Study of neurontin: titrate to effect, profile of safety (STEPS) trial: a narrative account of a gabapentin seeding trial

Research encouraging off-label use of quetiapine: A systematic meta-epidemiological analysis

BACKGROUND

Researchers often conduct small studies on testing a drug's efficacy in off-label indications. If positive results from these exploratory studies are not followed up by larger, randomized, double-blinded trials, physicians cannot be sure of a drug's clinical value. This may lead to off-label prescriptions of ineffective treatments. We aim to describe the way clinical studies fostered off-label prescription of the antipsychotic drug quetiapine (Seroquel).

METHODS

In this systematic meta-epidemiological analysis, we searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO databases and included clinical studies testing quetiapine for unapproved indications between May 1995 and May 2022. We then assessed the frequency with which publications providing low-level evidence suggesting efficacy of quetiapine for off-label indications was not followed up by large, randomized and double-blinded trials within 5 years.

RESULTS

In total, 176 published studies were identified that reported potential efficacy of quetiapine in at least 26 indications. Between 2000 and 2007, publication of exploratory studies suggesting promise for off-label indications rapidly outpaced publication of confirmatory trials. In the 24 indications with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up from the first positive exploratory study, 19 (79%) were not followed up with large confirmatory trials within 5 years. At least nine clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of quetiapine for seven off-label indications in which published confirmatory evidence is lacking.

CONCLUSION

Many small, post-approval studies suggested the promise of quetiapine for numerous off-label indications. These findings generally went unconfirmed in large, blinded, randomized trials years after first being published. The imbalance of exploratory and confirmatory studies likely encourages ineffective off-label treatment.

The Social Value Misconception in Clinical Research

Clinical researchers should help respect the autonomy and promote the well-being of prospective study participants by helping them make voluntary, informed decisions about enrollment. However, participants often exhibit poor understanding of important information about clinical research. Bioethicists have given special attention to "misconceptions" about clinical research that can compromise participants' decision-making, most notably the "therapeutic misconception." These misconceptions typically involve false beliefs about a study's purpose, or risks or potential benefits for participants. In this article, we describe a misconception involving false beliefs about a study's potential benefits for non-participants, or its expected social value. This social value misconception can compromise altruistically motivated participants' decision-making, potentially threatening their autonomy and well-being. We show how the social value misconception raises ethical concerns for inherently low-value research, hyped research, and even ordinary research, and advocate for empirical and normative work to help understand and counteract this misconception's potential negative impacts on participants.

Are large prospective trials on antidepressants in mental disorders seeding trials? A descriptive study of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVES

This descriptive study of registered trials aimed to identify large clinical trials on antidepressants for mental disorders: (1) to assess what proportion could be labelled as 'seeding trials' (trials for marketing purposes) and (2) to describe their methodological characteristics and outcomes.

DESIGN

A search was conducted across all trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov by drug name in March 2017.

SETTING

All trials registered in the database of ClinicalTrials.gov were screened. Large registered studies were received and studies focusing prospectively on the effects of antidepressants in mental health disorders. Specific data items were extracted automatically, and subsequently inspected, corrected and completed by hand.

PARTICIPANTS

Prospective studies were selected focusing on the effects of antidepressants in any mental health disorder with 800 participants or more planned for inclusion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Three members from the study team independently assessed the following 'seeding trial' characteristics in each registered study: a high level of involvement of the product manufacturer in the study design, in the data analysis and reporting of the study, an abnormally low ratio of patient numbers to study site, spin and/or omissions of clinically relevant findings in the abstracts, and conclusions that focused on secondary endpoints and surrogate markers. Secondary outcomes were the exploration of a functional outcome and suicidality.

RESULTS

31 trials were identified from clinical trials database. 18/31 were published (58%). 8 of these 18 (44%) studies were identified as possible seeding trials. 13/31 (42%) large trials planned to explore functioning and 5/31 (16%) suicidality.

CONCLUSIONS

Large trials are rare in the field of antidepressant research. Some could be 'seeding trials'. Few explored suicidality. Identifying seeding trials from incomplete data entries in registries, especially when almost half of the studies were still unpublished, posed considerable challenges. The delay between our research and publication limits the strength of our conclusions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017065591.

