The CareFusion/ Denham/ NQF Case - the Plot Thickens

The story about CareFusion, its financial relationships with Dr Charles Denham, and his alleged role in promoting a CareFusion product through standards produced by the National Quality Forum has gotten even more complicated.  This means that the tasks faced  by National Quality Forum leaders who asserted their intent to improve their conflicts of interest policy in response to this case just got more complex.

Background

As we most recently discussed here, the basics of the case were:
-  The case became public with an apparently routine legal settlement between CareFusion and the US Department of Justice
 -  the CareFusion settlement for $40.1 million was made in response to allegations that kickbacks were made to promote ChloraPrep, a solution meant for preoperative and other health care skin cleaning
-  the Department of Justice news release also alleged that payments were made to a corporation called Health Care Concepts to conceal kickbacks made to its owner, Dr Charles Denham
-  the implication was that Dr Denham was supposed to influence a standard writing committee run by the National Quality Forum, a well known organization that promotes quality improvement, issues authoritative practice standards, a form of clinical practice guidelines, and has contracts with the US government for quality of care activities
-  the draft of the standard written by the committee allegedly included the use of ChloraPrep, although mention of that specific medication was removed in a revision
-  NQF leaders asserted that after hearing of the case from the DOJ, the organization severed ties with Dr Denham and the non-profit organization he runs,  established a policy not to accept money from funding organizations whose leaders are on its committees, reviewed all the standards set by the committee of which Dr Denham was co-chair, and twice revised its conflict of interest policy.

I opined that the NQF response to this case was more open and pro-active than responses by many other organizations to cases involving conflicts of interest, although there was still room for the NQF to further strengthen its conflict of interest policies.

The Plot Thickens

Since last week, three more articles on the case have appeared, in Modern Healthcare, the WBUR CommonHealth blog, and on ProPublica.  These pointed out additional disturbing aspects of the case.

Dr Denham's and CareFusion's Relationships with the NQF Were Even More Complex than Heretofore Revealed

According to ProPublica,

in response to questions from ProPublica, the Quality Forum divulged that Denham’s nonprofit was one of its contributors, and that in 2007 and 2008 it received $485,000 in donations from a foundation affiliated with Cardinal Health, a company that spun off CareFusion in 2009.

Also,

Between 2006 and 2009, Denham’s nonprofit donated $725,000 to the Quality Forum. The group and Denham had a five-year contract, but the Quality Forum declined to provide a copy or explain the terms, saying only that it was ended three years early, in 2010, after concerns about Denham emerged. 

Not only did the non-profit help fund the NQF, it was directly involved in relevant NQF activities,

According to [Dr Denham's attorney Lawrence] Gondelman, Denham’s nonprofit was obligated to provide financial and staff support for Quality Forum projects, including evidence-based medicine reviews, hosting webinars and creating multimedia presentations about the safe practice recommendations.

 Furthermore, while the NQF asks committee members to disclose conflicts of interest verbally at the start of each meeting, again according to ProPublica,

Both [Dr Patrick] Romano and Dr. Peter Pronovost, who leads a patient safety institute at Johns Hopkins Medicine, said they had been unaware of Denham’s financial ties with CareFusion. Quality Forum officials said Denham never reported them, nor did he mention them during the 2009 meeting when members were asked to disclose their financial relationships, the transcript shows.

'He clearly lied,' Dr. Christine Cassel, the Quality Forum’s president and CEO told ProPublica. 'He just didn’t say anything about any of his business relationships.'

The Clinical Evidence in Support of the CareFusion Product Denham Touted was Dubious

According to ProPublica's review of a transcript of the meeting about the NQF standards that Denham co-chaired,

At the safe practices committee session on Aug. 19, 2009, Denham twice appears to reference the New England Journal of Medicine study, the meeting transcript shows. Although he did not cite the study or ChloraPrep by name, Denham remarked that research to be published soon in a 'major journal' would show the effectiveness of the 2 percent chlorhexidine antiseptic.

CareFusion's ChloraPrep is apparently the only well known 2 percent chlorhexidine antiseptic.

However, the same article pointed out that the study too was affected by conflicts of interest. Its authors "all reported ties to Cardinal Health,' the company from which CareFusion was spun off.  Furthermore, ProPublica charged that Dr Denhams company was involved with the financing of that study.

Also, per an interview with Brian Johnson, publisher of MassDevice.com, WBUR reported:

the government says there are several ways this study did not use accepted protocols. For example, a member of the company’s sales and marketing staff reviewed the data from the clinical trial and edited the final study. Prosecutors also say the company failed to 'review, evaluate and report safety information' and failed to obtain and maintain accurate records showing all financial transactions from CareFusion to Dr. Rabih Darouiche, the lead investigator on the study.

Thus, it appears that this study may have been manipulated (in particular, by a company marketer's editing) to make its sponsor's product look more favorable (in this case, particularly by ignoring data about safety and adverse effects)

 NQF Went Farther to Endorse CareFusion's ChloraPrep than Was Heretofore Appreciated

 According to the WBUR interview,

The NQF didn’t adopt a recommendation of Chloraprep but Denham hosted webinars with Dairouche under the NQF brand for hospital staffers that absolutely endorsed Chloraprep. So while it didn’t end up in the official financial recommendations, there certainly was influence. 

However, according to ProPublica things were even more complicated.  Denham promoted ChloraPrep in not one, but two instances,

At the safe practices committee session on Aug. 19, 2009, Denham twice appears to reference the New England Journal of Medicine study, the meeting transcript shows. Although he did not cite the study or ChloraPrep by name, Denham remarked that research to be published soon in a 'major journal' would show the effectiveness of the 2 percent chlorhexidine antiseptic.

[Dr Peter] Pronovost said it wasn’t necessary to actually identify ChloraPrep because it was well known as the product with the 2 percent chlorhexidine formulation.

The committee members agreed that chlorhexidine was an effective antiseptic – guidelines by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say so as well. But studies show it also works in other concentrations and combinations.
Discussion turned to recommendations for preventing infections caused by central lines, the thin tubes inserted into a vein to deliver fluids or medications. Dr. Gregg Meyer of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, the co-chair of the committee with Denham, brought up the forthcoming study.

'Chuck (Denham) made me aware of it,' Meyer said. He then asked Pronovost, a leading expert on preventing central-line infections, what he thought

The final report did delete the specific reference to ChloraPrep as the preferred method for preparing surgical sites,

.After the meeting, when the committee’s draft report was published in late 2009, a recommendation for preparing surgical sites to prevent infection did not name ChloraPrep but did specify its telltale formula – a 2 percent chlorhexadine and alcohol antiseptic.

That draft recommendation was challenged by 3M, a company that makes a competing product. A scientific review of the evidence by a Quality Forum ad hoc committee found a lack of clear evidence to support one skin prep product over another. As a result, the recommendation to use the ChloraPrep formulation on surgical sites didn’t make it into the final 2010 safe practices report. 

