More Than Filling My Shoes

I'll be on hiatus for a while. Too many things to do in too little time. Fortunately, material that is right in the sweet spot for readers of this site can be found at:

• Carlat Psychiatry Blog. His takedown of Medscape is much needed, as is further digging into ye olde coverup of industry cash by child psychiatry key opinion leaders.
• PsychCentral. Who cares about St. John's Wort for ADHD? JAMA seriously published a small trial of SJW versus placebo. I thought JAMA was for higher importance issues -- and so did John Grohol at Psych Central.
• Furious Seasons. Overdiagnosis of ADHD? Not a new complaint, but interesting perspective is provided by a Canadian psychologist who thinks the ADHD label is being passed about unnecessarily in Canada.

I hope to return soon.

In the Name of Science and Charity

Philip Dawdy at Furious Seasons has noted that Eli Lilly released a short report in which they describe the funding they provided to a variety of organizations. All in the name of science and charity, of course. Beneficiaries of Lilly's largess include:

• The American Psychiatric Association
• Massachusetts General Hospital's Psychiatry Department
• National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
  
• Medscape
• American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Center for Medical Knowledge
• Continuing Medical Education, LLC
  
• Institute for Continuing Healthcare Education
• Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
• Postgraduate Institute for Medicine
• University of California -- Irvine

These were just some of the big recipients. The report itself is well worth checking out. One will note that Lilly is kindly funding a lot of "education" about fibromyalgia just as they try to move Cymbalta for all things pain-related. The amount of "education" regarding bipolar disorder is also instructive. Um, Viva Zyprexa?

Read some of the details at Furious Seasons and read Lilly's report as well. To Lilly's credit, at least they are making an attempt at disclosure; their industry colleagues are more than welcome to follow suit. Remember that the figures from Lilly's report are from the first quarter of 2008 only.

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?

Link-O-Rama, Early March Edition

A few pieces of interesting news...

• Dr. Daniel Carlat has been busy. He aptly notes that Pristiq is an Effexor copycat that apparently provides no special benefits over soon to be generic venlafaxine. Hey, didn't I just write a piece or two about Effexor? In addition, Carlat continues to hammer the corrupting, I er, continuing medical education industry. He also documents the use of deceptive "surveys" to market antipsychotics. Excellent work -- keep it up! Dr. Grohol at PsychCentral pointed out another set of potential problems with the surveys.
  
• Furious Seasons puts forth Ye Olde Pimp Slappe on antidepressant use in bipolar disorder with a side dish of I Told You So. He has indeed questioned the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorder and the latest data continue to question the utility and safety of such practices. Philip Dawdy notes accurately that he is the only person in the USA to host the infamousZyprexa documents online. He also broke a number of excellent stories on said documents. All for the salary of zero dollars. So why not send him some money? He's doing a fundraiser currently. You can donate here. Hey, I'd like to rake in some donations for myself. I think I provide a somewhat valuable service, and my day job doesn't exactly make me rich. But when Dawdy is doing such work much more productively than myself and he doesn't even have a day job (file under journalism in crisis), I think he deserves your financial consideration, not I. So if you ever had the kindhearted intention of sending me cash to support my work, send your money to Philip Dawdy.
  
• Health Care Renewal is chronically excellent, as y'all know already. Recent stories include a fat conflict of interest involving the head of the Obesity Society, yet another chapter in the sordid University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey affair, and a take on the baseless lawsuit from HipSaver.
• Speaking of HipSaver, Aubrey Blumsohn has also written eloquently on this case, which I hope receives scrutiny from many sources. He also reports unfavorably about the sham investigation of GSK. Bob Fiddaman and Seroxat Secrets were similarly unimpressed.
• Peter Rost is on the job market.
• As usual, Pharmalot and PharmaGossip have continued to provide all the news that's fit to print. Of particular interest to my readers (I think) was the marketing of Abilify. Perhaps yet more interesting, the 6th episode of RX -- Sex, Drugs, and Quarterly Goals is up. Everyone should check out all six episodes. I'm hooked.
• Pharma Giles has been generating his usual brand of dead-on satire. I was particularly amused by his take on the most recent Kirsch antidepressant meta-analysis.
• In "who cares?" news, bifeprunox is apparently dead in the water. Better hope that Pristiq sells in droves, Wyeth...

As for myself, I have at least one piece in the works involving a key opinion leader and cash. Stay tuned.

