Experts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies:

New York Times - 8-Oct-2008

The drug maker Pfizer earlier this decade manipulated the publication of scientific studies to bolster the use of its epilepsy drug Neurontin for other disorders, while suppressing research that did not support those uses, according to experts who reviewed thousands of company documents for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the company.

Summary:

• The drug maker Pfizer earlier this decade manipulated the publication of scientific studies to bolster the use of its epilepsy drug Neurontin for other disorders, while suppressing research that did not support those uses, according to experts who reviewed thousands of company documents for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the company.
  
• Pfizer's tactics included delaying the publication of studies that had found no evidence the drug worked for some other disorders, ''spinning'' negative data to place it in a more positive light, and bundling negative findings with positive studies to neutralize the results, according to written reports by the experts, who analyzed the documents at the request of the plaintiffs' lawyers.
• One of the experts who reviewed the documents, Dr. Kay Dickersin of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, concluded that the Pfizer documents spell out ''a publication strategy meant to convince physicians of Neurontin's effectiveness and misrepresent or suppress negative findings.''
• Pfizer issued a statement Tuesday denying that it had manipulated Neurontin data, saying ''study results are reported by Pfizer in an objective, accurate, balanced and complete manner, with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study, and are reported regardless of the outcome of the study or the country in which the study was conducted.''
• The expert reports, unsealed Monday in a federal court in Boston, add to accusations that the pharmaceutical industry has controlled the flow of clinical research data, blurring the lines between science and marketing.
• In April, for example, a group of academic doctors questioned the validity of drug industry research after finding that Merck had hired ghostwriters to produce scientific articles about Vioxx, then recruited prestigious doctors to serve as their official authors.
• Vioxx, a painkiller, was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after research indicated it could cause strokes and heart attacks.
• Last winter, Merck and Schering-Plough were criticized for delaying the release of a study on their best-selling cholesterol medication Vytorin that showed the drug did not slow the growth of plaque in arteries.

---

Here we go yet again.

The story above concerns Pfizer, but they are not alone. Many pharmaceutical companies employ the same strategies, and you need to be aware, especially when watching their well produced television commercials.

For physicians to utilize medications properly, we need to have access to good information. This should include not only positive results, but also the negative results of testing and trials. Physicians need to use their own brains to pore through all the information, and use their instincts to distinguish truthful information from what I will now dub, pharminformation.

In today's health insurance dominated system, patient's are often rushed through their doctor's evaluation quickly. It is easier for a doctor to hand you a prescription and move on to their next patient. It would only take a few more minutes to get to the root cause of your illness, and to formulate other options or treatments, instead of relying on just a prescription. And the more rushed doctor's are, the less time they have to think through the pharminformation. The healthcare system has changed the way doctor's practice, and it has changed the trusting relationship the pharmaceutical industry once had with the public.

Treating the individual and their illness, instead of only their symptom has been my focus since I started my practice. I do not rush through patient visits. You are given the time needed to discuss your issues and to answer follow up questions appropriately. Sometimes that puts me a few minutes behind schedule, and I apologize. But be certain that I will always give you the time you need. A few extra minutes of conversation goes a long way in preventing pharminformation from affecting your health.

Steven Horvitz, D.O.

Board Certified Family Medicine

Founder of The Institute for Medical Wellness

Pharmaceutical Advertising- Good or Bad?

Pfizer Resuming Ads for Lipitor After Controversy

From The Associated Press WorldStream - Sep. 02, 2008

TRENTON, N.J._Television ads for the world's top-selling drug, cholesterol fighter Lipitor, are back, six months after Pfizer Inc. pulled them amid charges its use of a celebrity doctor endorser who's never practiced medicine misled the public.

This time, Pfizer is leaving out the celebrity.

In the new ads, the endorser is a talent agent from the San Francisco Bay area who tells viewers he started taking Pfizer's Lipitor after surviving a heart attack last year.

The ads began running Tuesday and will be part of an open-ended national campaign that also includes print ads in newspapers and magazines, said John Sage, head of Pfizer's marketing team for Lipitor.

Lipitor generates more than $12 billion a year in revenue for New York-based Pfizer.

Pfizer had run frequent TV ads from late 2006 until then in which artificial heart inventor Dr. Robert Jarvik endorsed Lipitor, appearing to be giving medical advice. While he holds a medical degree, Jarvik never completed licensing requirements to practice medicine.

Pfizer, the world's biggest drugmaker, pulled the ads in February as members of Congress were investigating and media outlets were reporting on that conflict and Pfizer's use of a stunt double in an ad that showed Jarvik rowing.

"Although it wasn't clearly our intent, the ads created misimpressions and distractions around what we were trying to do," Sage said late last week.

He said the man in the new ad, John Erlendson, is "a real Lipitor patient, who is very representative of people with" cholesterol problems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Growing up in my father's family practice office, I saw the interaction between doctors and pharmaceutical sales reps. I have seen the interaction change very little over the past 20 years, but what has changed is the public perception of Big Pharma.