However, the final report did appear to endorse ChloraPrep for reduction of central line infections,

 On the separate issue of reducing central-line infections, the 2009 draft report endorsed a chlorhexidine antiseptic but did not specify any one concentration – just as the committee decided. Yet the final 2010 report does call for a 2 percent chlorhexidine and alcohol antiseptic like ChloraPrep. 

Also, again per ProPublica, the NQF seemed to have been roped into other efforts run by Dr Denham to promote ChloraPrep,

Although Quality Forum officials seemed surprised to learn this last week from ProPublica, the group is listed as a co-host, with Denham’s nonprofit, of a webinar where the 2010 safe practices guidelines for central-line and surgical site infections are presented.

The presentation, posted on the website of Denham’s nonprofit, states that the Quality Forum recommends the ChloraPrep formulation to protect against both central-line and surgical site infections.    

CareFusion also cites the Quality Forum’s endorsement in at least one brochure on its website.

Summary: a Longer Row to Hoe

It looks like NQF will have to deal with even more specifics if it wants to prevent future compromises of its standards due to conflicts of interest and manipulation of the clinical research evidence base.

It will have to consider:
-  Whether individual disclosures of conflicts of interest can be trusted
-  Whether it is prepared to deal with the apparently nearly infinite variety of conflicts that creative minds can produce to promote vested interersts
-  How to be appropriately skeptical of clinical evidence used to devise standards when such evidence is now so susceptible to manipulation and/or suppression to further vested interests
-  How to better recognize the various kinds of machinations that the conflicted may endeavor to promote their interests

Again, my question is whether it may just be better to ban individuals with conflicts of interest from roles in which they may influence standards in favor of vested interests, rather than continuing to try to "manage" the complex web of conflicts and the actions they may produce generated by an increasingly commercialized and simultaneously poorly regulated health care system.

By the way, if anyone in other organizations is sitting back thinking this is just an NQF problem, they ought to think again.  As we have discussed, the web of conflicts of interest, both individual and institutional, is vast, and the extent of manipulation and suppression of the clinical research base is equally vast.  Every health care decision maker, health policy decision maker, and health care organization is confronted by similar problems which may differ only in the details.

Again, I applaud the NQF for trying to deal with these issues upfront, and hope that others will learn from the lessons this case provides.

How Manipulated Clinical Evidence Could Distort Guidelines - the Case of Statins for Primary Prevention

The new American College of Cardiology (ACC)/ American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, which we discussed here, continue to generate controversy. 

Articles in the media and online-first in medical journals underscored some of the issues we discussed before.  Jeanne Lenzer, in a news article in the British Medical Journal, found that the chair of the guideline panel had important past conflicts of interest that were not previously disclosed.(1)  The chair denied their significance (look here).   Guideline panel members continued to justify their efforts, but in my humble opinion, raised no new evidence or logic to support it (look here  and here)

Bigger Questions about the Validity of the Clinical Evidence

However, several new articles suggested the need for a deeper look at one particular aspect of this case, the validity of the evidence from clinical research about the benefits and harms of statins for primary prevention.

JAMA published a summary of the Cochrane review that provided a basis for the guideline developers' confidence in the worth of statin therapy in primary prevention.(2)

results suggest that the benefits of statin therapy outweigh serious life-threatening hazards.

However, almost as an aside, it noted,

Some trials included participants with CVD, but rather than exclude these trials, we included trials that contained 10% or fewer participants with documented CVD.

Primary prevention in this case is defined as prevention for patients without existing cardiovascular disease.  There is evidence that statins may well have benefits that outweigh harms when given to patients with known cardiovascular disease, particularly documented coronary artery disease (CAD).  Mixing such patients in any numbers into "primary prevention trials" would likely exaggerate the benefits of statins.  Yet such not quite primary prevention studies were included in a systematic review of primary prevention. 

In addition, a commentary by one of the guideline developers defending the group's work also underscored the fact that many of the supposedly primary prevention trials they used as evidence were not pure primary prevention trials.(3)

Notably, the 2013 cholesterol guideline cut points were derived from the placebo rates for myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular disease death observed in the 3 exclusively primary prevention statin trials, Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS), Management of Elevated Cholesterol in the Primary Prevention Group of Adult Japanese (MEGA) study, and the Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER).[4-6]

The wording again suggests that all the other trials used as evidence about primary prevention were NOT "exclusively primary prevention studies," and hence, as I noted above, may have been biased so that they would likely exaggerate the apparent benefits of statins in primary prevention.

This suggested to me that the systematic review that provided a basis for the guidelines' aggressive recommendations about statins for primary prevention, and the trials on which it was based needed further skeptical, critical reviews.

The Cochrane Review: Was Evidence about Statin Benefits vs Harms Manipulated?

We have frequently discussed the manipulation of clinical research.  By that we have meant design, implementation, analysis or dissemination of research in ways likely to further vested interests.  In particular, when drug, biotechnology and device companies sponsor and control clinical research on their own products, they may set up the research in ways likely to make their products look better than they actually are.  

We looked through the most recent Cochrane review of statins for primary prevention(7) with a skeptical eye out for suggestions that the trials reviewed could have been so manipulated.  We found quite a bit.

First, we found that not all trials reported on the "hard" outcomes that one needs to consider when evaluating benefit vs harm of statins in primary prevention.

Data on all-cause mortality were provided in 11 trials.[of 19, and hence missing in 8].

And,

 Twelve trials provided data on adverse events.[and hence 7 did not.]

 Also, data on specific adverse events was often not reported: myalgia and rhabdomyolysis were reported in only 9/19 trials; new onset diabetes mellitus in only 2/18; hemmorhagic stroke in only 2/19; abnormal liver tests in only 10/19; kidney dysfunction in only 4/19; arthritis in only 2/19, and by implication, cognitive dysfunction in 0/19.  

  Failure to look for all the possible bad outcomes of treatment could obviously bias the study in the direction of minimizing the harms of the treatment.

A substantial number of trials either failed to report on crucial aspects of their methods, or admitted to flaws that could have induced important biases.: 3/19 did not described randomization methods; 4/19 did not use double-blinding; 6/19 did not use intention to treat analysis; 7/19 did not report their drop-out rates.

So it is very surprising to me that the authors concluded,

In general there was low risk of bias ... though all trials were either fully or partially funded by pharmaceutical companies.

In my humble opinion, the Cochrane review showed many trials that had flaws could have biased their outcomes, and hence the outcomes of the overall review.  Some of the flaws clearly could have lead to biases that would have made statins look more efficacious, or less dangerous than they might actually be.  I do not understand the conclusion that the risk of bias was slow, and the lack of discussion about the direction the bias could have taken.

