Lend Me Your Name

Journalism regarding the horrors of ghostwritten papers in medical journals is all the rage these days (1, 2, 3). Here's my very small contribution. The document shown below from a medical writing company has been described elsewhere. But it is worth seeing in its glory firsthand. The document is from Wyeth's ghostwriting firm, DesignWrite. It was part of the Premarin/hormone replacement therapy disaster (see below). Perhaps you remember the era when hormone replacement therapy was being prescribed for all sorts of people because it was supposedly a wonder treatment. So what if it increased risk for breast cancer and perhaps other conditions as well? Not to worry, DesignWrite could get around that...

In layman's terms, it goes like this... Wyeth -- you give us some hints about the marketing spin you'd like us to put on your studies. We'll then write up the studies accordingly and have big-name academics sign off as if they had something to do with our oh-so-objective "research". And don't worry, Wyeth, you get to review all papers we write up to make sure we market your drug appropriately.

We now know that several academics participated in this program. To quote one ethicist, regarding the academics who lent their names as authors: "They sold their credentials for false credit and money." DesignWrite's current slogan is: "Where we put clinical data to work." Hmmm. DesignWrite gets paid, Wyeth gets paid, and the academics who lend their names get paid and/or get another publication to boost their stock in the academic world.

Oh, and patients, what did they get out this... breast cancer. But who cares about them anyway -- patients are just little buckets of money; it's not like they're real human beings.

A summary of the results that led to the downfall of hormone replacement therapy

Three years after stopping hormone therapy, women who had taken study pills with active estrogen plus progestin no longer had an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (heart disease, stroke, and blood clots) compared with women on placebo. The lower risk of colorectal cancer seen in women who had taken active E+P disappeared after stopping the intervention. The benefit for fractures (broken bones) in women who had taken active E+P also disappeared after stopping hormone therapy. On the other hand, the risk of all cancers combined in women who had used E+P increased after stopping the intervention compared to those on placebo. This was due to increases in a variety of cancers, including lung cancer. After stopping the intervention, mortality from all causes was somewhat higher in women who had taken active E+P pills compared with the placebo.

Based on the findings mentioned above, the study’s global index that summarized risk and benefits was unchanged, showing that the health risks exceeded the health benefits from the beginning of the study through the end of this three year follow-up. The follow-up after stopping estrogen plus progestin confirms the study’s main conclusion that combination hormone therapy (E+P) should not be used to prevent disease in healthy, postmenopausal women. The most important message to women who have stopped this hormone therapy is to continue seeing their physicians for rigorous prevention and screening activities for all important preventable health conditions.

I'm glad to see that ghostwriting is now the topic du jour in health journalism. But in a few weeks, the attention will vanish as the drug industry and its associated writing firms will agree to allegedly stringent guidelines that ensure this never happens again. And nothing will actually change. I mean, seriously, do you think academic researchers are going to write their own papers? Do you think drug companies are going to stop hiring writers to expertly spin the data? The current system works too well for it to simply go away.

Thanks to an alert reader for sending this document along. You can search for more documents at the Drug Industry Document Archive, including those from Wyeth and DesignWrite. Happy digging!

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 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.

New American Psychiatric Association Prez: We Want Money

In a recent speech, incoming American Psychiatric Association president Alan Schatzberg was quoted as saying:

"As the recent attacks on APA and leaders of the profession have occurred, it has struck me that some of the detractors in the press have voiced concern that some folks have earned too good a living, often by doing presentations," he said. "I have heard from colleagues and directly from one reporter asking me about one of my colleagues having too high an annual income. I can assure you these detractors would not ask the same question of a surgeon or radiologist earning 10 times the amount paid our colleagues. None of us do what we do for money. Yet, it is also time for us to realize that our members and residents have never taken vows of poverty, and the complexity of the work deserves to be recognized. We need to ask ourselves how we have contributed to our own devaluation with which others seem to resonate, and we need to reverse the course. The rewards for our dedication should not be limited to a sense of pride, but we are also entitled to be paid commensurate to the challenge.

So Schatzberg must be diving into dumpsters, begging at interstate off-ramps, and the like. Oh, wait a minute. This is the same Alan Schatzberg who in 2007 owned close to 5 million shares of Corcept (which translates into roughly 5 million dollars). I have no idea how many shares he owns currently. Corcept, in case you missed it, has shown its drug mifepristone (aka RU-486: "The Abortion Pill") is ineffective in relieving depression among patients with psychotic depression. Schatzberg, at one time, was the chief scientific officer of Corcept and was also the cofounder of the company. According to Corcept's website, he is still a scientific advisor. Despite the stuides of mifepristone showing negative results, the results were spun in a manner to make them sound as if they were positive (1, 2, 3, 4). In a press release, Schatzberg was quoted as saying that mifepristone "may be the equivalent of shock treatments in a pill." Right, with all of the negative studies, it's definitely shock treatment, meditation, and running a marathon all wrapped together in a capsule. Should he be paid "commensutate to the challenge" of trying to weave positive findings from negative results? I don't know what role, if any, he played in the misleading publications surrounding mifepristone. But in his role as chief of the scientific advisory board, I'd venture a guess that he had some involvement. But worry not, the negative results were not spun into positive findings for the sake of money, but for an altruistic love of patients with depression. I'm touched.