Key Opinion Leaders, Continuing Medical Education, and Utter B.S.

Psychiatrist Bernard Carroll has another brilliant post on corrupt, er, continuing medical education (CME) and how the process has been co-opted by various commercial interests. His post a few days ago was certainly great, and in combination with his current post, I officially declare that Bernard Carroll is ON FIRE!

Here's a bit of what he had to say. Commit this paragraph to memory:

Medical journals are not the only compromised medium. Continuing Medical Education (CME) is a second front in the campaign to expand the AAP [atypical antipsychotic] drug market. The standard formula calls for corporate sponsorship channeled through an “unrestricted educational grant” to a medical education communications company (MECC). The MECC employs writers to prepare the “educational content,” and academic KOLs are recruited to deliver this content. The KOLs are chosen for their willingness to be “on message” for the corporate sponsor. If they go “off message” they know they will not be invited back. The talk of “unrestricted grants” is window dressing. The MECC also secures the imprimatur of a nationally accredited CME sponsor, typically an academic institution. The sponsor is paid to certify that the CME program meets the standards of the Accreditation Council on Continuing Medical Education (ACCME). Everybody turns a buck: the MECC and its staff are handsomely paid (CME is now a multi-billion dollar business); the KOLs are generously rewarded with honoraria and perquisites; the academic sponsor is well paid by the MECC; the ACCME receives dues from the academic sponsor; the audience obtains free CME credits rather than having to pay for these required educational experiences; and the corporate sponsor gets what it considers value for its marketing dollar.

Guess what... Charles Nemeroff is also featured -- regular readers will note that his name has appeared on a few occasions on my site. Carroll takes apart a recent CME exercise in which Nemeroff featured information that appears to be false. In fact, I detailed some of the problems with this CME exercise here. Carroll's post has a number of updates. Chances were given for this CME exercise to be redeemed in some form, but misinformation apparently prevailed yet again.

Regarding another of the atypical antipsychotics discussed in this wonderful CME piece, Carroll wrote (in part) the following:

When discussing aripiprazole for nonresponding depression, Dr. Nemeroff once again was economical with the truth. Note that Bristol-Myers Squibb, the marketer of aripiprazole, sponsored this PeerView/UCLA program. To document his claims about aripiprazole, Dr. Nemeroff cited one Abstract from the American Psychiatric Association meeting in May 2007. That does not meet ACCME standards of documentation for learners, most of whom would be unable to access the cited Abstract (not that it would tell them much even if they could). For some reason, Dr. Nemeroff did not inform learners that the complete report of the aripiprazole study had appeared in June 2007 (Berman RM et al. J Clin Psychiatry 2007;68: 843-853), fully 5 months before the CME event went on-line. From that readily available report it is clear that the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for response with aripiprazole is 10, which compares unfavorably with a NNT of 4 for lithium, the best established augmenting option in placebo-controlled trials. A NNT of 10 means a clinician would need to treat 10 patients with aripiprazole before obtaining one remission that would not have occurred anyway with placebo. That does not constitute compelling clinical benefit. Dr. Nemeroff did not candidly discuss these troubling data. Dr Nemeroff provided his CME audience none of the remission or response data from the published aripiprazole study, though these data were readily available. These omissions of published, highly relevant information signify disrespect for his audience by Dr. Nemeroff, incompetence by the MECC, and failure of due diligence by the accrediting institution, UCLA, to ensure that accurate, balanced information and adequate documentation are provided.

I shall not steal any more of Carroll's thunder. Head over the Health Care Renewal and check it out in full.

Key Opinion Leader Provides False Information in Psychiatry CME

Just when I thought it was safe to stop writing about the ARISE-RD study, which was an attempt to demonstrate the efficacy of risperidone (Risperdal) for depression, even more evidence of misleading salesmanship regarding the study surfaces. Feel free to read six prior posts regarding the study, described in a bit more detail here.

Here's the rub. Dr. Charles Nemeroff is the presenter for this continuing medical education activity entitled Add On Atypical Antipsychotics Efficacious in Short Term for Unipolar Depression. This post concerns slides 5, 6, and 9, which reference the aforementioned ARISE-RD study, which examined the use of risperidone as an add-on to citalopram (Celexa) in treating depression. The full presentation is available for your examination.

Slide 6 reads in part:

• Global Impressions of Sexual Functioning scores improved significantly in men and women (p < .02) with RIS augmentation.
• RIS may ameliorate sexual dysfunction associated with SSRIs.