 Review of the "3 Exclusively Primary Prevention Statin Trials"

Given the Cochrane review's apparent lack of skepticism about methodologic problems in the industry funded statin prevention trials, I endeavored to take a closer look at the three trials that Dr Robinson held out as the real primary prevention trials.  Instances of manipulation, as we defined it above, for each trial are described below

AFCAPS/ TexCAPS(4)

Narrow Patient Population - This study excluded many patient for whom the statins were not contraindicated or warned against: uncontrolled hypertension; type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin or with a HgBA1C at least 10%; and body weight more than 50% "desirable limit for height."  (Based on the official contraindications and warnings for commonly used statins, e.g., see contraindications for Lipitor here, active liver disease, pregnancy for likely to become pregnant, nursing mothers, hypersensitivity to the medicine; and warnings: use of cyclosprine or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, uncontrolled hypothyroidism, renal impairment.)  Thus the results may not generalize to many patients who would otherwise be considered statin candidates.  By excluding such patients, the results may bias the study towards minimizing the probabilities of harms that might occur were statins used on a wide population for primary prevention.

Unknown Randomization and Allocation Concealment Procedures - According to the Cochrane Review, the study report did not explain how randomization or allocation concealment were accomplished.  

Early Termination/ Multiple Comparisons - The study was terminated early based on an early look at the number of outcome events.  Two such early or interim analyses were planned.  Taking multiple looks at the data over time raises a multiple comparisons problem, and may lead to exaggerating the benefits of the treatment.(8). Furthermore, stopping early decreases the sample size and hence the power to find adverse effects of treatment.

Implausible Dropout Rate, Missing Data - According to the Cochrane Review, the study reported no dropouts.  This seems somewhat improbable, suggesting skepticism about the accuracy and completeness of the data collection.  On the other hand, a study chronology suggests that of 6605 patients who started the study, 6540 had data on complete endpoint status, suggesting missing data.  Since dropouts and missing data may be due to different reasons in different arms of the study, they threaten the validity of data about benefits and harms.  

Adverse Effects not Reported - The study provided no data about development of diabetes, hemmorhagic stroke, kidney dysfunction, arthritis, or cognitive dysfunction, suggesting incomplete data about harms, and hence bias towards minimizing harms.    

MEGA (5)

Narrow Patient Population -  [The patient population was not described in the main report, but only in an earlier methods article.](9)  The study excluded patients with congenital or rheumatic heart disease; chronic atrial fibrillation, current diagnosis of malignancy; poorly controlled hypertension or diabetes mellitus; current use of oral or parenteral corticosteroids; and other conditions at the discretion of the physician.  These exclusions seem unrelated to the contraindications or warnings on the stain label.  Again, such a narrow patient population reduces the generalizability of the study results, and may bias the study to minimizing the harms of statins.

Only Single Blind - This was an open-label study, so patients and physicians knew who got statins and who got placebo.  Such knowledge could have biased patient management, including how diligently particular diagnoses and outcomes were pursued, and biased data collected from patients or physicians.

Adverse Effects Not Reported - The study provided no data about diabetes, hemmorhagic stroke, kidney dysfunction, arthritis, or cognitive dysfunction, again suggesting bias towards minimizing harms.  

JUPITER(6)

Narrow, Unusual Patient Population - The study was limited to patients without hyperlipidemia but with an increased C-reactive protein.  Thus it is not clear that its results would generalize to a more typically defined primary prevention population.  The study excluded patients receiving post-menopausal hormone-replacement; with diabetes; uncontrolled hyertension; cancer other than non-melanoma skin cancer within 5 years; recent history of drug or alcohol abuse; "another medical condition that might compromise safety or the successful completion of the study;" also patients with "inflammatory conditions such as severe arthritis, lupus, or inflammatory bowel disease...;" and also "patients taking immunosuppressant agents such as cyclosporine, tacrolimus, azathioprine, or long-term oral glucocorticoids."  Again, this narrow patient population would reduce generalizability and bias towards minimizing harms.

Early Termination/ Multiple Comparisons - This study was terminated early after an early look at the data.  Allowing for multiple looks at the data may exaggerate efficacy.  

Implausible Dropout Rate - According to the Cochrane Review, the study had no dropouts.  This value seems implausible, again suggesting data collection problems.  

Adverse Effects Not Reported - The study provided no data about hemmorhagic stroke, arthritis, or cognitive dysfunction, again suggesting bias towards minimizing harms.  [Revised December 9, 2013 - see comment below by Marilyn Mann.]

Summary

Aspects of the continuing controversy over the new ACC/ AHA guidelines for statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease hinted that the clinical trials which provided the evidentiary basis for the guidelines, and for the use of statins in primary prevention in general, was more flawed than is widely appreciated.  The latest Cochrane Collaboration review of this data acknowledged multiple, important flaws affecting most of the studies.  Our more detailed review of the three studies held out as the purest found additional flaws.  Many of these flaws seemed likely to bias the studies towards exaggerating the efficacy and/or minimizing the harms of statins in primary prevention.  Since all these trials were funded, and presumably influenced by pharmaceutical companies that make statins, these flaws seem to be examples of manipulation of the clinical evidence.  Rather than being the result of simple mistakes, or inevitable trade-offs, they seem to be study features intended the support the vested interests of the study sponsors.

It is not clear why the Cochrane review did not temper its conclusions based on the flaws in the studies, and particularly by the possibility that these flaws represented study manipulation.  

The multiple flaws, possibly due to study manipulation, in the clinical evidence about statins in primary prevention suggest that we should be extremely skeptical about whether the benefits of such treatment outweighs its harms, and hence about whether the recommendations in the latest guidelines to give statins to all patients predicted (but perhaps not accurately) to be at even slightly elevated risk are warranted.

The flaws in multiple large studies of a very common clinical problem, and their effects on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines suggest that suppression and manipulation of research are rife in medicine and health care, presumably fueled by the pervasive web of conflicts of interest that spans health care.  We need extreme skepticism about the integrity of clinical research, especially research sponsored by those whose products and services are being studied, and who thus have vested interests in the research turning out to make their products and services look good.  

The good news is that we may not have to look too far to find ways to improve the trustworthiness of guidelines and the soundness of medical decision making.  Implementation of the Institute of Medicine's recommendations on reducing conflicts of interest (look here), and developing trustworthy guidelines (look here) might lead to the development of sound guidelines in the future.  

Furthermore, while endless discoveries of manipulated and suppressed research may have lead some evidence-based medicine advocates to despair, our latest exercise suggests that the principles of evidence-based medicine, unflinchingly applied, could really do good.  Review of the three statin studies above based on standard principles of critical review readily spotted the multiple signs of manipulation.  The problem with the Cochrane review was not that it missed these signs.  Rather, the reviewers for some reason noted most of them, but then did not react.  If systematic reviews were done with sufficient skepticism about the possibility of manipulation of clinical research, and were willing to call out when the emperor seemed short on fabric, then a lot of mischief could be avoided.  


References

1.  Lenzer J. Majority of panelists on controversial new cholesterol guideline have current or recent ties to drug manufacturers.  Brit Med J 2013.  Link here. 