Gabapentin monotherapy for epilepsy: A review

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurological disorders, affecting more than 50 million people globally. In this review we summarised the evidence from randomised controlled trials of gabapentin used as monotherapy for the treatment of focal epilepsy, both newly diagnosed and drug-resistant, with or without secondary generalisation.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of gabapentin monotherapy for people with epileptic focal seizures with and without secondary generalisation.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 24 February 2020) on 25 February 2020. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRA), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including the Cochrane Epilepsy Group. We also searched several Russian databases, reference lists of relevant studies, ongoing trials registers, conference proceedings, and we contacted trial authors.

RESULTS

We found five randomised controlled trials (3167 participants) comparing gabapentin to other antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and differing doses of gabapentin as monotherapy for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy and drug- resistant focal epilepsy with or without secondary generalisation. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, risk of bias, and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence and present seven patient-important outcomes in the "Summary of findings" tables. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate due to poor reporting quality, poor trial design, and other risks of bias, such as selective presentation of findings and potential heavy industry input. Better quality research may change our certainty in the effect estimates. None of the included trials reported on the number of people with 50% or greater reduction in seizures and time to withdrawal (retention time) in an extractable way. Gabapentin-treated participants were more likely to withdraw from treatment for any cause (285/539) than those treated with lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate pooled together (695/1317) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25; 3 studies, 1856 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but not carbamazepine. Fewer people treated with gabapentin withdrew from treatment owing to adverse events (190/525) than those treated with carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, or topiramate (479/1238), (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91; 1763 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but not lamotrigine.

CONCLUSION

Gabapentin as monotherapy probably controlled seizures no better and no worse than comparator AEDs (lamotrigine, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and topiramate). Compared to carbamazepine, gabapentin was probably better in retaining people in studies and preventing withdrawals due to adverse events. The most common side effects associated with gabapentin were ataxia (poor co-ordination and unsteady gait), dizziness, fatigue, and drowsiness.

Tax credits for pharmaceutical research, development and marketing?

BACKGROUND

The pharmaceutical industry is believed to receive considerable support through research and development (R&D) tax credits.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this paper are (a) to show that many of the pharmaceutical industry's apparent R&D activities are entangled with marketing efforts, and (b) to argue that supporting these activities through tax credits does not serve public interests in health.

METHODS

The bulk of this paper summarizes the author's extended qualitative mixed-methods approach to following connections between pharmaceutical research and marketing.

RESULTS

The pharmaceutical industry's R&D should be understood as broadly entangled with marketing, and so generally should be understood as integrated research, development and marketing (RD&M).

CONCLUSIONS

R&D tax credits to the pharmaceutical industry largely do not serve public interests.

Conduct and reporting of formula milk trials: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the conduct and reporting of formula trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

Intervention trials comparing at least two formula products in children less than three years of age were included, but not trials of human breast milk or fortifiers of breast milk. Data were extracted in duplicate and primary outcome data were synthesised for meta-analysis with a random effects model weighted by the inverse variance method. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane risk of bias version 2.0, and risk of undermining breastfeeding was evaluated according to published consensus guidance. Primary outcomes of the trials included in the systematic review were identified from clinical trial registries, protocols, or trial publications.

RESULTS

22 201 titles were screened and 307 trials were identified that were published between 2006 and 2020, of which 73 (24%) trials in 13 197 children were prospectively registered. Another 111 unpublished but registered trials in 17 411 children were identified. Detailed analysis was undertaken for 125 trials (23 757 children) published since 2015. Seventeen (14%) of these recently published trials were conducted independently of formula companies, 26 (21%) were prospectively registered with a clear aim and primary outcome, and authors or sponsors shared prospective protocols for 11 (9%) trials. Risk of bias was low in five (4%) and high in 100 (80%) recently published trials, mainly because of inappropriate exclusions from analysis and selective reporting. For 68 recently published superiority trials, a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.51 (range -0.43 to 3.29) was calculated with an asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger's test P<0.001), which reduced to 0.19 after correction for asymmetry. Primary outcomes were reported by authors as favourable in 86 (69%) trials, and 115 (92%) abstract conclusions were favourable. One of 38 (3%) trials in partially breastfed infants reported adequate support for breastfeeding and 14 of 87 (16%) trials in non-breastfed infants confirmed the decision not to breastfeed was firmly established before enrolment in the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that formula trials lack independence or transparency, and published outcomes are biased by selective reporting.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091928.