There is a reference to a published study in Neuropsychopharmacology at the bottom of the slide. The kicker: The published study contains no mention of improved sexual functioning on risperidone. This is called lying. Remember, Nemeroff was an author on the study published in Neuropsychopharmacology; he'd know if sexual functioning was referenced in his article, so there is no pleading ignorance on his part.

Slide 9 reads in part:

• Augmentation options for treatment-refractory depression include adjunctive atypical antipsychotics.
  -Controlled studies: short term efficacy with OLZ, ARI, RIS [risperidone]

This is a baldfaced falsehood. The study took people who had not responded to citalopram treatment, then added risperidone to the mix. There was no placebo control during this phase. So it was not a controlled study and should not be referred to as a controlled study in Nemeroff's presentation.

In fact, here is what the lead author (Mark Rapaport) of the ARISE-RD study had to say about its results in a letter to the editor (currently in press):

The paper repeatedly states in Abstract, Methods and in Discussion that continuation of risperidone augmentation therapy was not more beneficial than placebo, and hence the working hypothesis was disproven...

I would like to thank the reviewers and the editors of Neuropsychopharmacology for having the courage to allow us to publish this negative finding.

Compare and contrast: Nemeroff's presentation indicates that the study was a controlled trial showing that risperidone was more effective than placebo. The lead author admits that the study was a "negative finding" and that risperidone was "not more beneficial than placebo."

To summarize, Nemeroff did the following:

• Claimed that a peer-reviewed study showed risperidone improved sexual functioning, when the effects of treatment on sexual functioning were not even mentioned in the paper.
• Claimed that the study showed risperidone to demonstrate efficacy over placebo, which it in fact did not.
  

This is what passes for education for physicians. Being lied to about study results is how physicians receive continuing medical education to keep them abreast of the latest research findings so that they can better serve their patients. If you are not disgusted, you are not paying attention. It is far from reassuring that this incident involves one of the biggest names in academic psychiatry.

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.

CME, Key Opinion Leaders, and Responsibility

Continuing medical education continues to get slammed (1, 2), and somehow the name of Charles Nemeroff keeps finding its way into these incidents. I wrote last week that Nemeroff co-authored a CME piece, on which he failed to disclose a conflict of interest regarding CeNeRx, for whom he co-chairs the scientific advisory board. The conflict of interest that was not disclosed was quite relevant, as the CME article was a cheer piece for MAOI's, and it just so happens that CeNeRx is in the MAOI business.

Daniel Carlat noted that another CME article upon which Nemeroff was an author has been criticized harshly; this one was dissed by one of its own authors. C. Lindsay DeVane, a coauthor, called it "a commercial piece of crap." Let me state this ever-so-clearly: An author called his own article a commercial piece of crap. This should send shivers up and down your spine -- if authors can't even trust the work upon which their name appears, how the hell are physicians supposed to trust it? Taking it a logical step further, how are patients supposed to trust their physicians if M.D.'s are receiving "education" that is "commercial crap."

I should mention that to Nemeroff's credit, on the "crap" article, he discloses an interest in CeNeRx.

What is authorship, anyway? Everyone knows that CME articles are quite often ghostwritten to reflect key marketing points. It's actually fairly comical that a lot (perhaps virtually all?) of the CME litter-ature is written by ghostwriters, and then key opinion leaders such as Nemeroff, DeVane, Keller, et al sign off on them. To be fair, it's not necessarily all that different from clinical trial literature, which is also frequently ghostwritten by industry-friendly writers (1, 2 ).

So we're left with a new definition of "author" on a scientific paper or CME piece:

Author: Someone who stamps his/her name on a paper to lend extra scientific credibility to the marketing of whatever product is discussed most positively in the manuscript. Having read the paper, written the paper, or having anything to do with the paper/study whatsoever is entirely optional.

Time: Some have said that the "authors" of these CME pieces are not to blame because those mean CME outfits send the proofs of the articles to be approved by the authors so quickly that the authors don't have time to review them. That is perhaps the WORST argument I've heard in a while. If that happens to an author once, I can understand...