2.  Taylor FC, Huffman M, Shah E. Statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.  JAMA 2013.  Link here.  

3.  Robinson JG.  Accumulating evidence for statins in primary prevention.  JAMA 2013;  Link here.

4.    Downs  JR, Clearfield  M, Weis  S,  et al; for the AFCAPS/TexCAPS Research Group.  Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. JAMA. 1998;279(20):1615-1622. Link here. 
5.  Nakamura  H, Arakawa  K, Itakura  H,  et al; MEGA Study Group.  Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with pravastatin in Japan (MEGA study): a prospective randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006;368(9542):1155-1163. Link here.

6.  Ridker  PM, Danielson  E, Fonseca  FA,  et al; JUPITER Study Group.  Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(21):2195-2207. Link here. 

7.  Taylor F,  Huffman MD, Macedo AF et al.  Statins for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Library 2013.  Link here.

8. Mueller PS, Montori VM, Bassler D et al.  Ethical issues in stopping randomized trials early because of apparent benefit.  Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 878-881.  Link here.  

9.  Management of Elevated Cholesterol in the Primary Prevention Group of the Adult Japanese (MEGA) Study Group.  Design and baseline characteristics of a study of primary prevention of coronary events with pravastatin among Japanese with mildly elevated cholesterol levels.  Circ J  2004; 68: 860-867.  Link here.

Pharmaceutical Industry "'Mobilised' an Army of Patient Groups to Lobby Against" Improving Clinical Research Integrity

I had guessed that this sort of thing was going on all the time, but being kept very well hidden.  Now we have some more evidence.

An article in yesterdays Guardian showed how the pharmaceutical industry is using pet patient advocacy groups in a public relations campaign to defeat calls for for measures against suppression and manipulation of clinical research. In summary,

The pharmaceutical industry has 'mobilised' an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drugs trials.

More specifically,

The strategy was drawn up by two large trade groups, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and outlined in a memo to senior industry figures this month, according to an email seen by the Guardian.  The memo, from Richard Bergström, director general of EFPIA, went to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies. It was leaked by a drugs company employee.

The email describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with 'mobilising patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data'. Translated, that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.

The lobbying is targeted at Europe where the European Medicines Agency (EMA) wants to publish all of the clinical study reports that companies have filed, and where negotiations around the clinical trials directive could force drug companies to publish all clinical trial results in a public database.

The argument for continuing to allow clinical trials to be suppressed was to be,

The patient groups focus on the concern that if companies release all of their clinical trials data, the information might be misconstrued, or intentionally cherry-picked, and spark damaging health scares around certain drugs or vaccines.

The Guardian story did not disclose which patient groups were cooperating with this effort.

By the way, the other parts of this strategy involved using scientific associations and academics to push the pharmaceutical companies' agenda,

 Two other strands of the campaign include discussions with scientific associations about the risks of data sharing, and work with other businesses that are concerned about the release of trade secrets and confidential data. The final strand calls, in the long term, for a network of academics across Europe that can be called on to correct false interpretations of the data. 

Several of the large multinational drug companies contacted by the Guardian issued the usual non-denial denials

In response to queries from the Guardian, GSK said: 'This is not something we are doing. One of the reasons we're involved in this is we want more companies to move towards greater transparency. I don't think it's for us to be mobilising patient groups to campaign on a negative level.'

A Roche spokesperson said the company consulted patient groups to understand their concerns about clinical trials, but 'to our knowledge Roche has not been involved in any EFPIA's potential activity in mobilising patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data'.

A Lilly spokesman said: 'Lilly is committed to working with Europe-based patient advocacy organisations for the benefit of patients in a way that is true to the EFPIA code of practice and Lilly's integrity in business policy.'

Summary

We have long discussed and decried how vested interests, chiefly health care corporations with services and products to sell, have manipulated clinical research to make their wares look better, and suppressed research whose results, even if manipulated, could not be made sufficiently favorable. This has resulted in making drugs and devices look more efficacious and/or less hazardous than they really are.  See this post for our latest discussion, and information on the latest effort to counter suppression and manipulation of clinical research.

It is not surprising that pharmaceutical companies do not want to have to publish every clinical trial they sponsor, or expose their manipulations of these trials.  Instead, the Guardian article suggests that companies and their trade associations, including the US based pharmaceutical trade association, and several large US companies, and well as large companies based elsewhere, are using a third-party public relations strategy.  Wendell Potter's muckraking book on the US commercial health care insurance industry, Deadly Spin, revealed how similar strategies were used by US based health insurance companies to defeat the Clinton administration's attempt at health care reform, and other measures targeted to make the US commercial health care insurance system more equitable and ethical  (see post here).  Third party strategies are fundamentally deceptive.   

The current alleged use of the third party strategies by pharmaceutical companies to support ongoing suppression and manipulation of clinical research is more than just deceptive.  It is corrupt.

Patient advocacy groups are usually believed to represent patients' interests.  For such groups to support a public relations campaign that could allow ongoing harm of patients (by suppressing and manipulating evidence to prevent it from being used to forestall excess use of ineffective, dangerous drugs) is abuse of their entrusted power.  To do it for money, money used to support these groups, or help underwrite generous compensation for their executives, fits the definition of corruption used by Transparency International - abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

Note that the Guardian provided this viewpoint,

Tim Reed, of Health Action International, a group that has previously exposed the pharmaceutical industry's financial links with patient groups, said: 'It's incredibly ironic that this is a transparency initiative and we've now got clear indications that the pharmaceutical industry is ready to use patient organisations to fight their corner.

'It underlines the fact that patient groups who are in the pay of the pharmaceutical industry will go into battle for them. There's a hidden agenda here. The patient groups will say they think it's a great idea to keep clinical trials data secret. Why would they do that? They would do that because they are fronts for the pharmaceutical industry.

'Patient groups get traction because they are assumed to represent the voice of the suffering. But industry uses them to say we're not going to get innovative medicines if the industry is deterred from investing by having to be transparent about their clinical trials,' he added.

We have previously noted isolated examples of evidence that particular US based patient advocacy groups were being supported by commercial firms presumably to aid their marketing.  We have also found examples of conflicts of interest affecting medical societies, and many affecting non-profit hospitals and academic medical institutions, and their staff and faculty.  I begin to wonder if most health care non-profit organizations in the US, and now it appears maybe in UK and in Europe, have been paid off to support marketing and/or public relations interests of health care corporations.

This latest example suggests that health care worldwide has become deeply corrupt, even more corrupt than Transparency International's Global Report on health care corruption in 2006, or the those responding to Transparency International's global corruption survey in 2013, could envision.

I only hope that the pile up of new examples - each seemingly worse than the one before - of health care corruption, will be sufficient to overcome the anechoic effect, and create enough global outrage to give us a chance to clean up our corrupt health care before it destroys our health.

ADDENDUM (25 July, 2013) - See also comments by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog. 

ADDENDUM (29 July, 2013 - See the comment on the 1BoringOldMan blog. 

A Call to Restore the Integrity of Clinical Research - but Will Anyone Heed it?

Concerns about suppression and manipulation of clinical research to serve vested interests have finally gotten a little more mainstream.

