Phony drug data and buried bad clinical trial results

Options

Since we were recently talking about the FDA and fraudulent drug company clinical trial data I thought it would be a good idea to include this investigative journalism article about Seroquel and the FDA. It's all about the burying of bad trial results and spinning data to look as if it is the opposite of what it really was - bad for patients! It's just the typical kind of deceptive presentation I have seen from all the drug companies. This is why we need  strong, uncorrupted regulatory agency like what the FDA should be stringently evaluating these drug company submissions. Otherwise we cannot trust FDA approval or clinical trial data enough to be taking their products.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031703786.html?wprss=rss_print 

A Silenced Drug Study Creates An Uproar TOOLBOX ResizePrintE-mailYahoo! BuzzSave/Share +COMMENT washingtonpost.com readers have posted74 comments about this item.
View All Comments » POST A COMMENT
Your washingtonpost.com User ID,Firstresponder, will be displayed with your comment.

 Discussion PolicyWHO'S BLOGGING» Links to this articleBy Shankar VedantamWashington Post Staff Writer 
Wednesday, March 18, 2009; Page A01
The study would come to be called "cursed," but it started out just as Study 15.It was a long-term trial of the antipsychotic drug Seroquel. The common wisdom in psychiatric circles was that newer drugs were far better than older drugs, but Study 15's results suggested otherwise.As a result, newly unearthed documents show, Study 15 suffered the same fate as many industry-sponsored trials that yield data drugmakers don't like: It got buried. It took eight years before a taxpayer-funded study rediscovered what Study 15 had found -- and raised serious concerns about an entire new class of expensive drugs.Study 15 was silenced in 1997, the same year Seroquel was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat schizophrenia. The drug went on to be prescribed to hundreds of thousands of patients around the world and has earned billions for London-based AstraZeneca International -- including nearly $12 billion in the past three years.The results of Study 15 were never published or shared with doctors, even as less rigorous studies that came up with positive results for Seroquel were published and used in marketing campaigns aimed at physicians and in television ads aimed at consumers. The results of Study 15 were provided only to the Food and Drug Administration -- and the agency has strenuously maintained that it does not have the authority to place such studies in the public domain.AstraZeneca spokesman Tony Jewell defended the Seroquel research and said the company had disclosed the drug's risks. Since 1997, the drug's labeling has noted that weight gain and diabetes were seen in study patients, although the company says the data are not definitive. The label states that the metabolic disorders may be related to patients' underlying diseases.The FDA, Jewell added, had access to Study 15 when it declared Seroquel safe and effective. The trial, which compared patients taking Seroquel and an older drug called Haldol, "did not identify any safety concerns," AstraZeneca said in an e-mail. Jewell added, "A large proportion of patients dropped out in both groups, which the company felt made the results difficult to interpret."The saga of Study 15 has become a case study in how drug companies can control the publicly available research about their products, along with other practices that recently have prompted hand-wringing at universities and scientific journals, remonstrations by medical groups about conflicts of interest, and threats of exposure by trial lawyers and congressional watchdogs.Even if most doctors are ethical, corporate grants, gifts and underwriting have compromised psychiatry, said an editorial this month in the American Journal of Psychiatry, the flagship journal of the American Psychiatric Association."The public and private resources available for the care of our patients depend upon the public perception of the integrity of our profession as a whole," wrote Robert Freedman, the editor in chief, and others. "The subsidy that each of us has been receiving is part of what has fueled the excesses that are currently under investigation."Details of Study 15 have emerged through lawsuits now playing out in courtrooms nationwide alleging that Seroquel caused weight gain, hyperglycemia and diabetes in thousands of patients. The Houston-based law firm Blizzard, McCarthy & Nabers, one of several that have filed about 9,210 lawsuits over Seroquel, publicized the documents, which show that the patients taking Seroquel in Study 15 gained an average of 11 pounds in a year -- alarming company scientists and marketing executives. A Washington Post analysis found that about four out of five patients quit taking the drug in less than a year, raising pointed doubts about its effectiveness.An FDA report in 1997, moreover, said Study 15 did offer useful safety data. Mentioning few details, the FDA said the study showed that patients taking higher doses of the drug gained more weight.In approving Seroquel, the agency said 23 percent of patients taking the drug in all studies available up to that point experienced significant weight increases, compared with 6 percent of control-group patients taking sugar pills. In 2006, FDA warned AstraZeneca against minimizing metabolic problems in its sales pitches.In the years since, taxpayer-funded research has found that newer antipsychotic drugs such as Seroquel, which are 10 times as expensive, offer little advantage over older ones. The older drugs cause involuntary muscle movements known as tardive dyskinesia, and the newer ones have been linked to metabolic problems.Far from dismissing Study 15, internal documents show that company officials were worried because 45 percent of the Seroquel patients had experienced what AstraZeneca physician Lisa Arvanitis termed "clinically significant" weight gain.In an e-mail dated Aug. 13, 1997, Arvanitis reported that across all patient groups and treatment regimens, regardless of how numbers were crunched, patients taking Seroquel gained weight: "I'm not sure there is yet any type of competitive opportunity no matter how weak."In a separate note, company strategist Richard Lawrence praised AstraZeneca's efforts to put a "positive spin" on "this cursed study" and said of Arvanitis: "Lisa has done a great 'smoke and mirrors' job!"Two years after those exchanges, in 1999, the documents show that the company presented different data at an American Psychiatric Association conference and at a European meeting. The conclusion: Seroquel helped psychotic patients lose weight.The claim was based on a company-sponsored study by a Chicago psychiatrist, who reviewed the records of 65 patients who switched their medication to Seroquel. It found that patients lost an average of nine pounds over 10 months.Within the company, meanwhile, officials explicitly discussed misleading physicians. The chief of a team charged with getting articles published, John Tumas, defended "cherry-picking" data."That does not mean we should continue to advocate" selective use of data, he wrote on Dec. 6, 1999, referring to a trial, called COSTAR, that also produced unfavorable results. But he added, "Thus far, we have buried Trials 15, 31, 56 and are now considering COSTAR."Although the company pushed the favorable study to physicians, the documents show that AstraZeneca held the psychiatrist in light regard and had concerns that he had modified study protocols and failed to get informed consent from patients. Company officials wrote that they did not trust the doctor with anything more complicated than chart reviews -- the basis of the 1999 study showing Seroquel helped patients lose weight.For practicing psychiatrists, Study 15 could have said a lot not just about safety but also effectiveness. Like all antipsychotics, Seroquel does not cure the diseases it has been approved to treat -- schizophrenia and bipolar disorder -- but controls symptoms such as agitation, hallucinations and delusions. When government scientists later decided to test the effectiveness of the class of drugs to which Seroquel belongs, they focused on a simple measure -- how long patients stayed on the drugs. Discontinuation rates, they decided, were the best measure of effectiveness.Study 15 had three groups of about 90 patients each taking different Seroquel doses, according to an FDA document. Approximately 31 patients were on Haldol. The study showed that Seroquel failed to outperform Haldol in preventing psychotic relapses.In disputing Study 15's weight-gain data, company officials said they were not reliable because only about 50 patients completed the year-long trial. But even without precise numbers, this suggests a high discontinuation rate among patients taking Seroquel. Even if every single patient taking Haldol dropped out, it appears that at a minimum about 220 patients -- or about 82 percent of patients on Seroquel -- dropped out.Eight years after Study 15 was buried, an expensive taxpayer-funded study pitted Seroquel and other new drugs against another older antipsychotic drug. The study found that most patients getting the new and supposedly safer drugs stopped taking them because of intolerable side effects. The study also found that the new drugs had few advantages. As with older drugs, the new medications had very high discontinuation rates. The results caused consternation among doctors, who had been kept in the dark about trials such as Study 15.The federal study also reported the number of Seroquel patients who discontinued the drug within 18 months: 82 percent.Jeffrey Lieberman, a Columbia University psychiatrist who led the federal study, said doctors missed clues in evaluating antipsychotics such as Seroquel. If a doctor had known about Study 15, he added, "it would raise your eyebrows."