Perhaps you're a well-meaning scientist who is hoping to provide something of value to educate your colleagues in a CME piece. Great. Then the ghostwriters throw together something that might be described as, um, "a piece of commercial crap," email you the manuscript to approve in 24 hours or else their version stands as the final version. At that point, you have hopefully learned your lesson. If you are repeatedly performing this exercise, lending your name to commercials passing for education, in which your own scientific views are not represented by the CME pieces, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Of course, there may be some whose views are accurately represented in CME pieces. Good for them. Have dozens of CME articles under your name, by all means. But, by God, let's not have any more statements like "the article with my name on it does not reflect my own views." I sincerely applaud Dr. DeVane for admitting that the CME article in CNS Spectrums is a joke. Now let's hope that he never finds himself in such a position again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice... The worst forms of CME, which are marketing points covered with a very thin veneer of science, can only exist so long as "key opinion leaders" continue to sign their names on such pieces.

On a final note, I'd like to know if Nemeroff and Preskhorn, the other two authors on the CNS Spectrums piece likewise view the article as "crap" and if they would be willing to disavow themselves of the study. Here's betting they will have not a word to say on the topic.

Also read Pharmalot's great piece on the topic.

Seroquel for Everything: Off-Label Marketing?

Peter Rost has a trio of documents on his site regarding potential off-label marketing of Seroquel. As you may recall, I promised to track the Seroquel lawsuit saga that I am fairly certain will continue to unfold. Why the lawsuits? Partially due to allegations of off-label marketing. The latest chapter, from Rost's site, is that AZ appears to have sent out a letter to sales representatives asking them to inform doctors about "medical education" events. As you probably know by now, "medical education" is quite often drug company-speak for "advertising." (1, 2, 3 ).

These "medical education" events were available via VHS, DVD, or webcast for doctors to view at their convenience. One event discussed Seroquel use in the young and the elderly, while another focused on Seroquel for bipolar depression prior to Seroquel receiving FDA approval for such an indication. Is that naughty? Yes. Is it illegal off-label marketing? I'm no lawyer, but I bet not.

Why? Well, the medical education was not provided by AZ. No, it was provided through a third party (i3 CME ), which was "supported" by AZ. i3 CME then found some key opinion leaders to provide "education" to their physician peers. The marketing message is laundered through i3 CME so that AZ can say, "We weren't marketing anything off-label -- we're not responsible for what i3 CME did with the program -- i3 CME is independent!"

Yeah, right. Should i3 CME wish to stay in business, they're going to make sure to get pro-AZ speakers and design a program that paints Seroquel in a good light. My favorite part is this snippet from the letter from the AZ CME director to sales reps.

AstraZeneca supported an independent educational activity on October 8, 2006 in the areas of "psychosis and dementia."

So if AZ supported an "independent" educational activity, doesn't that make the activity, um, not independent? Give me a break. For more on the Seroquel for everything saga, please read prior posts here and here.

A Breath of Fresh Air

I am quite happy to introduce my readers to Daniel Carlat’s new blog, The Carlat Psychiatry Report. Dr. Carlat, as I’ve reported earlier, writes about psychiatry in a newsletter that provides continuing education for psychiatrists. He also had a recent piece in the New York Times decrying the influence of industry in continuing medical education. I’m a big fan of his work.

There are few blogs that report critically on the sneaky marketing of the drug industry in psychiatry, and I strongly suspect that Carlat’s site is going to be a welcome addition to the blogosphere. I expect his writings will help detail the farce that medical education has become, where doctors are exposed to thinly veiled drug advertising which passes for education in order to keep doctors apprised of the “latest and greatest” in medical research. See earlier posts here and here for my observations on medical advertising, er, education.

Advertising as Education: Carlat Hits Home Run

Daniel Carlat is the chief of the Carlat Report, a newsletter which provides CME credits for physicians and is (gasp) sometimes critical of the drug industry and its marketing practices.

Carlat has an op-ed in the New York Times where he presents several examples of how drug companies, in the name of education, have misled physicians. I'd like to summarize what he wrote, but he really said it best. Please check it out. It covers a lot of important material in relatively few words. He also has a simple solution -- any CME paid for by drug companies should not count for educational credit for physicians. I couldn't agree more!

As y'all know, I am highly critical of current CME practices, which allow physicians to maintain their medical licenses based upon their soaking up sugarcoated drug company advertising which masquerades as education. For examples, please read an earlier post on a pro-Geodon piece and a puff piece pushing transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression. I am very pleased that the Times ran Carlat's piece.