Background: Suppression and Manipulation of Clinical Research

For a long time, we have decried and discussed examples of manipulation of clinical research done to increase the likelihood that its results would please vested interests, often drug, device or other corporations that sponsored the research and often exerted considerable control over its design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination.  We have also decried and discussed examples of suppression of research whose results offended such vested interest, sometimes done when manipulation did not succeed in producing such pleasing results.


I wrote about suppression of research in my 2003 paper on health care dysfunction,(1)

The integrity of medical research has been violated by the deliberate suppression of its results.

That assertion was based on several important, although understandably largely anechoic cases.

I first wrote about systematic attempts to manipulate clinical research in 2005, based on Richard Smith's PLoS Medicine commentary which listed specific tactics that vested interests could use to make it more likely that research studies would provide them with favorable results.

Although striking cases of manipulation and suppression appeared more frequently starting in the 1990s, in the last few years it has become more apparent that these are widespread problems.

A Call to Restore Integrity

This week, the British Medical Journal published a special article calling for restoration of suppressed or manipulated clinical trials(2), accompanied by an editorial entitled, "restoring the integrity of the clinical trial evidence base."(3)

The article used slightly different terminology than we do, replacing suppression with invisibility, and manipulation with distortion, thus,

Two basic problems of representation are driving growing concerns about relying on published research to reflect the truth. The first is no representation (invisibility), which occurs when a trial remains unpublished years after completion. The second is distorted representation (distortion), which occurs when publications in medical journals present a biased or misleading description of the design, conduct, or results of a trial.

The article boldly asserted

Both go against the fundamental scientific and ethical responsibility that all research on humans be used to advance knowledge and are symptomatic of a general culture of data secrecy. The end result is that the healthcare, biomedical research, and policy communities may, despite best intentions and best practices, end up drawing scientifically invalid conclusions based on only those parts of the evidence base they can see.

The editorial went further, asserting that

This crisis of hidden or misreported information from clinical trials—and the resulting distortion of the clinical evidence base—is widely recognized and commonly decried. It is one of the leading scientific problems of our time, but few solutions have been put forward.

Furthermore, it concluded with a warning about the immorality of continuing on the current course,

The results of clinical trials are a public, not a private, good. The public interest requires that we have a complete view of previously conducted trials and a mechanism to correct the record for inaccurately or unreported trials. If we do not act on this opportunity to refurbish and restore abandoned trials, the medical research community will be failing its moral pact with research participants, patients, and the public. It is time to move from whether to how, and from words to action.

Thus the notion that suppression and manipulation of clinical research is a systemic, severe problem that confounds health professionals and hurts patients is no longer a concern of only a few fringe dissidents, but a matter for discussion in the foremost mainstream medical journals.

Will Anyone Heed the Call?

Furthermore, this dire problem formulation suggests the need for a strong solution, as proposed by the article, and seconded by the editorial.  Using the term "abandoned trials" for " unpublished trials for which sponsors are no longer actively working to publish or published trials that are documented as misreported but for which authors do not correct the record using established means such as a correction or retraction (which is an abandonment of responsibility)," Doshi and colleagues wrote,

We call on institutions that funded and investigators who conducted abandoned trials to publish (in the case of unpublished trials) or formally correct or republish (in the case of misreported trials) their studies within the next year.

Starting in 2005, we have repeatedly called for protection of " researchers' rights to speak truth to power," but then noted that "right now, it is more often power that speaks to truth."  The question is whether without some bigger allies, individual clinical researchers will stand up on their own to restore the integrity of clinical research.

The big reason to worry is that most of these researchers work within a context which strongly favors vested interests, rather than scientific truth, or the rights of research subjects.  The researchers who would be most likely to be able to heed the call by Doshi et al are those within academic medicine. Yet clinical research in the academic medical world now functions within a strong and deep web of individual and institutional conflicts of interests, subjects that we also have written about incessantly.

There is evidence suggesting that the majority of medical faculty,(4) and the majority of their academic departmental leaders(5) have important financial ties to the health care corporations most likely to have reason to want to suppress or manipulate research.  Furthermore, most academic medical institutions have stated their interest in increasing "collaboration" with industry, usually giving the rationale that this will lead to "innovations" that will bring better tests or treatment to patients. (See posts here,  here and here for some examples.)  Such collaboration also tends to bring a lot of money to institutional budgets.  Further collaboration with industry is likely favored by academic leaders' own financial ties to the same sorts of corporations discussed above.  Thus it should be no surprise that a study by Mello et al in 2005 suggested that most of the managers of academic medical institutions who control research contracts are willing to give significant control of of research design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination to the sponsors, not the researchers.  (See this post.) (6)


Thus, a researcher who volunteers to restore suppressed or manipulated clinical studies might become suddenly very unpopular with his or her colleagues or supervisors, and perhaps with people who are already paying him or her.

So as long as health care professionals, policy makers, and the public at large are willing to go along with the notion that academic medical institutions' "collaboration" with "industry" is absolutely necessary to foster "innovation" and hence medical progress, it is very unlikely that academic medical researchers will be willing to help restore the integrity of clinical research.  In fact, while we continue on our present course, the integrity of clinical research will probably get even worse.
 
Since questioning the integrity of contemporary clinical research might make those with vested interests who have been willing to suppress or manipulate research very uncomfortable, perhaps it should be no surprise that the paired articles in the British Medical Journal have been relatively anechoic.  For example, while one might think the publication of these simultaneous articles might get at least a little coverage in the "main-stream media," I can find not a single mention of them there.  (So far, only the Chronicle of Higher Education, MedScape the Science Insider blog and The Scientist blog have provided news coverage.)


So I hope the brave people who wrote the article and editorial are also willing to join us in decrying the web of individual and institutional conflicts of interest that have entangled health care professionals and academic medicine.  Individuals and institutions who make medical or health care decisions, or who are involved in medical and health care education and research should reveal all their conflicts of interest, at least in the interests of honesty.  Furthermore, in the interest of patients' and the public's health, clinical research meant to assess medical tests, treatments, and programs should be done completely independently from the corporations that sell them.  


References

1.  Poses RM.  A cautionary tale: the dysfunction of American health care.  Eur J Int Med 2003; 14: 123-130.  Link here..
2.  Doshi P, Dickersin K, Healy D et al.  Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings.  Br Med J 2003;  BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2865  Link here.
3.  Loder E, Godlee F, Barbour V et al.  Restoring the integrity of the clinical trial evidence base.  Br Med J 2003;  BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3601  Link here.
4. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al.  A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. Link here.
5. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786.  Link here.
6.  Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM. Academic medical centers' standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:2202-2210. Link here.

Is the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation a Charity or a Venture Capital Firm?

We have often discussed how health care organizations now seem prone to diversion from their stated missions, often when money is the object.  While the organizations in question are frequently academic, teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, or medical schools in particular, in May, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel presented an example of a disease specific charity.  This article deserves considerably more attention than it apparently initially received.

Background

The background was,

What happens when a disease-fighting charity dives into venture capitalism?