Comments

  • althea
    althea Member Posts: 1,595
    edited March 2009

    There's a number of disturbing practices conducted by the drug companies.  Burying the studies that show unfavorable results on a particular product is just one of many.  Another sneaky tactic is that they have no requirement to prove that a new drug is better than an existing drug already on the market.  All they have to show is how the new drug is better than taking nothing at all. 

    Science was my worst subject in school.  But even wikipedia says this about the scientific method: 

    "Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology (emphasis mine) so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

    I just don't see how the drug companies can get away with burying these studies.  Following the scientific method is supposed to be a requirement in these studies.  

  • 07rescue
    07rescue Member Posts: 168
    edited March 2009

    All my naivete about drug company research has been destroyed over the years I have spent as a medical writer.

    I was also a volunteer participant of one of these clinical trials that was buried several years ago.

    I volunteered for a phase 1 trial for an experimental gag DNA HIV vaccine trial, out of my commitment to the many patients I worked with during the HIV/AIDS epidemic here in NYC. After watching so many young people die, and knowing so many more around the world would also die from this scourge, I promised myself that I would do whatever I could to help stop it.

    I searched for and found a phase one (safety) trial for an HIV vaccine that was recruiting 12 volunteers to take their new vaccine, offered by one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies - one that would face tremendous world pressure to provide adequate vaccine to treat the epidemic, should they develop an effective product. They would have the means to manufacture and distribute it as well. The vaccine was the newest of it's type, and looked very promising in nonhuman trials.

    They needed people who were at zero risk for contracting HIV, which I knew myself to be one, so I volunteered for the trial. They accepted me despite a long medical history of endometriosis, an immune system altering disease, and I was human # 12 to receive vaccination. After two injections of the DNA vaccine my long controlled endometriosis went completely out of control, causing serious kidney damage from rapid proliferation of endometriosis lesions that obstructed my ureters, my immune system crashed, and T cells dropped, permanently. I had to have an emergency hysterectomy and oophorectomy to try to stop the endometriosis from spreading even further.