John Mack noted that the Drug Wonks blog (predictably) came to the rescue of Big Pharma by calling Carlat's piece "hysterical." Of course, Robert Goldberg (the Drug Wonks author in question) provided no evidence -- he also said

Oh, and if I were Carlat, I would drop the characterization "Unbiased" from the description of his expensive newsletter. He is as biased as anyone. Anyone who calls his colleagues money launderers is biased.

Oh gee, we're all biased, so who knows what's right? It's all so relativistic. Please. I think that many pharma bloggers (including myself), have marshaled sufficient evidence to indicate that Big Pharma has often placed marketing well ahead of patient benefit. For documentation, um, start reading a bunch of posts on this and similar sites. Yes, we're all biased to one extent or another -- that's why we should stick to facts rather than label industry critics as "hysterical" or worse. And the facts indicate that CME needs reform. Call me hysterical if you want.

Hat Tip: Furious Seasons

Advertising as Education: CME Part Deux

I had the good fortune to read the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry supplement which featured Dr. Henry Nasrallah (the author) sneaking in some friendly messages about ziprasidone (Gedon), the antipsychotic from Pfizer that has been dwarfed by its competitors such as Zyprexa, Seroquel, and Risperdal. The piece discusses the findings of the CATIE study, which compared several newer antipsychotics to an older medication, perphenazine, and generally found that the newer and older drugs were of roughly equal effectiveness and that olanzapine had the worst safety profile. I thank an alert reader for passing the article along.

CME Overview: The good news is that physicians can read this article and take a quiz as part of the continuing medical education (CME) that helps them maintain their licenses. The bad news is that these articles are often thinly veiled advertisements for a product or a message that supports a product.

Highlights: It is stated that the difference favoring olanzapine (Zyprexa) over ziprasidone in terms of efficacy was not significant after a statistical adjustment (granted, this seems like a legitimate argument). It then mentions that olanzapine had the worst metabolic profile in terms of effects on weight, blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin, cholesterol, and triglycerides. It then states “In contrast, patients treated with ziprasidone had the best overall metabolic profile.” It places some numbers in a table regarding the metabolic effects of the various drugs in the CATIE study but provides not a single statistical analysis (or reference to an analysis on CATIE data) backing its assertion that it is significantly better than all other drugs in terms of metabolic profile.

The piece then turns to a secondary phase of the CATIE study, in which patients who discontinued their medications in the first phase of CATIE were assigned to other medications. It mentions olanzapine weight gain then mentions that patients on ziprasidone lost weight. It then discusses weight loss on ziprasidone again, then moves on to ziprasidone being associated with decreases in cholesterol and triglycerides, whereas olanzapine was associated with gains in both of these measures.

In case readers have been sleep-reading through this piece, it then moves to state that “except for clozapine, olanzapine clearly caused the heaviest burden of metabolic side effects. Ziprasidone, on the other hand, was consistently associated with the most benign side effect profile.”

Then, the piece moves to scare the reader about older antipsychotics and their risk of inducing extrapyramidal symptoms [EPS]. “The clinician must carefully decide whether the lower cost of the typical antipsychotic is worth the potential striatal neurotoxicity manifested by acute extrapyramidal side effects and long-term TD [tardive dyskinesia].” Of course, he must be assuming that atypical antipsychotics never or rarely induce EPS, which appears to be wrong and that all older medications induce EPS at the same rate as Haldol, which is likewise incorrect (1, 2).

Overall Message: The bottom line message of the piece is clear. Geodon is safe; Zyprexa is unsafe. Don’t use older meds because they’ll cause EPS – ziprasidone won’t. In fact, Geodon is the safest of the second generation antipsychotics.

Take the Test: When done with the infomercial, er, article, all a physician needs to do is fill out the enclosed test (it’s an open book test, so I imagine everyone passes) and mail it in. Physicians can even complete the test online. [this section was taken directly from an earlier post]

Ghostwriter Watch. Who wrote the article? You tell me – I’m confused. Here’s what is written in the article…

This article is derived from the planning teleconference “Evaluating the Evidence: Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) and Beyond,” which was held on May 10, 2006, and was independently developed by the CME Institute of Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc., and Health and Wellness Education Partners (HWeP) pursuant to an educational grant from Pfizer and addition support from HWP Publishing

Dr. Nasrallah is a consultant for, has received honoraria from, and been on the speakers/advisory boards for Abbott, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, and Shire and has received grant/research support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Pfizer.

Content development and writing support for this article was provided in part by an independent writer contracted by HWeP: Martin Korn, M.D., a psychiatrist in private practice in New York.