In the first case of its kind, the results include one of the planet's most expensive pills, huge sales projections for a drug company and windfalls for executives who sold stock in the glow of enthusiastic news releases about the drug.

Kalydeco is a breakthrough drug designed from knowledge of the genetic roots of cystic fibrosis, a lung disease that kills most victims before they reach middle age. Developed by Vertex Pharmaceuticals with a $75 million investment from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, it is an early example of 'venture philanthropy,' where a nonprofit helps finance development of a treatment in return for a cut of sales.

Remember that while disease specific charities often sponsor basic and clinical research, in this case, the CFF sponsored drug development.  In fact, much of the research on which this development was based was sponsored by charities and the US National Institutes of Health:

In the 1980s, Francis Collins, now director of the National Institutes of Health, was a researcher at the University of Michigan and on his way to becoming a renowned gene hunter.

Collins and a team headed up by Lap-Chee Tsui at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto collaborated to identify the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis. That breakthrough involved funding from the NIH, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, said Collins.

Another decade of intense basic science followed, much of it funded by NIH.

The Price to Patients 

Despite, or perhaps because of the funding provided by CFF, Vertex chose a stratospheric price for its new drug.

 Yet it costs each patient $307,000 a year to take two Kalydeco pills a day - a price borne by taxpayers through Medicaid and other government programs and by the workers and companies who finance employee health insurance plans.

In 2012, with less than a full-year on the market, Vertex sold $172 million worth of Kalydeco....

To put that in perspective, the yearly cost of Kalydeco is approximately six times the median family income in the US.


Minimizing the Harms

To put it further into perspective, keep in mind that for the moment, the data from the single best published clinical trial on Kalydeco suggests that while the drug seems to help the average patient, it is not without risks, and it is certainly not a cure.

The largest published trial that followed patients for a reasonable amount of time appeared in 2011 in the New England Journal of Medicine.  [Ramsey BW, Davies J, McElvaney G et al.  A CFTR potentiator in patients with cystic fibrosis and the G551D mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1663-1672.  Link here.]  The study followed 161 patients for 48 weeks.  The patients treated with Kalydeco on average showed improved lung function (increase of FEV1 [forced expiratory volume in one second] of 10% compared to essentially no change (-0.2 percent) in the placebo group.  Treated patients were less likely to have an exacerbation of their pulmonary disease requiring hospitalization (31% vs 49%).  So the drug certainly seems to have benefits at least in the short term.  The number needed to treat to prevent one exacerbation requiring hospitalization in one year is five, which seems quite respectable.

On the other hand, the drug may have significant harms, even thought the report of the study seems to have attempted to minimize them.  The article stated

there was a lower rate of serious adverse events in the ivacaftor [Kalydeco] group than in the placebo group (24% vs 42%).  

However, this statement depended on a rather peculiar definition of severe adverse events.  In particular, pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis were included among severe adverse events.  Yet these are, as the term suggests, manifestations of the disease that is being treated.  Reduction of pulmonary adverse events should be and was considered a measure of efficacy.  So placing exacerbations within the definition of adverse events essentially double counts these incidents. 

Furthermore, the presence of these within the category of adverse events swamps out other events which may in fact be adverse results of the study drug.  If one subtracts pulmonary exacerbations and hemoptysis from the counts of serious adverse events, what remains is that patients on Kalydeco were more likely to have a serious adverse event (10%) than those on placebo (4%).  Thus the apparent number needed to harm was 17.  Thus, using this peculiar definition of adverse events appears to be a way to manipulate the analysis to minimize the apparent harmfulness of the drug.

While the study did appear to show that more patient received the benefit of avoiding a hospitalization due to a pulmonary exacerbation of cystic fibrosis than had a serious adverse event, the study did not show that the drug had overwhelming efficacy, or tremendous safety.   The study did not last long enough to show long term advantages, or to rule out rare but severe side effects.

This is the only drug available of this type, and it may well provide benefits that outweigh harms, at least over the short-term, but it is not a wonder drug, and the rationale to charge so much money for it, other than that is what the market will bear, is not obvious.  

A Windfall for Corporate Executives, and a Question of Insider Trading

The drug's approval has lead to a lot of financial success for stock holders, particularly Vertex executives:

 Last month, news about success of the drug sent Vertex stock soaring more than $6 billion in a single day. That surge and a similar one last May allowed top executives and directors of the company to sell stock and options worth more than $100 million.

The executives' lavish windfall occurred in somewhat questionable circumstances:

Vertex and its executives have benefited greatly from Kalydeco and foundation funding.

Last May, when Vertex and the foundation reported positive results from a clinical trial involving Kalydeco and whether it could be combined with another drug to treat more patients, the company's stock jumped more than 70%, from $37.41 to $64.85 a share.

Five executives and two directors sold off more than $35 million in shares, mainly at prices from about $55 to $64 a share. Many of the options were priced between $16 and $40 a share.

Three weeks later, the company said it overstated the effectiveness of the drug in that trial and the stock dropped about $7 a share, ultimately falling back under $40 by December.

Vertex spokeswoman Nikki Levy said in an email the company does not comment on individual stock sales.  She said the executive stock sales either were part of pre-existing 10b5-1 plans or followed the company's internal stock trading policy. A 10b5-1 plan is an automatic trading tool in which executives specify timing or pricing of sales to avoid questions about inside information the seller had at the time.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, saying it could appear that Vertex executives took advantage of the situation, knowing the overstated clinical trial results would eventually be made public and cause the stock price to drop.

The letter said the stock sales were troubling for industry investors and the federal government, which pays billions of dollars a year for drugs through Medicaid and Medicare.

Judith Burns, a spokeswoman for the SEC, declined to comment on the Grassley letter.

Last month, the company's stock shot up more than 60% again, from $52.87 to $85.60, after positive early data from a clinical trial of Kalydeco and another drug it is developing with funding from the foundation. On April 19, the day after the news was released, the company's market value jumped by more than $6 billion.

That same day, two company executives sold huge chunks of stock options. Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Ian Smith alone sold 745,685 shares worth more than $60 million. Most shares were sold at $81.50, with options purchased from $29 to $39.

So at least Senator Grassley raised the question of whether Vertex executives may have taken advantage of their insider knowledge to personally profit even more from this useful but not miraculous drug meant to be used on vulnerable patients.

Keep in mind that those huge trading gains were layered on top of already lavish compensation.  The 2013 Vertex proxy statement, the total compensation and stock holdings of its top executives in 2012 was:

Jeffrey M Leiden, CEO                                $5,656,684      441,160 shares
Ian F Smith, CFO                                           $3,109,193      795,434
Stuart A Arbuckle, Chief Commercial Officer   $4,808,697         66,477
Kenneth L Horton, Chief Legal Officer             $2,802,735         41,161
Peter Mueller, Chief Scientific Officer              $3,614,890        997,651
Matthew W Emmens, Former CEO                  $6,896,029    1,486,748
David T Howton Jr, Fomer Chief Legal Officer $3,447,898           3,105



So the top executives of Vertex, while their company got $75 million from an ostensible charity to develop what became an extremely expensive drug, got very rich in the process, although how they got rich may yet attract attention from the SEC.