Big Pharma used to be adored by patients and by Wall Street.

But No Longer!

Why???

Just look at the a few items.

1) Direct to Consumer Advertising for medications that may cost the same as a car payment with very little if any benefit over much more affordable generic medications.

2) Putting profits ahead of patient care. I have analyzed many of the big medical studies that are marketed to doctors, and much of the statistics are achieved with smoke and mirrors. Profits to improve their stock prices has more influence than patient health and safety.

3) The most telling point comes from my discussions with many of the pharma reps. Ten years ago, the reps were usually 10-20 year veterans in their fields and hoped to remain until retirement. Today , many of the reps are much younger, and are keeping their eyes and ears open for other employment. They see the future of their industry and at present it does not look so good.

Pearl of the day.

Never believe the pharmaceutical marketing and propaganda on television or print advertisements. Their goal is to sell you something that most likely you do not need.

If you have any questions on your medical care and the medications you take, call the office, make an appointment and discuss your options. My motto has always been to use the least amount of medication possible and only when necessary.

Steven Horvitz, D.O.

Board Certified Family Medicine

Founder of The Institute for Medical Wellness

For past issues of the newsletter please click here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum: 9-9-2008 taken from a pharmaceutical website:

Published on FiercePharma (http://www.fiercepharma.com)

Pharma drops again in public opinion

By tracy

Created Jun 30 2008 - 10:01am

It's not pleasant company at the bottom of this list. According to a new Harris Interactive poll, only 26 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the drug industry--a record that's even worse than Big Oil, and better only than tobacco companies. It's a low point, following a slow-but-steady decline in consumer opinion.

Fair? That's not the point. The question is, do drugmakers intend to do whatever it takes to reverse the trend? Or should they just accept the dubious honor? Given the challenges pharma faces these days, improving public opinion may not be number one on the priority list.
------------------------

Published on FiercePharma (http://www.fiercepharma.com)

Survey: Pharma not a good info source

By tracy

Created May 29 2008 - 10:35am

Remember last month when Merck CEO Dick Clark remarked on Big Pharma's "trust deficit [0]?" Well, here's quantitative evidence of it. A European Commission study found that healthcare professionals and payers are "mostly suspicious" of drugmakers as sources of information about drugs. Nearly half of the responders said pharma has too many conflicts of interest to be appropriate sources of general information on medications.

Some of the responses, however, indicated that if drug companies provided a clear distinction between ads and information, they could be valuable repositories because of their intimate knowledge of their products.

The opinions will be factored into decisions about a proposed code of conduct governing the release of info about pharmaceuticals in the E.U.
------------------------------------------

Pharma CEOs mull industry "trust deficit'

By admin

Created Apr 24 2008 - 6:59am

We love it when pharma CEOs depart from their usual talking points about financial results and restructurings and pipelines, to wax philosophical on their place in the word. This week, we heard an entire trio musing on the state of the industry: Merck chief Richard Clark, GlaxoSmithKline's putative chief Andrew Witty (photo [1]), and Pfizer's Jeff Kindler (photo [2]). Some choice bits:

• Pharma's equilibrium is "shattered," Witty told the Academy of Medical Sciences this week. To fix it, drug makers need to listen more--and talk more--particularly with drug buyers (about the true value of new meds) and with government. Pharma and regulators are "like two ships missing in the night," he said.
  
• "There is a trust deficit we have to fix," Merck's Clark told The Star Ledger, when asked about lessons learned from the Vytorin controversy. "I think everyone has a lesson to be learned from this. Drug makers "may have to become more transparent" about their spending and their relationships with docs, he said.
  
• "There's a lot of public concern about the pharmaceutical industry," Kindler told the Wall Street Journal. "But...everybody recognizes that you can't solve the healthcare reform problem without an innovative, healthy pharmaceutical industry. We have to be a part of the solution." He went on to talk about truth-telling: "It's important for the industry to communicate with integrity and to do everything it can do to insure the integrity of the data and the science."

Sounds like these guys are all picking up on the same vibe: communication, transparency, telling the truth. And that they recognize that the "shattered equilibrium" and "truth deficit" need to be fixed. What will they do to make that happen, that's the question.
-------------------------------------------------

Published on FierceBiotech (http://www.fiercebiotech.com)

10 reforms for drug advertising

By maureen

Created Aug 2 2007 - 2:06pm

At BrandweekRx, Jim Edwards outlines 10 direct-to-consumer advertising reforms he says are urgently needed to protect consumers from unscrupulous drug advertising. Edwards' recommendations include banning product-placement ads and forcing drug companies to disclose to the SEC how much money they're spending on advertising (companies don't have to say how much is spent promoting a drug, but it's about double the cost of R&D). He also recommends an FDA requirement for head-to-head studies between competing drugs so that doctors can make educated decisions when prescribing medications. Finally, Edwards argues in favor of total transparency of the amount and usage of drug company dollars spent on Continuing Medical Education, along with full disclosure of payments and gifts to doctors.