Schatzberg was also busted by yours truly putting his name on a duplicate publication that pimped Cymbalta, Lilly's antidepressant. The study presented data from the same set of patients who were involved in a previously published Cymbalta study. Scientific results are not meant to be published in nearly identical form in two different journals. But that didn't stop Schatzberg and his coauthors. If you've not read the lengthy post on this topic, please feel free to check it out in order to understand my cynicism regarding his recent speech.

Another quote from his talk:

We need to sit down with industry and come up with ways of interacting that are acceptable to both sides and fit with future guidelines. I have pledged to follow up on recent initiatives and work with Dr. Scully [APA's medical director] and our Board of Trustees to effect a new partnership—a partnership we can be proud of for what it contributes to the well-being of our patients and our profession.

I can only wonder what type of mutually agreeable interactions would meet Schatzberg's standards. Duplicate publication, serving as a scientific advisor for a company that writes scientifically dubious papers? And it appears that he's encouraging psychiatrists to be greedy -- take the money and don't feel bad about it. Taking industry money is perfectly acceptable in some instances, but it needs to be transparent, and there are plentiful examples of academics getting paid by industry and slanting science in a sponsor-friendly way.

And the clincher:

"The time has come," he said, "to be proud of what we do and to advocate for what we and our patients justly deserve."

Right, psychiatrists deserve to make as much money as possible bending science for corporate sponsors -- and they should be proud of it too. Am I being too cynical? Maybe. But when a guy with Schatzberg's record starts talking about psychiatrists needing to rake in more money from industry, it makes me think I'm living in Bizarro World. Get ready, APA memebers; it's going to be an interesting ride.

Greedy and Ghostly Scientists

Story one: Zachary Stowe, psychiatrist at Emory University becomes Charles Nemeroff, Jr. Read all about it the Carlat Psychiatry Blog and University Diaries. And check out the WSJ Health Blog as well. The gist is that Stowe apparently did not report all of his external income from his many pharmaceutical industry gigs. Better yet, he was a frequent speaker for GlaxoSmithKline, which had the gall to cancel two of his commercial talks. He then wanted GSK to pay him even though he wasn't going to give the speeches. Read the relevant emails toward the bottom of this document. After reading about Stowe, refresh your memory about Golden Goblet Lifetime Achievement Award Winner, former Chair of Psychiatry at Emory University: Charles Nemeroff. Is there something in the water at Emory? Or is that just how we roll in modern academic psychiatry? Stowe is hereby nominated for a coveted Golden Goblet for his string of emails in which he attempted to shake down GlaxoSmithKline. Sometimes I think that the only thing worse than drug companies are the narcissistic academics who they employ as "key opinion leaders." Not all key opinion leaders are jerks; some are probably even able to reasonably balance their industry cash with being good scientists. But Stowe didn't really portray himself as Mr. Nice Guy in his string of soon to be infamous emails.

Oh, and this little gem:

"Especially disturbing is an email between employees at GSK and a public relations (PR) firm that the GSK hired. The email was titled “For your review/Paxil Breast Milk Press Release” and states:

"[P]lease review the attached press release and forward me any comments/edits.
As you may know, Dr. Stowe is on board for publicity efforts and NAME
REDACTED and I are coordinating time to meet with him next week to arm him
with the key messages for this announcement, which is slated for early February.
We are sending the release for your review at the same time in efforts to secure
distribution on Emory letterhead (as you know, would provide further credibility
to data for the media)."

In his testimony, Dr. Stowe confirmed that the press release was written by the PR
firm and concerned his research on Paxil and its presence in breast milk. He also
explained that placing the press release on Emory letterhead, as opposed to GSK letterhead, would make the data more credible to the public."

If I have this straight, Stowe was willing to place a press release written by a PR firm hired by GSK on official university letterhead to enhance its credibility. Apparently he wasn't concerned about his own credibility. Read the full document of Senator Charles Grassley's investigation of Dr. Stowe.

Part 2: Enter the Ghostwriters

One snippet, then go to Bloomberg for the rest:

Ensuring that medical journal articles presented Zyprexa study results in a positive light was one way for Lilly to reach its sales goal, company officials said in its plan, according to the documents. To do that, Lilly officials hired ghostwriters to prepare submissions to journals such as Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry, according to the unsealed documents. “The paper for the Progress in Neurology and Psychiatry supplement has been completed and sent to the journal for peer review,” Kerrie Mitchell, an employee of the public relations agency Cohn & Wolfe, wrote in a Feb. 23, 2001, e-mail to Michael Sale, a Lilly marketing official. The message was among the unsealed files. “We ‘ghost’ wrote this article and then worked with author Dr. Haddad to work up the final copy,” Mitchell said in the e- mail. Eric Litchfield, a spokesman for Cohn & Wolfe, didn’t immediately return a call requesting comment.

The Bloomberg story is based on a recently released set of internal Lilly documents. That's right -- more Zyprexa documents are on the loose. And the first round of documents provided some good stuff (1, 2, 3), so I can't wait to see what kind of chicanery will be revealed by the latest round. In one sense, it's not exactly news that Lilly ghostwrote Zyprexa papers. We all know that ghostwriting is rampant. How else do key opinion leaders get their names on dozens of papers per year when they are also flying around the country pimping drugs, holding administrative meetings, and doing all sorts of other tasks? But it's nice to have it officially documented that Lilly was playing the ghostwriting game with Zyprexa.