A Windfall for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and its Executives

Furthermore, it appears that the supposedly charitable Cystic Fibrosis Foundation also made quite a bit of money, and its executives, while not getting quite as rich as their associates in Vertex, did not do at all badly.

As the Journal Sentinel noted,

the foundation cashed in by selling future royalties from the drug to an undisclosed firm for $150 million.

Keep in mind that since the CFF was to receive royalties, the money it gave for drug development was not a grant, but an investment.

Furthermore, according to the Foundation's 2011 form 990 (the latest available), its executives received the following total compensation from the foundation and its affiliated organizations:

Robert J Beall, CEO                                                      $1,073,725
C Richard Mattingly, COO                                              $759,799
Preston W Campbell MD, Exec VP of Medical Affairs     $736,031
Vera H Twigg, CFO                                                         $445,183
Ann Palmer, Senior VP                                                     $276,029 
Daniel Klein, Senior VP                                                    $277,300
Gregory August, CIO                                                       $262,698
David McLoughlin, Senior VP                                          $316,122
Glen Goldmark, VP                                                          $253,215
Amy DeMaria, Senior VP                                                 $241,672
Mary Dwight, Senior VP                                                   $246,232

These compensation amounts may be much lower than the gargantuan pay dealt out to for-profit health care corporate executives, but they are very high for those who are managing a supposed charity meant to help vulnerable patients.

A More Complex Web

While profiting from its underwriting of the development of Kalydeco, the CFF also sponsored guidelines about the treatment of cystic fibrosis, with not unexpected results.

Last month, new treatment guidelines for doctors who handle cystic fibrosis patients strongly recommended use of Kalydeco. The guidelines were funded by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

Three of the 10 authors of the guidelines were employees of the foundation and four others worked for institutions that received grants from the foundation. The chairman, Peter Mogayzel, is a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, which foundation tax records show received more than $2 million in grants from 2009 through 2011.

These guidelines hardly look like they would be deemed trustworthy according to the Institute of Medicine's standards (look here).  However, they certainly look like they might help sell ivacaftor, and hence help justify higher pay for the executives listed above.

Criticism of Venture Philanthropy

Merriam-Webster online suggests one definition of a charity is an institution funded by a gift for public benevolent purposes.

The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation appears to be such a charity, but now one that functions more as a venture capitalist.  In this case, it did provide venture capital to develop a new drug for its disease of interest.  However, the foundation appeared to have done so not to provide public benevolence, but to generate a  return on its investment.  It is using that return not for public benevolence, but to provide more venture capital to other drug companies, presumably with the goal of getting further returns.  Meanwhile, its executives make generous compensation for people who are supposed to be running a charity.  Finally, the drug has an astronomical price, and its pricing has helped make investors in and executives of the company supported by the CFF very rich.

This has not been lost on some dissidents, per the Journal Sentinel,

'The concept of a charitable, not-for-profit taking on the role of a venture capitalist is new and difficult to digest at the moment,' said Paul Quinton, a cystic fibrosis researcher at the University of California, Riverside and the University California, San Diego.

Quinton, who has cystic fibrosis, is one of 28 doctors and scientists who sent a letter to Vertex calling the price of Kalydeco 'unconscionable.' A copy of the letter was provided to the Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today. Kalydeco, the doctors wrote, costs 10 times more than what a typical cystic fibrosis patient pays in total drug costs.

'This action could appear to be leveraging pain and suffering into huge financial gain for speculators, some of whom were your top executives who reportedly made millions of dollars in a single day,' the doctors wrote.

Vertex responded with seeming contempt,

 Since receiving the letter last July, Vertex has raised the annual price of Kalydeco another $13,000.

The funding by the supposedly charitable CFF of guidelines that promote the drug it financed has also drawn criticism,

 'It is definitely a conflict of interest,' said Eric Campbell, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who has researched conflicts of interest in patient treatment guidelines.

In the past, drug companies have been criticized for funding treatment guidelines that recommend their drugs. It is no different if the guidelines are funded by a foundation that gets royalties from drug sales, Campbell said.

Also,

'It is concerning that the organization now stands to profit when patients choose to use the drug,' ... [Prof Lisa Schwartz of Dartmouth Medical School] said. 'Financial entanglement with industry, even with the best of intentions, creates a conflict of interest.'

However, the very well paid CEO of the CFF pooh poohed concerns about conflicts of interest,

Robert Beall, president of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, said that without its financial support, drugs such as Kalydeco would never get to patients. Neither insurance companies nor patients have voiced any concern to him about conflicts of interest, he said.

'They applaud the decision and our business model to the utmost,' Beall said. 'The patients are excited.'

He rejected the idea of using the royalty money to help patients pay for the medical care, noting that the foundation needed the money to entice drug companies to get involved in risky cystic fibrosis drug research.

One wonders when patients would ever have the opportunity to voice any "concerns" to Mr Beall, who also disdained any restraints on the price of the drug,

.Beall said the foundation did not ask Vertex to price the drug more affordably.

'That would have been a deal-breaker,' he said.

That seems to put making money ahead of patients' needs.  Was this venture philanthropy, or vulture philanthropy? 

 Summary

We have discussed numerous cases in which non-profit health care organizations seem to put short term revenue ahead of their missions to further patients' and the public's health.  In this case, a disease specific charity seems to have foregone its mission to directly support patient care, teaching, or research to provide venture capital, an action which lead to a profit for the organization, huge profits for a drug company, large rewards for the charity's executives, and even greater wealth for the drug company's executives.  It did also lead to the marketing of a beneficial drug, but at a breathtaking price that no middle-class patient without exceedingly good insurance could afford.  

Where is the public benevolence here?  Where is the charity?  How much is about patients and how much is about  making insider executives wealthy? 

As we have said until blue in the face, true health care reform would ensure health care organizational leadership that upholds the health care mission, not their personal finances.  

Minimizing Legal Liability or Upholding the Mission? - the Markingson Case Redux

There are new, and troubling developments in the long running case of Dan Markingson, the psychiatric patient and research subject who committed suicide while enrolled in a trial of anti-psychotic drugs at the University of Minnesota nearly 10 years ago.

Summary of the Case

A good quick summary of this case just appeared in the Center for Law and Bioscience blob out of the Stanford Law School. 

Dan Markingson – a vulnerable, psychotic young man – was forced to choose between enrolling in a Pharma-funded drug study or being involuntarily committed (in other words, locked up).  A UMN [University of Minnesota]  doctor enrolled him in the study despite having just determined that Dan 'lack[ed] the capacity to make decisions regarding [his] treatment,' rendering it highly unlikely that Dan could have given valid informed consent to participate.  As Dan's mother, Mary Weiss, observed his mental condition deteriorating, she repeatedly tried to have Dan removed from the trial – at one point asking  'Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else before anyone does anything?'  But the UMN co-investigators in the drug study refused to terminate his participation.  Shortly after Ms. Weiss made her desperate plea, Dan Markingson killed himself by cutting his own throat.