Impact of physicians' participation in non-interventional post-marketing studies on their prescription habits: A retrospective 2-armed cohort study in Germany

BACKGROUND

Non-interventional post-marketing studies (NIPMSs) sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are controversial because, while they are theoretically useful instruments for pharmacovigilance, some authors have hypothesized that they are merely marketing instruments used to influence physicians' prescription behavior. So far, it has not been shown, to our knowledge, whether NIPMSs actually do have an influence on prescription behavior. The objective of this study was therefore to investigate whether physicians' participation in NIPMSs initiated by pharmaceutical companies has an impact on their prescription behavior. In addition, we wanted to analyze whether specific characteristics of NIPMSs have a differing impact on prescription behavior.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In a retrospective 2-armed cohort study, the prescription behavior of 6,996 German physicians, of which 2,354 had participated in at least 1 of 24 NIPMSs and 4,642 were controls, was analyzed. Data were acquired between 6 October 2016 and 8 June 2018. Controls were matched by overall prescription volume and number of prescriptions of the drug studied in the NIPMS in the year prior to the NIPMS. Primary outcome was the relative rate of prescriptions of the drug studied in the NIPMS by participating physicians compared to controls during the NIPMS and the following year. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of prescriptions of the studied drug compared to alternative drugs used for the same indication, the revenue generated by these prescriptions, and the association between the marketing characteristics of the NIPMS and prescription habits. Of the 24 NIPMSs, the 2 largest drug groups studied were antineoplastic and immunomodulatory agents (7/24, 29.2%) and agents for the nervous system (4/24, 16.7%). Physicians participating in an NIPMS prescribed more of the studied drug during and in the year after the NIPMS, at a relative rate of 1.08 (95% CI 1.07-1.10; p < 0.001) and 1.07 (95% CI 1.05-1.09); p < 0.001), respectively. Participating physicians were more likely than controls to prescribe one of the studied drugs rather than alternative drugs used for the same indication (odds ratio 1.04; 95% CI 1.03-1.05). None of the marketing characteristics studied were significantly associated with prescription practices. The main limitation was the difficulty in controlling for confounders due to privacy laws, with a resulting lack of information regarding the included physicians, which was mainly addressed by the matching process.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians participating in NIPMSs prescribe more of the investigated drug than matching controls. This result calls the alleged non-interventional character of NIPMSs into question and should lead to stricter regulation of NIPMSs.

Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: retrospective observational study

Objective To estimate financial payments from industry to US journal editors.Design Retrospective observational study.Setting 52 influential (high impact factor for their specialty) US medical journals from 26 specialties and US Open Payments database, 2014.Participants 713 editors at the associate level and above identified from each journal's online masthead.Main outcome measures All general payments (eg, personal income) and research related payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to eligible physicians in 2014. Percentages of editors receiving payments and the magnitude of such payments were compared across journals and by specialty. Journal websites were also reviewed to determine if conflict of interest policies for editors were readily accessible.Results Of 713 eligible editors, 361 (50.6%) received some (>$0) general payments in 2014, and 139 (19.5%) received research payments. The median general payment was $11 (£8; €9) (interquartile range $0-2923) and the median research payment was $0 ($0-0). The mean general payment was $28 136 (SD $415 045), and the mean research payment was $37 963 (SD $175 239). The highest median general payments were received by journal editors from endocrinology ($7207, $0-85 816), cardiology ($2664, $0-12 912), gastroenterology ($696, $0-20 002), rheumatology ($515, $0-14 280), and urology ($480, $90-669). For high impact general medicine journals, median payments were $0 ($0-14). A review of the 52 journal websites revealed that editor conflict of interest policies were readily accessible (ie, within five minutes) for 17/52 (32.7%) of journals.Conclusions Industry payments to journal editors are common and often large, particularly for certain subspecialties. Journals should consider the potential impact of such payments on public trust in published research.

Marketing trials, marketing tricks - how to spot them and how to stop them

Background

Last this year in this journal, Barbour and colleagues reported a study of “marketing trials” in leading medical journals (Trials 2016;17:31). In this commentary I discuss their research, describe new analyses of the study cohort and consider measures to address marketing within academic medical literature.

Discussion

Barbour et al. sought to identify a subgroup of “marketing trials” within leading medical journals, but in reality, nearly all industry-financed trials serve marketing functions, and many exhibit marketing-related features, including biases, in their framing, methodology or reporting. I conducted new analyses of the cohort of Barbour et al., showing that most trials funded exclusively by drug manufacturers had direct involvement of the manufacturer in design, analysis and reporting, and features supportive of product seeding. However, these commercial enterprises were without exception presented to journal readers as academic-led projects, using attributional spin, which should itself be considered an important form of marketing bias. Barbour et al. correctly conclude that commercial bias in industry clinical trials articles often requires expertise to recognize, and in many cases cannot be identified from the published journal report. Several potential remedies are discussed, including independent clinical research, data sharing, improved reporting guidance, improved tools for assessing research quality, reforms to article attribution, submission checklists and new editorial standards.

Conclusion

Medicine’s journals have a responsibility to uphold rigorous scientific and reporting standards, require ready trials data access and ensure the commercial dimensions of research are brought prominently to their readers’ attention. Failure to meet these responsibilities constitutes an enduring threat to the integrity of biomedical literature.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1827-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Contribution of industry funded post-marketing studies to drug safety: survey of notifications submitted to regulatory agencies

OBJECTIVES

 To investigate the practice of post-marketing studies in Germany during a three year period and to evaluate whether these trials meet the aims specified in the German Medicinal Products Act.

DESIGN

 Survey of notifications submitted to German regulatory agencies before post-marketing studies were carried out, 2008-10.

SETTING

 Notifications obtained through freedom of information requests to the three authorities responsible for registering post-marketing studies in Germany.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

 Descriptive statistics of post-marketing studies, including the products under study, intended number of patients, intended number of participating physicians, proposed remunerations, study plan and protocol, and availability of associated scientific publications and reports on adverse drug reactions.

RESULTS

 Information was obtained from 558 studies, with a median of 600 (mean 2331, range 2-75 000) patients and 63 (270, 0-7000) participating physicians per study. The median remuneration to physicians per patient was €200 (€441, €0-€7280) (£170, £0-£6200; $215, $0-$7820), with a total remuneration cost of more than €217m for 558 studies registered over the three year period. The median remuneration per participating physician per study was €2000 (mean €19 424), ranging from €0 to €2 080 000. There was a broad range of drugs and non-drug products, of which only a third represented recently approved drugs. In many notifications, data, information, and results were, by contract, strictly confidential and the sole property of the respective sponsor. No single adverse drug reaction report could be identified from any of the 558 post-marketing studies. Less than 1% of studies could be verified as published in scientific journals.

CONCLUSIONS

 Post-marketing studies are not improving drug safety surveillance. Sample sizes are generally too small to allow the detection of rare adverse drug reactions, and many participating physicians are strictly obliged to maintain confidentiality towards the sponsor. High remuneration and strict confidentiality clauses in these studies could influence the physicians' reporting behaviours of adverse drug reactions.

Efficacy and safety concerns are important reasons why the FDA requires multiple reviews before approval of new drugs

The regulatory approval of new drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a long and complex process and often requires multiple cycles of review, potentially delaying patients' access to new and effective therapeutics. We used qualitative methods to characterize the safety and efficacy reasons why applications for novel therapeutics approved by the FDA between 2001 and 2011 required multiple review cycles prior to approval. Among ninety-six applications approved between 2001 and 2011 that required multiple review cycles, safety concerns contributed to seventy-four (77.1 percent) and efficacy concerns to forty-three (44.8 percent). Our study suggests that multiple review cycles appear to play an important role in allowing the FDA to protect public health and in ensuring adequate understanding of clinical benefits and risks prior to approval.