Leading Psychiatrist Slammed in Leading Journal

In the latest American Journal of Psychiatry appears a review of Allison Bass's book Side Effects. As many of my readers undoubtedly recall, the book details the saga of the antidepressant drug paroxetine (Paxil) and the troubled line of "research" used to support its use in children (among other points). The reviewer clearly liked the book, which is not necessarily newsworthy. What is notable is that a book review appearing in perhaps the world's leading psychiatry journal slams a leading member of the psychiatry profession. The reviewer, Dr. Spencer Eth, writes the following:

More recently, psychiatrists have been greeted in the morning with front-page newspaper exposés of huge sums being directed by these same drug companies to the physician leaders of our field. In Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial, journalist Alison Bass has written the powerful story of a leading medication, its manufacturer, and a favored psychiatrist, whose driving force was profit not treatment.

Ouch. Though not naming the psychiatrist directly, it is clearly a reference to Martin Keller, bigwig at Brown University, whose work on one particular study regarding Paxil was the subject of a lengthy prior post. For the collection of my posts related to Dr. Keller, please click here.

Back to the review...

This well-told cautionary lacks the excitement of a novel but instead informs the reader with an actual case study with the real names of psychiatrists we know. We can see exactly how corporate greed, drug-company-sponsored clinical research, and mental health care become a toxic mix that inevitably damages our patients’ well being, our colleagues’ reputations, and our profession’s good name.

It was a refreshing surprise to see Martin Keller's goose get cooked in this review. I don't mean to sound vindictive or meanspirited. Keller has done a lot of work over the course of his career, much of which likely has some redeeming value. That being said, there can be little doubt that some of his "science" is quite dubious. And for a major psychiatry journal to run anything, even a book review, that directly goes after a "key opinion leader" who appears quite culpable in performing bad science -- that's a good sign.

Seroquel, Haldol, and The Full Court Media Press

I was very pleased to have been acknowledged in a recent story in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The reporter, Jeremy Olson, wrote the following in his story:

An Internet psychiatry blog first raised questions March 2 about the research Schulz presented at the APA conference and why it lacked any of the company's findings."It raises troubling questions when an independent academic author presents results that are in direct opposition to the underlying data," wrote the blogger, an anonymous academic.

He didn't cite my blog by name -- the unwieldy long name which I stupidly chose for the site may be responsible for that -- but I'm nonetheless grateful that my site was acknowledged for its work on this story. He is referencing my post in which I noted that a University of Minnesota psychiatry professor (Charles Schulz) had stated in a press release that Seroquel was "more effective" than Haldol. This was based upon his analysis of data comparing Seroquel to the much older antipsychotic drug Haldol in the treatment of schizophrenia. Yet an internal AstraZeneca analysis found that Haldol was actually more effective than Seroquel. Both the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune, the two big papers in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area ran stories on the controversy.

When asked about his lavishing of praise on Seroquel in the press release, the Pioneer Press said:

In an interview with the Pioneer Press last week, Schulz defended his research and presentation of Seroquel as accurate and ethical. However, he acknowledged the corporate press release from his APA presentation might have exaggerated in calling Seroquel "significantly superior."

"You know," he said, "I can't disagree with that."

Schulz said the following in the Star Tribune:

In an interview this week, Schulz said the pharmaceutical company never shared its doubts about Seroquel, which went on to become a blockbuster, with annual sales of $4.5 billion today. "I don't recall anybody calling up and saying, oh my goodness, we have this problem," he said. At the same time, Schulz acknowledged that his own study did not really show that Seroquel was more effective than the older drug. "That's a bit of a misunderstanding," he said. "I think the overall message is that it works about the same."

Thanks to a helpful reader, I was able to track down what appears to be Schulz's presentation from 2000. It says "...quetiapine was clearly statistically significantly superior to placebo as well as to haloperidol..." This appears to contradict his statement that Haldol and Seroquel "work about the same." Again, the data from Schulz's presentation don't match AstraZeneca's internal analysis. Schulz is obviously backing away from his earlier praise for Seroquel, for which he deserves some credit. The problem was that Schulz, along with a laundry list of researchers in psychiatry were caught in a tidal wave of unbridled enthusiasm for the atypical antipsychotics, first as wonder drugs for schizophrenia, then as the Next Big Thing in bipolar, then moving into the world of depression and anxiety disorders in the absence of decent supportive evidence.

Interesting sidenote: While Schulz was presenting on the wonders of Seroquel, he was likely quite unaware that AstraZeneca has conducted a study (Study 15) which had found that Seroquel compared unfavorably to Haldol in preventing psychotic relapse among patients with schizophrenia who began the study in full or partial symptom remisison. Furious Seasons has some additional reporting on this study. It is a near certainty that Schulz was not informed about this study's results, as this could have changed his lofty opinion of Seroquel. This points to the problem of researchers relying on data collected by drug companies -- how are researchers to know they are receiving all of the data?

Note to key opinion leaders: If you don't realize it by now, you are pawns. You are being used to place an academic veneer on the marketing of drugs. The drugs that you are marketing as major breakthroughs typically offer little to no benefit over existing treatment and may cause a slew of nasty side effects. Decide if you want to be a scientist or a marketer. Don't try to do both at the same time, because the odds are pretty good that your scientific credentials will end up being tarnished. Just ask this guy. Now that the media are paying much closer attention to the conflicted interests and skewed science that sadly underlie much of psychiatry these days, it would be a good idea to maintain appearances.