I may be piecing this together wrong, but here goes… Pfizer writes a check to the CME Institute and HWeP. Nasrallah and a few other bigwigs engage in a conference call and are reimbursed (likely quite well) for their time. HWeP hires Martin Korn to write the piece, which then is reviewed, likely in a cursory manner at most, by Dr. Nasrallah. The piece is then reviewed by a member of the CME Advisory Board. These "reviews" appear to be consist of a race to grab the rubber stamp as quickly as possible.

I’m not sure if Pfizer provided the talking points directly to Dr. Korn, but it seems he got the message that Zyprexa and older meds should be slammed while Geodon should come across looking angelic. The CME Institute then stamps their approval and we call all be assured that doctors are being “educated” about the latest and greatest treatments in a purely objective fashion.

Please also feel free to read my earlier piece on CME. I recall seeing Dr. Korn's name on an earlier CME piece similar to this, but I can't seem to track it down.

Don't be confused -- I'm not defending Zyprexa. Geodon appears to be a safer drug than Zyprexa, but this quite thinly veiled advertisement that masquerades as independent education is ludicrous -- how does reading or watching commercials passing for "education" help physicians make better decisions for their patients?

More on Pristiq

Marissa Miller has a fine post about desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), Wyeth's attempt to cover up for their bestseller Effexor coming off patent in the near future. Coverup? Considering that desvenlafaxine is a clear knockoff of Effexor (venlafaxine), yes, I'm sticking with that descriptor. Why do research to develop an innovative medication when you can just sell one that is quite highly similar to the one that is already a sales blockbuster?

The idea is not new – make a drug that very closely resembles your existing product, then get it FDA-approved slightly before the old one goes off patent. Lexapro-Celexa, Invega-Risperdal, and now Effexor-Pristiq. The new drug offers no advantage over the drug that is about to go generic, and why would it – if you have a red 1975 Ford Pinto or a green 1975 Pinto, you still have the same crappy car.

Aren’t patents supposed to protect inventions that possess the potential to benefit people? Aren’t patents supposed to reward creativity? There is no creativity here – we’re talking a slight manipulation of a molecule to create a new compound that is no better than the first one.

But the blame does not just lie with the patent process. Why are physicians prone to fall for this game? Why do so many physicians prescribe Lexapro (escitalopram), which is pert-near a clone of Celexa (citalopram), when Lexapro is much more pricey? In fact according to Walgreens, 90 pills of 10mg generic citalopram will run $127.59, whereas the same supply of Lexapro costs $210.79. The marketing miracle that constitutes the heart and soul of modern psychiatry is damn good at convincing physicians that newer equals better.

Perhaps if physicians received adequate training in research methods and statistics during medical school, they could actually learn to critically review clinical trial data to discover that the ploy of near-clone medicines usually does nothing but increase costs. Then doctors could also laugh their way through continuing medical education or, better yet, insist that CME start to resemble education rather than advertising.

Advertising as Education: CME

When physicians become licensed to practice medicine, they must continue to stay informed regarding the wide variety of treatments and procedures available to their patients. To ensure that doctors stay informed, it is required that they receive “continuing medical education,” which theoretically keeps physicians updated about the latest developments in their specialty area. So far, so good. But what, exactly, is continuing medical education (CME)?

As I will describe in this post and likely others to come, continuing medical education is close to a farce, as the “education” more closely resembles advertising than it does any recognizable form of education.

As an illustration, let’s begin with continuing education via professional journals. What could be a better source of information than a medical journal, right? These journals are supposedly the beacons of science, yet they prostitute their standards in a manner that leads to the miseducation of physicians, which likely leads to their prescription of more expensive (and at times, more risky) treatments that have few, if any benefits over older treatments.

Case in Point: Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. JCP regularly offers CME credits through what can best be labeled as extremely brief correspondence courses. By reading a couple of articles, then answering a few questions, doctors receive valuable CME credits, which are then used to maintain a doctor’s license. JCP is far from the only journal which participates in this practice.

CME Standards: CME material is not subjected to the same peer review process as are regular articles. Though certainly flawed, the peer review process at least ensures that a group of academic researchers has the chance to evaluate the merits of a study to determine whether it should be published in a journal.

One of the standards regarding the commercial sponsorship of CME states

The content or format of a CME activity or its related materials must promote improvements or quality in healthcare and not a specific proprietary business interest of a commercial interest.

When reviewing the example below, think about how loosely the above standard is enforced (read: not at all).