Justification for conducting neurological clinical trials as part of patient care within private practice

The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and drawbacks of conducting neurological clinical trials and research in private practice for the patients, clinician, Practice Manager, sponsors/Clinical Research Organisations (CROs) and Clinical Trial Coordinator (CTC) to determine if this is justified for all involved. A combination of literature reviews, original research articles and books were selected from 2005 to 2015. Provided that the practice has sufficient number of active trials to prevent financial loss, support staff, adequate facilities and equipment and time, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Clinical trials provide patients with more thorough monitoring, re-imbursement of trial-related expenses and the opportunity to try an innovative treatment at no charge when other options have failed. For the clinician, clinical trials provide more information to ensure better care for their patients and improved treatment methods, technical experience and global recognition. Trials collect detailed and up-to-date information on the benefits and risks of drugs, improving society's confidence in clinical research and pharmaceuticals, allow trial sponsors to explore new scientific questions and accelerate innovation. For the CTC, industry-sponsored clinical trials allow potential entry for a career in clinical research giving CTCs the opportunity to become Clinical Research Associates (CRAs), Study Start-Up Managers or Drug Safety Associates.

Characterisation of trials where marketing purposes have been influential in study design: a descriptive study

Background

Analysis of trial documentation has revealed that some industry-funded trials may be done more for marketing purposes than scientific endeavour. We aimed to define characteristics of drug trials that appear to be influenced by marketing considerations and estimate their prevalence.

Methods

We examined reports of randomised controlled trials of drugs published in six general medical journals in 2011. Six investigators independently reviewed all publications, characterising them as YES/MAYBE/NO suspected marketing trials, and then met to reach consensus. Blinded researchers then extracted key trial characteristics. We used blinded cluster analysis to determine if key variables could characterise the categories of trials (YES/MAYBE/NO).

Results

41/194 (21 %) trials were categorised as YES, 14 (7 %) as MAYBE, 139 (72 %) as NO. All YES and MAYBE trials were funded by the manufacturer, compared with 37 % of NO trials (p < 0.001). A higher proportion of YES trials had authors or contributors from the manufacturer involved in study design (83 % vs. 19 %), data analysis (85 % vs.15 %) and reporting (81 % vs. 15 %) than NO trials (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups in the median number of participants screened (p = 0.49), but the median number of centres recruiting participants was higher for YES compared with NO trials (171 vs. 13, p < 0.001). YES trials were not more likely to use a surrogate (42 % vs. 30 %; p = 0.38) or composite primary outcome measure (34 % vs. 19 %; p = 0.14) than NO trials. YES trials were often better reported in terms of blinding, safety outcomes and adverse events than NO trials. YES trials more frequently included speculation that might encourage clinicians to use the intervention outside of the study population compared to NO trials (59 % vs.37 %, p = 0.03). Cluster analysis based on study characteristics did not identify a clear variable structure that accurately characterised YES/MAYBE/NO trials.

Conclusions

We reached consensus that a fifth of drug trials published in the highest impact general medical journals in 2011 had features that were suggestive of being designed for marketing purposes. Each of the marketing trials appeared to have a unique combination of features reported in the journal publications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1107-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

How to make more published research true

In a 2005 paper that has been accessed more than a million times, John Ioannidis explained why most published research findings were false. Here he revisits the topic, this time to address how to improve matters. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Preimplantation genetic screening: back to the future

All agree that in hindsight the rapid adoption of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) using cleavage stage biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in routine clinical practice without proper evaluation of (cost-)effectiveness basically resulted in couples paying more money for a less effective treatment. Now, almost 20 years later, we are on the verge of a new era of PGS. But have things really changed or are we simply going back to the future?

Clinical drug trials in general practice: a 10-year overview of protocols

Background

Drugs predominantly prescribed in general practice should ideally be tested in that setting; however, little is known about drug trials in general practice. Our aim was to describe drug trials in Norwegian general practice over the period of a decade.