Internal Documents Suggest that Seroquel Data Were Not Presented Accurately

A document dated March 9, 2000 titled "BPRS meta-analysis" shows that AstraZeneca, maker of the antipsychotic drug quetiapine (Seroquel), knew fully that its drug did not relieve schizophrenia symptoms to the same extent as its older, generic competitor haloperidol (Haldol). The document provides results of a meta-analysis, a statistical analysis that combines the results of several individual studies. The authors used the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) as their main measure of efficacy. The BPRS rates a variety of psychiatric symptoms relevant to schizophrenia. More details on the BPRS can be seen here. A total of ten clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis, which variously compared Seroquel to placebo, Haldol, and several other antipsychotic medications. Four trials compared Seroquel to Haldol. Several subscales of the BPRS were included in the analysis.

When examining the amount of change on the BPRS, Seroquel consistently outperformed placebo, both on the BPRS total score and on several of the BPRS subscales. However, in several analyses, Seroquel was outperformed by Haldol and by risperidone (Risperdal; Janssen's antipsychotic). The document states: "Against 'all doses' of Seroquel, each of the three significant p-values generated was in favour of Haloperidol (Total BPRS, Factor V, and Hostility Cluster). There was no evidence of significant differences between the treatments when Haloperidol was compared to high-dose Seroquel." This is a plain admission that Haldol outperformed Seroquel on several outcomes, but that high dose Seroquel yielded approximately equivalent results to Haldol. Only one trial compared risperidone to quetiapine and the results clearly favored risperidone. The document stated: "Comparisons against Risperidone using all doses of Seroquel showed significant improvements for Risperidone on total BPRS, Factor V scores, and the Hostility Cluster. Against high-dose Seroquel only, the Anxiety item, Factor I, and Mood cluster scores were also significantly in favor of Risperidone." Risperidone beat Seroquel, and did so by a wider margin when a high doses of Seroquel was used.

The author of the document, Rob Hemmings, summarizes the results in a table, which appears below. It is described as such: "The following table is an attempt to simplify the claims that could be obtained from these results. A ✔ is entered for those comparisons where we have a statistically significant benefit, be it with 'all doses' or with high dose Seroquel... A x marks those comparisons where a comparator has demonstrated significant superiority compared to Seroquel."

The table demonstrates that according to an analysis by AstraZeneca employees, Seroquel is only shown to outperform placebo, whereas Seroquel is shown to demonstrate poorer efficacy than several other medications.

Under the heading "Conclusions," the document states, in part:

In terms of generating positive claims for Seroquel, these analyses seem somewhat disappointing. Although some trends in favour of Seroquel were observed in the Factor I and Mood cluster items, there was no evidence in these analyses of a significant benefit for using Seroquel over any of the active agents assessed."

The internal analysis clearly indicates that, based on several clinical trials, Seroquel offered no benefits over the competition in terms of reducing schizophrenia symptoms. Indeed, other drugs tended to outperform Seroquel.

How Can These Data be Managed? Shortly after the internal meta-analysis was completed, AstraZeneca employees discussed how to handle the negative results. An AstraZeneca publications manager, John Tumas, wrote in an email

The data don't look good. I don't know how we can get a paper out of this. My guess is that we all (including Schulz) saw the good stuff, ie the meta-analysis of responder rates that showed we were superior to placebo and haloperidol and then thought further analyses would be supportive and that a paper was in order. What seems to be the case is that we were only highlighting the good stuff and that our own analysis support the "view out there" that we are less effective than haloperidol and our competitors.

It would appear that an earlier analysis provided positive results which did not hold up during the internal meta-analysis. "Schulz" almost certainly refers to Dr. Charles Schulz, a psychiatrist at the University of Minnesota. In a press release from the year 2000, Dr. Schulz was quoted:

I hope that our findings help physicians better understand the dramatic benefits of newer medications like SEROQUEL because, if they do, we may be able to help ensure patients receive these medications first. The data suggest that SEROQUEL is an effective first- choice antipsychotic.

This press release was based on Schulz's presentation at the American Psychiatric Association convention in May 2000. The email from John Tumas discussed earlier noted that a group at AstraZeneca needed to meet soon "because Schulz needs to get a draft ready for APA and he needs any additional analyses we can give him well before then." It is unclear if Schulz ever received the analyses that showed Seroquel was less effective than Haldol. Regardless, in the press release, he was also quoted as saying: "Almost 50 years later, however, many patients are still taking these medications [such as Haldol], even though more effective treatments like Seroquel exist." While he was stumping for Seroquel in a press release, AstraZeneca's internal data painted a completely different picture.

Schulz, in his role as primary author, would typically be expected to demonstrate a solid understanding of the data underlying his presentation. It raises troubling questions when an independent academic author presents results that are in direct opposition to the underlying data. Such issues have been mentioned previously on this site.

The documents regarding Seroquel are available at Furious Seasons. Reporting on other facets of the documents can be found at the St. Petersburg Times, Bloomberg, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

What's Next for Schatzberg?

An advertisement in the Psychiatric Times (page 34 of .pdf) calls for applicants for the Chair of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University, a position now filled by Dr. Alan Schatzberg. The Stanford Psychiatry Department webpage currently states, in part:

Under the direction of the Chairman and Chief Alan F. Schatzberg, M.D., the Stanford University Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, a center for the advancement of psychiatric practice, research and education, has three goals:

• To advance the understanding of the etiologies of psychiatric or sleep disorders and to lay the foundation for new treatment development.
• To develop innovative treatments and to deliver comprehensive services on a continuum of care to patients in a high quality efficient and compassionate manner.
• To train medical students, residents and clinical and research fellows in the science and practice of psychiatry and sleep medicine.

Looks like Schatz is out. I have noted previously that Schatzberg was deeply involved with a duplicate publication that pimped Cymbalta. Schatzberg's close involvement with Corcept, maker of mifepristone (Corlux), has also raised eyebrows. Mifepristone has been an utter failure in clinical trials, but the manufacturer has attempted to spin the data in ways that should be obvious to anyone with a smidgen of critical thinking skills. Charles Grassley has hit Schatzberg as part of the investigation into the tangled web of conflicted interests involving psychiatrists and drugmakers. There is also some evidence that Schatz was involved in the launch of Zyprexa for bipolar disorder.

Schatz is apparently out as department chair. I wonder who will take his place...

Thanks to an alert reader for the tip.

KOL Continues to Vanish

Charles Nemeroff, about whom I have written much, continues to disappear. His latest vanishing act: From a psychiatric research gathering in Berlin in late November 2008. Their website now reads: "Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff (Atlanta, the USA) called his participation off in the congress and its scientific contributions." We can only hope that they had another key opinion leader of his stature to replace him.

Back story.

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."

Treatment Guidelines and GSK's Open Disclosure

Last week, I noted that a recently published article had found that studies favoring GSK's "mood stabilizer" Lamictal tended to get published in medical journals while articles reaching less favorable conclusions tended to remained unpublished. I wrote that "GSK worked the system expertly and it paid off." A reader commented that he thought my characterization of GSK as hiding negative data on Lamictal was inaccurate. I appreciate his well-written critical comments, which are linked here and are partially reproduced below:

Acute Depression - All of the acute depression studies (there were 5 not 3 as you reported) were presented at scientific meetings over the years and were recently published in Bipolar Disorders (Calabrese et al. 2008). Why so long to publish? The paper was rejected twice and took 3 years to get accepted because journal reviewers did not find the data of interest.

I responded via comment that, if his history is accurate, then the reviewers should be flogged. He added that GSK had provided negative Lamictal data to numerous authors who wrote review articles on Lamictal. In some cases, this appears to be true. However, in at least one notable case, either GSK failed to provide the data or the authors completely ignored the negative data. The data here appeared in a 2004 "academic highlight" (i.e., lowlight) in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Of relevance, the article was funded by an "unrestricted educational grant" from GSK. The article bashes antidepressant treatment in bipolar as unsupported by evidence. Then the expert panel of authors/key opinion leaders put together their guidelines for treating bipolar disorder.

The article begins by discussing bipolar depression. Lithium is discussed first and receives a positive review. Then comes Lamictal, GSK's mood stabilizer. They discuss, in detail, the positive results from Calabrese et al. The authors then discuss some positive long-term findings for lamotrigine before moving on to olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine. They conclude that lithium and Lamictal have the best evidence for treating bipolar depression as can be seen here:

Category 1 evidence is the best evidence, so hooray for lamotrigine/Lamictal! But what don't they discuss in their "expert" review of the data? How about two negative studies -- SCA40910 (completed in 2002) and SCAB2001 (completed in 1997) -- GSK titles of studies that both showed negative results for Lamictal in treating depression in bipolar disorder. A reader tracked these down and sent them -- you can find them if you head to GSK's clinical trial registry. Given that these "International Consensus Guidelines" were published in February of 2004, you'd think the authors would have included data from both of GSK's unpublished studies unless:
A. They didn't know about their existence (and why would they unless GSK told them)
B. They knew about them but opted to not include them in this "expert review"

Given that a GSK employee has told me how open and honest GSK has been with their data, I'd be interested in seeing his response as to which of the above he believes took place. Keep in mind that the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, in which this so-called "academic highlight" appeared is a very widely read journal. According to Google Scholar, this piece has been cited 46 times, many of which have doubtlessly recycled the inaccurate claim that Lamictal is an effective treatment for acute bipolar depression.

The same pattern as usual: Company conducts research, selectively publishes positive results, funds "educational" pieces such as "academic highlights" to paint an overly rosy picture of treatment effectiveness and/or safety, and physicians, based upon the "evidence base" delude themselves into thinking that they are writing prescriptions based on the best scientific data.

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.

A Month in The Life of Chuck "High Life" Nemeroff

The psychiatry world is belatedly exhibiting outrage toward a man whose ability to lure pharma cash seems to know no bounds. He may be the textbook case of a key opinion leader. Of course, I speak of Charles "Bling Bling" Nemeroff. Rather than list the many questionable at best behaviors he has exhibited, each of which has called into question his standing as a scientist as opposed to a blatant drug marketer, I just want to a) direct everyone to a detailed list of his speaking engagements from GlaxoSmithKline and b) discuss a month of living the High Life, Nemeroff Style.

As is well known by now (1, 2), Nemeroff appears to have not been particularly forthcoming about the huge amounts he was making while moonlighting for every drug company on the planet (see below) despite requirements that he do so. According to psychiatrist Danny Carlat:

From 2000 to 2006, GSK paid Nemeroff a total of $960,488. Note that this was not research grant money, or money for Emory's psychiatry department. These were fees that went into his personal bank account, which he earned by either sitting on GSK's Advisory Board, or speaking to doctors about GSK products. His typical fee for a talk was $3500 plus expenses, but sometimes he made more.

Of this $960,488, the total amount he disclosed to Emory [his employer, to whom he was required to report such income] was $34,998.

According to a GSK document hosted by Senator Charles Grassley, Nemeroff took in over $20 grand in one month from speaking engagements for GSK. Not bad work if you can get it, eh? And this month doesn't seem unusual for Nemeroff. These are only his speeches for GSK -- he also gave speeches for several other companies. The document goes on and on -- 39 pages of paid speech listings, nearly all of them featuring Nemeroff. I just picked 03-30-00 to 04-30-00 because they were on the first pages of the document, which covers expenses from 2000 to 2008 for Dr. Bling Bling.

Nemeroff GSK Honoraria from March 30, 2000 to April 30, 2000

Date	Speaking Fee
03/30/2000	$4000
04/12/2000	$2500
04/19/2000	$4000
04/20/2000	$4175 (includes some 'expenses'; I suspect $4000 was the speaking fee)
04/27/2000	$4000
04/30/2000	$2500
TOTAL	$21, 175 (probably $21,000 excluding travel expenses)

Imagine making $20k in a month for basically reading slides a few times that were quite possibly entirely written by a drug company. And many of these talks were accompanied by posh meals, the kind that myself and most of my readers might eat once or twice a year.

Here's a Nemeroff disclosure from a recent journal article:

Dr Nemeroff has received grants from or performed research for the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Forest Laboratories, Inc, Janssen Pharmaceutica, NARSAD: TheMental Health Research Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories; has been a consultant to Abbott Laboratories, Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corcept Therapeutics, Cypress Bioscience, Cyberonics, Eli Lilly and Co, Entrepreneur’s Fund, Forest Laboratories, Inc, GlaxoSmithKline, i3 DLN, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Lundbeck, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Quintiles Transnational, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories; has been on the speakers bureau for Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica, and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; is a stockholder in Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Corcept Therapeutics, Cypress Bioscience, and NovaDel Pharma Inc; is on the board of directors of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education, the George West Mental Health Foundation, NovaDel Pharma Inc, and the National Foundation for Mental Health; holds patents on a method and devices for transdermal delivery of lithium (US 6,375,990 B1) and on a method to estimate serotonin and norepinephrine transporter occupancy after drug treatment using patient or animal serum (provisional filing April 2001); and holds equity in Reevax, BMC-JR LLC, and CeNeRx.

No, I didn't make that up. As Ed Silverman wrote at Pharmalot, "It also raises a question - when he did find time to do anything else?"

Uh-Oh Chuck, They Out To Get You, Man

According to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, it looks like Charlie "Bling Bling" Nemeroff is under investigation by Senator Charles Grassley. Gee, I can't imagine why. Maybe because documents indicated that he failed to report over a million dollars of income received from the drug industry? It also turns out that the Chuckster made nearly $3 million in consulting deals with pharma from 2000-2007. That doesn't mean that his behavior was ever influenced by such huge sums of cash, right? Oh, wait just a minute...

...It turns out that there were several incidences of unbecoming behavior involving Bling Bling, I mean, the esteemed Dr. Nemeroff. Who could forget the time that he conveyed what appears to be fictional data in a continuing medical education course? How 'bout an article that seems to overstate the advantages of Effexor (1, 2)? And his contradictory statements regarding the role of serotonin in depression? His involvement in a shady at best study on the effects of Risperdal in depression is also worth reading. In fact, for a summary of many issues regarding Nemeroff, feel free to read an earlier post that outlines many events and provides links for more in-depth information on each of them.

One of my first posts on Nemeroff was presciently titled: Uh-oh Chuck, They Out to Get Us, Man. Apparently, I was foreshadowing the present investigation. Don't feel too bad for Nemeroff; he should be able to afford excellent legal representation.

Maybe this latest mire in which Nemeroff finds himself explains the uptick in hits from Emory University and the Senate this site has been seeing lately?

Please also read Daniel Carlat's unflattering take on Nemeroff's behavior.

The Cymbalta Schatz-Storm: Duplicate Publication and Lying by Omission

This post details the duplicate publication of data on the antidepressant duloxetine (Cymbalta). Marketing and "science" collide to produce hideous offspring: an experimercial that pimps Lilly's bogus "Depression Hurts" marketing for Cymbalta using the exact same (weak) data twice. Data were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP), and then the same data were published a second time in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (JPR), a blatant violation of JPR policy. Oh, and Alan Schatzberg, president-elect for the American Psychiatric Association is involved in the story.

The study: Lilly conducted a rather uninteresting study of Cymbalta, in which patients who had not shown a treatment response to an SSRI were then assigned to either a) Direct switch: Switch to Cymbalta and immediately discontinue the SSRI medication or b) Start-Taper-Switch: taper the SSRI over a 2 week period while also starting Cymbalta. Note that there was not a control group of any sort, an issue that the authors dance around (i.e., essentially ignore) in the papers based on this study's data.

Publication #1 -- Journal of Clinical Psychiatry: Data from this study were published in the January 2008 issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. The findings were that, in essence, there were no notable differences between patients who were directly switched to Cymbalta as opposed to those who did the start-taper-switch method. But what do the authors conclude?