Our most recent (2011) post on the case was here.  In it we also noted that there was reason to think:
-  The design of the controlled trial was flawed.
-  Financial conflicts of interests may have influenced the trial investigators' actions, particularly their questionable enrollment of Mr Markingson in the trial and their retention of him in it despite his apparent clinical deterioration.
Despite that, when bioethicists and the University of Minnesota called for a new investigation of the trial and what happened to Mr Markingson, the university rebuffed them.

Worse, as detailed in a 2012 post in the Center for Law and Bioscience blog, not only did university officials rebuff this call, but the university general counsel, who had been operating at the heart of this case, appeared to threaten the leading bioethicist dissident, Dr Carl Elliott:

 After Carl Elliott, the University of Minnesota bioethicist, refused to drop the matter, Rotenberg asked the university’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee to take up the question of '[w]hat is the faculty[’s] collective role in addressing factually incorrect attacks on particular university faculty research activities?' – a question that appeared both to accuse Elliott of 'factually incorrect attacks' and to call for some unspecified action to 'address' them.  Other faculty, including the president of the Minnesota chapter of the American Association of University Professors, viewed this as an attempt to intimidate Elliott into silence.  If so, it backfired.  The story ended up in the press, putting the Markingson case back in the public eye and once again making the University of Minnesota look really bad.

New Evidence Unearthed

In 2013, Dr Elliott made public what may be important new evidence in the case.  As summarized by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune,

The professor, Carl Elliott, says he has obtained consent documents for two separate schizophrenic patients that appear to be exact copies — not just in the subjects’ apparent replies, but in the positions of the lettering on the pages.

Elliott said it is improbable that separate patients would provide identical responses to the questionnaire, which includes open-ended questions about the risks and requirements of clinical research. And that, he said, raises questions about whether the university was really examining patients to determine their ability to consent to research.

 One crucial question about the case is how a patient who was actively psychotic - out of touch with reality - could give true informed consent to participation in a drug trial.  These new documents suggest major irregularities in the process used in the trial to assure that patients did give informed consent. 

Furthermore, as reported by the Minnesota Daily, other documents that Dr Elliott found suggested problems with records that related to whether study investigators would have had legal authority to access Mr Markingson's medical records, also suggesting major problems with trial administration. 

These documents, unknown until recently, suggest new concerns with how the study in which Mr Markingson was enrolled, and during which he died, was run.  Yet, the University of Minnesota's official response to them, once again orchestrated by university counsel Mark Rotenberg, attacked the legitimacy of the documents (and indirectly, attacked Prof Elliott again), as reported by the Star-Tribune,

the university’s general counsel, Mark Rotenberg, challenged the authenticity of the documents and disagreed that study recruiters failed to obtain proper and independent consent from mentally ill patients.

'I am challenging these allegations directly,' he said. 'We have no reason to believe the consent forms were prepared inappropriately.'

As Matt Lamkin wrote in the Stanford Law and Bioscience blog,  the University's responses all through this case have been focused  not on the welfare of patients, maintaining the trust of research participants, or the integrity of clinical trials, but on the legal defense of  the University and its leaders

Despite all this (and much more), the University has never acknowledged any errors or taken any disciplinary action related to the Markingson case and has repeatedly rejected calls for an independent investigation.  That’s probably because from the start the University has handled this case as a litigation matter.  Rather than trying to determine whether there were problems with the way its personnel treated Markingson, the University has focused on minimizing its potential liability.  Accordingly, the University appears to run every inquiry related to the case through the office of its General Counsel, Mr. Rotenberg.  When Carl Elliott (my mentor as a grad student at UMN) wrote a damning article about the case in Mother Jones, the University’s response came from Rotenberg.  When UMN bioethicists called on the University’s Board of Regents to launch an independent investigation, the Regents deferred to Rotenberg.  Not surprisingly, he declined.

When you turn to your lawyer, you’re going to get a particular kind of response.  The GC isn’t in a position to take an objective look at the circumstances.  He’s an advocate.  His role is not to make sure the client has conducted itself ethically, but to minimize the client’s risk.  Asking your lawyer to respond to allegations of wrongdoing is like asking your PR flacks to do so.  Their job is to make their clients look good, not to make sure they’ve acted properly.

Note that this still begs the question of who the client is.  Is it the university, or the university's leaders?

Furthermore, as Mr Lamkin pointed out, the general counsel would appear to have a conflict of interest.  It may be he has an interest in defending his own actions, as well as those of his client(s), whether they are the university, its leaders, or both. 

In addition to Mr. Rotenberg’s role as the University’s top defender and advocate, there is another reason he cannot impartially consider requests for an investigation: the General Counsel’s Office is an important player in some of the disturbing events at issue.  As noted above, Rotenberg himself has been accused of attempting to intimidate and silence the bioethicist who has most doggedly sought an investigation.  The University’s lawyers are also responsible for the disgraceful silencing of Markingson’s mother, Mary Weiss.  After avoiding liability by arguing the University was immune from suit, these lawyers then threatened to force Weiss – whose son had died in a University doctor’s 'care – to pay the University’s legal costs of some $57,000.  The University used that threat as leverage to get Weiss to forgo an appeal of the trial court’s decision.

So as the University continues to refuse any new consideration of this this seemingly never-ending case, Dr Elliott has posted an online petition calling for an outside investigation.   We will see how Mr Rotenberg reacts to this.

Summary


A very troubling aspect of this case is that it has shown that the university leadership has seemed to care, at best, more about fending off litigation than upholding the university's mission.  The mission of the university is supposed to be discovering and disseminating the truth in a spirit of free inquiry.  Added to the mission of medical schools and university teaching hospitals is taking good care of patients, and putting the patients' interests ahead of all other concerns.  Yet, in this case, university leaders have not seemed to care whether in their haste to push back legal liability they were stepping on their faculty's academic freedom and free speech, the integrity of the medical research done at the university, and most importantly the rights of their patients and research subjects.  Furthermore, it is not clear whether they mainly feared the impact of litigation on the university, or how litigation might actually end up holding them accountable.

As Dr Judy Stone wrote in her Scientific American blog,

  it appears that UMN believes, as do many other institutions, that protecting itself from scandal and its consequences comes first and foremost and that, like the big banks, that it is too big to be punished.

Again, note that UMN cannot itself believe or protect.  People acting ostensibly on its behalf may have been protecting themselves from scandal, and believing that the size and status of their institution gave them, the leaders, impunity.

The case of Mr Dan Markingson is a continuing reminder that to reform health care, health care organizations need to be lead by people who put the health care mission first and are willing to be accountable for that mission.   I hope that eventually there is an honest investigation of this case, and a commitment to reform based on its conclusions.

See additional thoughts from Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, on the 1BoringOldMan blog, on the Periodic Table blog, and last but certainly not least, many comments by Dr Carl Elliott on the Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog.