WebMD Medical News
Louise Chang, MD
April 15, 2008 -- Two studies appearing in Tuesday's Journal of the
American Medical Association have prompted the journal's editors to call
for "drastic action" to prevent drug companies from misrepresenting
data from clinical trials.
The two investigations involve the painmedication Vioxx, which was taken off the market in
2004 after being linked to an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes among
long-term users. The revelations are the latest to come to light from lawsuits
brought by people who claimed they'd been harmed by Vioxx.
Researchers charged that the drug's manufacturer, Merck, withheld key data
from Vioxx trials from federal regulators and misrepresented the Vioxx
research. The JAMA editors agreed, but they added that the problems are
pervasive within the industry and not confined to Merck.
"The (two studies) document how one company, Merck & Co. Inc.,
apparently manipulated dozens of publications to promote one of its
products," the journal's editor in chief and executive deputy editor write.
"But make no mistake -- the manipulation of study results, authors,
editors, and reviews is not the sole purview of one company."
In one of the JAMA articles, researchers charge that data from
clinical trials showing a threefold increase in deaths among Vioxx users were
withheld from the FDA for more than two years.
In their review of the data and internal company documents made public
during civil litigation against Vioxx, the two researchers from the University
of Washington, Seattle say the company appears to have misrepresented Vioxx's
safety profile in studies involving Alzheimer's patients. One of those researchers, Richard
A. Kronmal, PhD, was retained as an expert witness by plaintiffs' attorneys in
In a separate analysis of the court documents, another group of researchers
concluded that Merck misled federal regulators and the public about its role in
the Vioxx studies by naming outside investigators who had little to do with
those studies as principal investigators. All of these researchers served as
paid consultants to plantiffs in Vioxx litigation.
A spokesman for the company tells WebMD that both charges are unfounded
and that the company plans to formally respond to the JAMA
"All of Merck's disclosures to the FDA and the medical community were
proper and appropriate," Merck legal spokesman Kent Jarrell says.
"We heard the points presented in these articles during the litigation
and we rebutted them with evidence," Jarrell says. "It was a case of
trial lawyer's antic masquerading as scientific substance."
The JAMA editorial notes that the "manipulation of studies and
misrepresentation of study results could not have occurred without the
cooperation (active and tacit) of clinical researchers, other authors, journal
editors, peer reviewer, and the FDA."
It further noted that the public's trust in clinical research is in great
jeopardy because the extent of the problem is not known.
"Although we truly believe that the vast majority of researchers and
other authors are honest and have the highest scientific integrity,
manipulation of studies and publications by the pharmaceutical and medical
device industries is either increasing or there has been more exposure of these
practices," JAMA editors Catherine D DeAngelis, MD, and Phil B.
Fontanarosa, MD, write.
They go on to propose reforms aimed at minimizing the influence of the
pharmaceutical industry on the clinical trials process, including registering
all clinical trials prior to patient enrollment and full disclosure of the relationships of study authors with the companies paying
for the research.
The University of Washington review included data from two studies designed
to determine if Vioxx had a role in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
Researchers Bruce M. Psaty, MD, PhD, and Richard A. Kronmal, PhD, compared
the two published trials to internal Merck documents about the studies made
public during the court trials.
Psaty tells WebMD that internal documents show that as early as spring 2001
Merck identified a threefold increase in the risk of death among Vioxx users
vs. patients taking placebo, but the information was not given to federal
"These analyses were not submitted to the FDA or the public in a timely
fashion, and when Merck did submit the data to the FDA, they used accounting
methods that minimized the appearance of risk," he says.
Specifically, Psaty says the company's April 2001 analysis of pooled data
from two trials identified 34 deaths among 1,069 Vioxx patients and 12 deaths
among 1,078 patients in the placebo arms of the studies.
"If you were to ask independent scientists whether a threefold increase
in mortality represented a safety problem, I think you would be hard pressed to
find many, if any, who would say no," Psaty says.
But Psaty says safety data submitted by Merck to the FDA a few months later
showed a smaller difference in deaths between the Vioxx and placebo-treated
patients because the company included only the patients who were actually
taking the treatment they were assigned to take.
"This on-treatment approach to reporting minimized the appearance of any
mortality risk," Psaty and Kronmal write.
In the other review of the court documents, Joseph Ross, MD, of New York's
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and colleagues conclude that Merck
misrepresented the authorship of many Vioxx studies by recruiting outside
investigators with impressive academic affiliations.
These investigators were often listed in the published studies as first,
second, and third authors, even though they had little active role in the
research, which was done internally by Merck, Ross tells WebMD.
"This gave the appearance of more academic rigor and more objectivity
than there actually was in these studies," Ross says.
In a written statement, the company says it is the authors of the two
JAMA studies who misrepresented the facts by failing to provide
appropriate context for their claims.
"Merck is disappointed that we did not have an opportunity to respond to
the misleading claims made in these articles prior to their publication,"
the statement reads. "We believe that a full, unbiased evaluation of the
Merck papers shows that many of the conclusions put forward by the authors of
the JAMA papers are incorrect."
In the statement, Merck officials say the review of deaths in the
Alzheimer's trials was misleading because it failed to include information
about the causes of death among the patients in the Alzheimer's studies.
"Merck carefully analyzed the data and found that there was no pattern
suggesting the deaths had any connection to Vioxx; some of the deaths were
caused by car accidents, poisonings, infections, and other causes that are not
related to Vioxx," the statement reads.
Jarrell says the authorship review misrepresented the role of the academic
authors involved with the studies.
"We certainly feel that our actions on disclosure were appropriate and
in line with industry practice," Jarrell tells WebMD. "And, most
importantly, the data in the articles were completely accurate."
Merck agreed to pay $4.85 billion last November to settle lawsuits brought
by people who claimed to have been harmed by Vioxx.
SOURCES:Psaty, B.M. and Ross, J.S., The Journal of the American Medical
Association, April 16, 2008; vol 299: pp 1800-1817.Bruce M. Psaty, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Health Research Unit, University of
Washington, Seattle, Wash.Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York."Merck Responds to JAMA Articles," April 15, 2008.Kent Jarrell, legal spokesman, Merck & Company.
The Health News section does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information.