Despite the lack of control group, the authors get the message out that not only was depression improved, so were "painful physical symptoms." As anyone who has a television has probably noticed, Lilly has been pushing hard for quite some time to convince patients and physicians that Cymbalta will relieve depression and pain in depressed patients. So if the marketing points can be pushed in one journal, why not pimp the same idea using the same data in another journal?

Publication #2 -- Journal of Psychiatric Research: Data from the same study were published online (to appear in print soon) in the Journal of Psychiatric Research (JPR). And I mean the exact same data appear again in this paper. This is a huge scientific no-no. Findings are supposed to be published once, not over and over again. Journals are struggling to find space for new and interesting findings, so there is no need to waste space on duplicate data. In fact, to quote from JPR's website

Submission of a paper to the Journal of Psychiatric Research is understood to imply that it is an original paper which has not previously been published, and is not being considered for publication elsewhere. Prior publication in abstract form should be indicated. Furthermore, authors should upload copies of any related manuscript that has been recently published, is in press or under consideration elsewhere. The following circumstances indicate that a paper is related to the manuscript submitted to the Journal: a) any overlap in the results presented; b) any overlap in the subjects, patients or materials the results are based on.

So it's pretty clear -- don't submit data that has already been published. Here is a figure from the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (JCP) article mentioned above:

And here is the same data, in a figure in JPR:

But wait -- that's just the beginning. How about the data tables... From JCP:

And the right-side half of this table in JCP:

And the exact same data appearing in JPR:

To be fair to these "researchers" in JPR, they reported data from subscales of two measures not reported in JCP. But the vast majority of the data is just reprinted from the article in JCP. Which is completely trouncing journal policy and, more importantly, conveying Lilly's marketing messages to the audiences of two different journals. Unfortunately, they apparently did not consider that some people might actually read both journals and notice that essentially the same article had appeared twice. Or, Lilly considered this prospect and said, "Who cares." I'll leave it to my readers to decide if they care.

Authors: The JCP paper was authored by David Perahia, Deborah Quail, Derisala Desaiah, Emmanuele Corruble, and Maurizio Fava. The JPR paper was "authored" by Perahia, Quail, Desaiah, Angel Montejo, and Alan Schaztberg. So to re-publish the same data, it was out with Corruble and Fava -- in with Montejo and Schatzberg. Why Schatzberg? We're almost there...

JPR describes the contributions of each author. For these two authors (Schatzberg and Montejo) who were not credited in the JCP paper, they were both described as "involved in data review and interpretation, including the development of this manuscript." How could they have been involved with data review and interpretation -- the vast majority of the data were already analyzed, interpreted and written up by other researchers in the JCP paper? Did they write the paper? Apparently not, since the JPR article mentioned that "Dr. Desaiah worked with Dr. Perahia to draft the manuscript..." So Montejo and Schatzberg could not conceivably have played any significant role in data analysis, interpretation, or writing the paper. It seems that if Desaiah and Perahia "drafted" the manuscript, then the most Montejo and Schatzberg could have done is to maybe review the paper.

So why is Schatzberg on the paper? Well, it just so happens, I'm sure by sheer coincidence, that Schatzberg is the co-editor in chief of JPR. So he'd be in a good position to help a paper that essentially republishes data from JCP with only minor additions make it into publication against his own journal's policies.

Nice work, Schatzberg. That's pimpin' it hard. That, my friend, is worthy of nomination for a coveted Golden Goblet Award. Congratulations. It is not the first time Schatzberg's "scientific" behavior has been noted. He has been stumping (in the face of much contradictory data) in favor of his pet drug RU-486/Corlux in the treatment of psychotic depression for some time. Between the bad science surrounding Corlux and Schaztberg's myriad conflicts of interest, much has been written (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) -- add another chapter to the chronicles of the storied American Psychiatric Association Leader. This reminds me of an earlier incident involving Charles Nemeroff.

Discussion: As I've noted previously, the discussion section of a journal article often contains key marketing points, science being relegated to secondary status at best. The JPR article provides a few good examples of Cymbalta's talking points:

The current paper focuses on pain-related outcomes, demonstrating that a switch of SSRI non- or partial-responders to duloxetine was associated with a significant improvement in all pain measures including six VAS pain scales, the SQ-SS and its pain subscale, and the SF-36 bodily pain domain.

Switch of SSRI non- and partial-responders to duloxetine resulted in mean improvements on all pain measures regardless of the switch method used.

Duloxetine, an SNRI, has previously been shown to be effective in the treatment of PPS associated with depression, and it is also effective in the treatment of chronic pain such as diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) for which it is approved in the US, Europe and elsewhere, so duloxetine’s effects on pain in our sample of SSRI non- or partial-responders was not unexpected.

Patients with MDD present with a broad range of symptoms including those related to alteration of mood and PPS, all of which may contribute to global functional impairment. Effective treatment of both mood symptoms and PPS associated with depression may therefore optimize the chances of functional improvement. Recent findings that residual PPS in depressed patients may be associated with impaired quality of life (Wise et al., 2005, 2007), decreased productivity and lower rates of help seeking (Demyttenaere et al., 2006) and a lower likelihood of attaining remission (Fava et al., 2004), further demonstrate the importance of effective treatment of PPS in patients with MDD, so duloxetine’s effects on PPS are reassuring.

Improvements in pain are consistent with previously reported studies demonstrating duloxetine’s efficacy for pain, either as part of depression, or as part of a chronic pain condition such as DPNP.