An Example -- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS): In the February 2007 supplement to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, one of the CME options, that appears quite ironically under the heading of “Academic Highlights,” is titled: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Potential New Treatment for Resistant Depression.

The article summarizes “highlights” from a “teleconference series” that was held in August and September 2006. The article was “prepared by the CME Institute of Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc., and was supported by an educational grant from Neuronetics, Inc.”

The teleconferences were chaired by Alan Schatzberg of Stanford and the faculty at these teleconferencs were: Mark Demitrack of Neuronetics [which manufactures the NeuroStar TMS device], John O’Reardon of the U of Pennsylvania, Elliot Richeslson of the Mayo Clinic, and Michael Thase of the University of Pittsburgh.

Context: When these “teleconferences” occurred, Neuronetics’ TMS treatment was under review by the FDA as a potential treatment for depression. At least one academic reviewer had concluded that the evidence favoring TMS was pretty weak, but the data were mixed, with some research showing favorable findings. Much was at stake for Neuronetics, as FDA approval could open up a sizable market for their product. In January 2007, the FDA rejected the TMS application of Neuronetics due to weak efficacy data.

Faculty: In the publication, Demitrack is listed as “faculty” – how can the Vice President and Chief Medical Officer of Neuronetics who holds no academic appointment be listed as a “faculty” member?

Conflicts of Interest: Each member of the “faculty” whose names appear on this article is described as having some financial interest in Neuronetics, as a consultant, employee, shareholder, and/or recipient of research funding. Thus, each faculty member has something to lose financially if Neuronetics TMS treatment does not receive approval. Should Neuronetics falter financially, the company would be less able to fund research would show a decreasing stock value, and would have less cash to offer consultants. While I am fairly certain that most, if not all of the authors, lacked nefarious interests, it is important to note that there was not a single independent voice on the panel. In CME articles such as this, however, this is just par for the course.

Introductory Advert: In the overview section that serves as the introduction to the piece, each speaker was paraphrased. Demitrack (Chief Medical Officer of Neuronetics) was paraphrased as saying:

Transcranial magnetic stimulation has shown promise within the device-based platform of interventions because it is an effective, noninvasive procedure; however, at the present time, TMS therapy has not yet received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.

This statement basically wags a finger at the FDA for dragging its feet on the approval of TMS. Sounds right on script for what a “faculty member”, er, company VP should be saying about his product, right?

Richelson is paraphrased as saying:

Modulating neurotransmission to specific brain areas through highly focused magnetic pulses (rTMS) may reduce or even eliminate the depressive symptoms associated with specific brain areas.

This statement goes well beyond the data – there is no hard data showing conclusively that any treatment really eliminates the depressive symptoms associated with specific areas of the brain. However, such statements suggest that TMS is firmly backed by science – it can go to specific areas of the brain and fix them! Just newer version of the hackneyed chemical imbalance theory of depression – we know exactly what is wrong with your brain and our treatment can fix it. Same story, different treatment.

Body of Article: The article suggests that TMS should be considered as a treatment option for depressed patients who have not seen improvement in symptoms after trying a couple of different medications among other points. My favorite statement in the article was based on comments from “faculty member" Demitrack:

TMS seems to provide the promise of at least equivalent efficacy and, in some instances, perhaps better efficacy and an improved tolerability profile compared with continued, more complex pharmacotherapy.

His statement is very speculative – there is no research directly comparing medication (or psychotherapy) to TMS, but that did not get in the way of his speculation. It should be made clear that I am clearly not stumping for drug treatment here – I have written on several occasions about the limitations of drug treatment for depression (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). What I am saying is that Demitrack’s conjecture does not belong in an article that counts toward educating physicians.

Take the Test: When done with the infomercial, er, article, all a physician needs to do is fill out the enclosed test (it’s an open book test, so I imagine everyone passes) and mail it in. Physicians can even complete the test online.

Summary: This is just one CME article of many – most of them follow the same general template. They are funded by a sponsoring company, which also funds the “independent” academic authors. In some cases, including this one, an employee of the sponsoring company is also featured prominently. A medical writer may then write up much or all of the article.

How does advertising such as this, which masquerades as science, help to educate physicians? Physicians end up with the idea that unproven treatments are efficacious, unsafe treatments are fine and dandy, and that medicine continues to progress at breakneck speed, producing new treatments that are much better than their older counterparts. And this helps patients… HOW?