn -- that is pathetic! In these same nine trials, the difference between Effexor and SSRIs was 13%, for a number needed to treat of 8. One might conclude that Effexor was more than twice as effective as SSRIs based on these figures, but one would be wrong. Please see my prior post for why depression remission should absolutely not be used as the only judgment of a drug's efficacy. Granted, the numbers for SSRIs were based on nine trials, which limits the generalizability of the findings, but the findings sure fit well with the Kirsch series of meta-analyses that found only a small difference for SSRIs over placebo in all but the most severe cases.

If you told most people that you would have to treat 18 depressed patients with a SSRI rather than a placebo to get one additional remission in depressive symptoms, you'd get laughed out of the room, but that is exactly what Nemeroff et al found. Do the authors conclude with: "The findings confirm earlier work by Kirsch and colleagues showing that the benefits of SSRIs over placebo are quite modest"? Not exactly. Here is their interpretation:

To achieve one remission more than with placebo, 8 patients would need to be treated with venlafaxine (NNT = 8) compared with 18 patients who would need to be treated with an SSRI (NNT = 18). From this perspective, the magnitude of the advantage of SSRIs versus placebo in the placebo-controlled dataset (NNT=18) is similar to the advantage of venlafaxine relative to SSRIs in the combined data set (NNT = 17).

This is right after the authors wrote about how a NNT of 17 was possibly important to public health (see part 1), which was about the time I fell out of my chair laughing. A more plausible interpretation is that SSRIs yielded very little benefit over placebo and that Effexor, in turn, yielded very little benefit (in fact, a statistically significant benefit over only Prozac) over SSRIs. But that sort of interpretation does not lead to good marketing copy or press releases that tout the benefits of medication well beyond what is reasonable. What if the press releases for this study read: "Nemeroff confirms findings of Kirsch: Antidepressants offer very little benefit over placebo." That would have been refreshing.

Sidebar: Here is my standard statement about antidepressants -- they work. Huh? Yeah, the average person (surely not everyone) on an antidepressant improves by a notable amount. The problem is that the vast majority (about 80%) of such improvement is due to the placebo effect and/or the depression simply getting better over time. Give someone a pill and that person will likely show some improvement, but nearly all of the improvement is due to something other than the drug. If most improvement is due to the placebo effect, couldn't we usually get such improvement using psychotherapy, exercise, or something else, which might avoid some drug-induced side effects? Moving on...

Key Opinion Leaders: But notice how this Wyeth/Advogent authored piece featuring Charles Nemeroff as lead author (as well as Michael Thase as last author) throws down a major spin job regarding the efficacy of antidepressants. As reported previously, their measure of efficacy was quite arbitrary. It could have been supplemented with other measures, as Wyeth is in possession of such relevant data, but such analyses were not conducted. But even using their questionable measure of efficacy, antidepressants put on a poor performance. Similarly, Effexor's advantage over SSRIs was meager. Yet the authors (remember, three medical writers worked on this paper) conclude that venlafaxine offers a public health benefit over SSRIs. Maybe the authors were afraid of being sued for writing anything negative in their paper? Or perhaps they just know who is buttering their bread. It is also possible that the authors truly cannot envision the idea that SSRIs offer such a meager advantage over placebo and that Effexor yields very little (if any) benefit over SSRIs. And that is the problem. The "key opinion leaders" are all stacked on one side of the aisle -- drugs are highly effective and each new generation of medications is better than the last. So plug in the name of the next drug here, and you'll see a key opinion leader along with a team of medical writers rushing out to show physicians that the latest truly is the greatest. Since we don't really train physicians to understand clinical trials or statistics particularly well, you can also expect many physicians targeted by such marketing efforts to simply lap up unsupported claims of "public health benefit."

Hey, is there a counter-detailer in the room somewhere?

FDA Gives Thumbs Up To Kiddie Bipolar: Is KOL Syndrome Next?

Philip Dawdy at Furious Seasons noted that the FDA has officially approved the existence of child bipolar disorder. Prior to it being included in the DSM, and with considerable controversy in the professional community, the FDA jumps on board. Nice. Thanks to Philip for chasing down the FDA's official view.