Where do I start? How about by mentioning that JPR states:

7. Discussion: The results of your study should be placed in the appropriate context of knowledge, with discussion of its limitations and implications for future work.

So maybe if there was research that questions Lilly's talking points about Cymbalta relieving pain in depression, such research should be discussed. Well, it just so happens that there is research, which analyzed Lilly's own clinical trials and found that Cymbalta was no better than a placebo or Paxil in treating pain in depression. This meta-analysis of Cymbalta trials was published in January 2008, yet the JPR article, which was originally received by JPR on March 26, 2008 did not mention the negative data. Hmmm, that doesn't exactly sound like placing the findings "in the appropriate context of knowledge," does it? All this talk about Cymbalta's fantastic analgesic effects despite Lilly's own data showing that Cymbalta is at best close to useless in treating pain among depressed patients. Another study that claimed to show Cymbalta was a helluva painkiller was also smacked in a letter to the editor a few months ago -- and the authors of the Lilly-sponsored trial conceded defeat by refusing to reply to the critiques of their study.

Better Than "Weak" SSRIs (Not Really): In the JPR study, it was mentioned that the evidence for SSRIs in treating pain is "weak." No disagreement on my end. But see, once SSRI patients switched to Cymbalta, their pain magically went away because Cymbalta, unlike SSRIs, relieves pain. Never mind the lack of control group, which was allotted a grand total of 15 words in the discussion as a potential limitation of the study. The authors also failed to note that prior research showed that Cymbalta was no better than Paxil in treating pain in depressed patients. And Perahia, the lead author of the JCP and JPR "studies" is certainly aware of the research showing that Cymbalta works no better than a "weak" SSRI, since he was the lead author on one such study! So he is quite aware that Cymbalta has never been shown superior to Paxil in treating pain, yet he accurately describes research indicating that SSRIs are "weak" pain treatments, but then neglects to mention that Cymbalta failed to demonstrate superiority to Paxil in treating pain in depression. This is called lying by omission.

I may pass along my concerns to the Journal of Psychiatric Research. My prior experiences in passing along such concerns to journals via my blog identity is that they either a) ignore my concerns entirely or b) instruct me to write a letter to the editor which would be considered for publication, with the stipulation that I use my real identity. Sorry, but a published letter to the editor is not worth blowing my cover.

Call for Action: Rather than my running into point b. from the last paragraph, how about one or more scientifically inclined readers submit your concerns to the journal, under the following condition: Make sure you read the original papers first to judge if my concerns are valid. Then, if you feel similarly, why not send a letter to the editor? This is bad science which does nothing to advance patient care -- it seeks only to advance sales of Cymbalta by pimping it as a painkiller in depression while ignoring all contradictory data. So let's try a little research of our own -- see if JPR is willing to address these issues or if they will be swept under the rug.

Reference to JPR article:

D PERAHIA, D QUAIL, D DESAIAH, A MONTEJO, A SCHATZBERG (2008). Switching to duloxetine in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor non- and partial-responders: Effects on painful physical symptoms of depression Journal of Psychiatric Research DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.07.001

Update: Also see an excellent follow-up post on the topic at Bad Science.

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.

Round Up The Usual Suspects

Senator Grassley's investigation of the connections between Big Pharma and psychiatry continues to target individuals who have been featured on this blog. The latest, according to Pharmalot: Martin Keller of Brown University. Those of you who have any familiarity with GlaxoSmithKline's work with Paxil in youth will recall that Keller was the "lead author", using the term as loosely as possible, of the infamous Study 329 paper which claimed inaccurately that Paxil was safe and effective in treating depression. Recently, a team of researchers published a bombshell of a paper that pointed out in detail how the Study 329 manuscript was doctored to paint an unrealistically favorable picture of the study's findings.

A recent transcript became available in which Keller discussed his role in "authoring" the Study 329 paper (pgs. 242-266 in particular). The CliffsNotes version: Keller claimed on one hand that he couldn't recall what happened and on the other hand said that he always played a key role in developing the main points to be communicated in every manuscript on which he was lead author. If we take Keller at his word, that he really developed the main ideas for the paper, then he was either a) negligent of the actual study data or b) actively participating in covering up the unfavorable results from the study. I noted earlier that Keller indicated earlier that he did not seem particularly familiar with the actual study data, so I suppose option A may be more likely. In any case, being the lead author on a study that claims a drug is safe and effective when the study data show that the drug is dangerous and ineffective -- that's nothing to brag about.

An interesting coincidence: There is a new Dean of Medicine (Edward J. Wing) at Brown University. Aubrey Blumsohn of the Scientific Misconduct Blog wrote a letter to the incoming Dean. So far, Blumsohn says he has received no reply. Blumsohn expressed concerns with Keller and with the handling of David Kern, a Brown University faculty member who was canned for apparently nefarious reasons. My bet: Nothing will change. Keller brings in a boatload of money to the university and is hence highly valued by the administration. He is also a "big name" in psychiatry, though between Study 329 and ARISE-RD, another strange study in which Keller seems to have designed a study after it was already completed, his standing is certainly not spotless. Let me be clear: I'm not advocating that the new Dean do anything in particular. I'm not calling for Keller to be canned or anything of the like. However, if I were a Dean (God forbid), then I would be concerned about well-documented issues with one of my big-name faculty, particularly because these issues go to the heart of scientific integrity.