Methods

The present work concerns a 10-year retrospective study of protocols submitted to the Norwegian national medicines agency (1998 to 2007) identifying all studies involving general practitioners (GPs) as clinical investigator(s). We analyzed the number of trials, drug company involvement, patients, participating doctors, payment, medications tested and main diagnostic criteria for inclusion. We also analyzed one trial in greater detail.

Results

Out of 2,054 clinical drug trials, 196 (9.5%) were undertaken in general practice; 93% were multinational, 96% were industry funded and 77% included patients both from general practice and specialist care. The trials were planned to be completed in the period 1998 to 2012. A total of 23,000 patients in Norway and 340,000 patients internationally were planned to be included in the 196 trials. A median of 5 GPs participated in each trial (range 1 to 402). Only 0.7% of 831 GP investigators had general practice university affiliations. Median payment for participating investigators was €1,900 (range €0 to 13,500) per patient completing the trial. A total of 30 pharmaceutical companies were involved. The drugs most commonly studied were antidiabetics (21%), obstructive airway disease medications (12%), agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system (10%), and lipid modifying agents (10%). One trial, presented in more detail, had several characteristics of a seeding or marketing trial.

Conclusions

Only one in four drug trials involving general practice were solely general practice trials and almost all were industry initiated without input from academic general practice. There was a large variation in the number of patients, participating doctors, and economic compensation for trial investigators, with some investigators receiving substantial payments.

Institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals and the myth of safe and effective drugs

Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA's prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients. Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication; independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D on drugs with few, if any, new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.

Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin litigation

Background

Previous studies have documented strategies to promote off-label use of drugs using journal publications and other means. Few studies have presented internal company communications that discussed financial reasons for manipulating the scholarly record related to off-label indications. The objective of this study was to build on previous studies to illustrate implementation of a publication strategy by the drug manufacturer for four off-label uses of gabapentin (Neurontin®, Pfizer, Inc.): migraine prophylaxis, treatment of bipolar disorders, neuropathic pain, and nociceptive pain.

Methods

We included in this study internal company documents, email correspondence, memoranda, study protocols and reports that were made publicly available in 2008 as part of litigation brought by consumers and health insurers against Pfizer for fraudulent sales practices in its marketing of gabapentin (see http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=saris/pdf/ucl%20opinion.pdf for the Court’s findings).

We reviewed documents pertaining to 20 clinical trials, 12 of which were published. We categorized our observations related to reporting biases and linked them with topics covered in internal documents, that is, deciding what should and should not be published and how to spin the study findings (re-framing study results to explain away unfavorable findings or to emphasize favorable findings); and where and when findings should be published and by whom.

Results

We present extracts from internal company marketing assessments recommending that Pfizer and Parke-Davis (Pfizer acquired Parke-Davis in 2000) adopt a publication strategy to conduct trials and disseminate trial findings for unapproved uses rather than an indication strategy to obtain regulatory approval. We show internal company email correspondence and documents revealing how publication content was influenced and spin was applied; how the company selected where trial findings would be presented or published; how publication of study results was delayed; and the role of ghost authorship.

Conclusions

Taken together, the extracts we present from internal company documents illustrate implementation of a strategy at odds with unbiased study conduct and dissemination. Our findings suggest that Pfizer and Parke-Davis’s publication strategy had the potential to distort the scientific literature, and thus misinform healthcare decision-makers.

Promoting transparency in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research

Strong, evidence-based practice requires that objective, unbiased research be available to inform individual clinical decisions, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and expert guideline recommendations. Industry has used seeding trials, publication planning, messaging, ghostwriting, and selective publication and reporting of trial outcomes to distort the medical literature and undermine clinical trial research by obscuring information relevant to patients and physicians. Policies that promote transparency in the clinical trial research process, through improved and expanded disclosure of investigator contributions and funding, comprehensive publicly available trial registration, and independent analysis of clinical trial data analysis may address these subversive practices by improving accountability among industry and investigators. Minimizing marketing's impact on clinical trial research and strengthening the science will protect medical literature's integrity and the public's health.