A few questions for consideration by the FDA (and others) that I mentioned a few months ago:

1. Does child bipolar really exist in substantial quantity?
2. Does treatment help kids with this "disorder"?
3. Why would a leading "expert" in child "bipolar disorder" say that up to 75% of children who are "bipolar" become suicidal without citing any supporting evidence?

Joe Biederman must be proud -- the FDA will now help him and his posse save countless lives through the administration of treatments (like, say, Seroquel) for "child bipolar" that lack any sort of substantive evidence base. But who cares -- even without professional consensus or any sort of official word from the FDA, the treatment of child bipolar has already flown the coop in a big way. Realistically, I suppose that the FDA's view is irrelevant -- drug marketers and key opinion leaders wield more influence than anyone at FDA when it comes to how physicians view psychiatric diagnoses.

KOL Syndrome: On a related note, perhaps the FDA (or the DSM-V committee) can approve KOL Syndrome as a disorder. That would be Key Opinion Leader Syndrome. For case examples, please see here, here, here, here, here, and here. The prevalence of KOL Syndrome seems to be increasing and seems related to the widespread adoption of irrational prescribing as well as information laundering. Symptoms include:

• Providing false "education" to physicians as a service to your corporate clients
• Calling one or more of one's own articles "commercial pieces of crap," then recanting
  
• Hiding blatant conflicts of interest
  
• Writing misleading review articles that falsely tout the efficacy of one or more drugs,
• Magically converting results that show a product is a dud into results showing that a product is safe and effective
• Making a boatload of money through ties to various drug or medical device companies, then claiming that such corporate ties have absolutely no influence on your professional judgment
• As an author, calling a study's results positive, then calling these same results negative a few years later without noticing the contradiction.
• Giving tasty sound bites in press releases about the wonders of various medications in one's capacity as an "independent" scientist
  

Back to kiddie bipolar: Do some adolescents have bipolar disorder? Sure. Five-year-olds? That's where I start getting suspicious...

Also see an excellent post from John Grohol at Psych Central on youth bipolar and some of the logical problems regarding how its treatment is advocated. And Furious Seasons also notes that the FDA database raises questions about two of the drugs touted as safe and effective for kiddie bipolar.

The Budget Crisis, Universities, and Key Opinion Leaders

Everyone knows that state budgets across the United States are in a crunch. All state-supported universities are looking for sources of income outside of taxpayer funds. As state legislatures look to cut money, many state universities are in for a big budget hit. So if the state is going to pony up less money, how can a university survive...?

Perhaps by seeking to entice industry funding. Set up a few clinical trials and see what happens. There is nothing inherently wrong about university faculty working on industry-sponsored research. In an ideal world, all goes according to plan and all benefit from such collaboration. Universities love industry collaboration because it brings in good money. Researchers like to collaborate with industry for some altruistic motives, such as receiving funding to work on investigating treatments that might hopefully bring about better lives for people struggling with various ailments. Because receiving funding makes the university
administration happy, it also makes life at a university medical center much more pleasant for those who bring in the bucks.

But how do things really work? Sometimes, they go well. But there are also nondisclosure agreements, in which an "independent" academic researcher gives away any right to discuss the data from clinical trials that he/she is working on unless approval is given by industry. As Graham Emslie, key opinion leader in the field of child psychiatry, can attest to, there are certainly many cases where negative results were found for a drug, but the negative data were buried to avoid any untoward publicity. Academics often farm out their writing of joint work with industry to ghostwriters who spin the final product to pimp a product rather than accurately describe the results. As regular readers know, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If academics are willing to be oversee industry-sponsored research, have substantial input into writing the final presentation of the results, and actually review the data from these joint ventures with industry, then academic-industry collaboration can be fruitful. However, if academics are simply used to recruit patients for clinical trials, stamp their names on papers consisting of data with which they are entirely unfamiliar, and are complicit in hiding negative data, then the current sad state of affairs will continue unabated.

Given the current financial situation, universities will be encouraging faculty very strongly to get external funding for their work, and we can only hope that academics will behave responsibly when such collaborations occur.