    At that point my emergency was reported to the clinical trial and documented as a serious adverse event likely related to the vaccine. I received a phone call from a study nurse saying my next follow up appointment had to be cancelled, and another one would be scheduled. Two months passed and there was no follow up call or appointment communication. I called the clinical trial and was told it was no longer being done at that location (a major NYC teaching hospital), and there was no follow up information available. I called the pharmaceutical giant and was completely stonewalled from any further information, even though as part of the agreement with them I had been promised safety checks and follow up as a study participant. When I was recovered enough from my major operation I physically visited the hospital, and found no evidence of the HIV vaccine trial, it had disappeared with no forwarding address.

    I made a number of inquiries of staff at the department where the trial had been held, and no one would tell me anything. As I was leaving, an employee silently motioned with his head for me to come with him. He took me into a side hallway and just handed me a torn off slip of paper with a phone number on it, and left. It was the phone number to where the clinical trial had moved. They were not at all happy to hear from me.

    I was able to find out that I had been given the vaccine, not placebo. There were no arrangements made for safety follow up. I was treated like an enemy. I contacted major media and no one would follow up on the story.

    Four years later the pharmaceutical giant had given the vaccine to thousands more people, including those at risk for contracting HIV. It turned out that the vaccine not only did not protect people from HIV infection, it made them significantly MORE LIKELY to contract HIV by lowering their T cell counts, as it had done to me, making us more susceptible to a variety of infections and diseases, theoretically including cancer. 

    The adverse trial data from my participation was buried.

    They exposed countless people to the vaccine after someone like me, a "canary in the coal mine" with my pre-existing endometriosis, volunteered and gave them data that the vaccine could lower immunity, which they chose to ignore and bury.

    I took the risk to join the phase 1 trial, and accept the adverse outcome for myself. I abhor that they ignored the data and put others at risk, along with millions of dollars that should have been spent pursuing a more promising, less dangerous vaccine or other treatment for HIV. I took the risk so others would not have to, but the drug company was too unethical to retain and use the data.

    In this case the vaccine turned out to be much too dangerous to pass muster, but other cases of dangerous trial results being buried have allowed drugs to be approved for use by huge numbers of patients, such as antidepressants in children and teenagers that increase the likelihood of suicide, or Vioxx causing blood clots and strokes, and the list goes on.

    Personally experiencing the unethical behavior of the pharmaceutical giants we all must trust to supply safe and effective medications and devices is a real learning experience, one I hope most people never have to undergo.

    We must remain ever vigilant when such a huge industry retains such political power that they can defy regulation and scrutiny by any effective agency charged with public safety in the drug market, which our FDA should be. All our lives are at stake.

  • meadows4
    meadows4 Member Posts: 170
    edited March 2009

    Wow!  What a story 07!  Thanks for sharing it!  The pharmaceutical companies will do anything to make the billions that they make. 

  • althea
    althea Member Posts: 1,595
    edited March 2009

    rescue07, when I mentioned that studies get buried, I had no idea you had such a personal experience with it!  That is way too orwellian for comfort!  And really, it just defies explanation.  If early trials show such detrimental effects on people, how could it possibly equate to good business sense to proceed with the product anyway?  Yet, much of these stories fail to see the light of day until a billion dollars or more are made, if ever. 

  • Twa
    Twa Member Posts: 40
    edited March 2009

    That is a really terrible experience.

    Were you aware of how experimental Phase 1 studies are? They have not even established efficacy at that level. I think I would only look at such a study if my life were hanging on the edge and there was some slim chance that the experimental drug could help.

    Still, they have to do studies to show drugs/vaccines work.

    But they way ought to treat participants better.

  • FloridaLady
    FloridaLady Member Posts: 2,155
    edited March 2009

    I have also done Phase I trials with horrible side effects.  I was at MDA Houston with just nodes in chest wall positive.  They would not let me into the bc center saying they had nothing to offer. This was only two years ago and I had only completed ACT & Gemzar, Carbo & Avastin.  I was offer NOTHING else as tx options.  After getting into to the trial I found out that Germany had already tested the drug five years early and should zero value to bc patients.  Why was  I even given this drug?  Like rescue I had zero follow up but one phone call a year later.

    I have again beat conventional medicine odds of survival.  And I might add with quality of life...thank to my own research on how to stay healthy..  After nine different chemo and 50 tx I still have only local skin mets. I have been told there is no known treatment options at this time.  MDA Houston & John Hopkiins say the same thing.  So I have no choice but to go back to Phase I.  If this was any place but my skin I would try other options.  Skin is messy and aggressive.  I looking at hyperthermia and chemo this time.  Or I will have to do inhibitors that show very little research of help.  Beating the odds is not always a good thing.... I can't believe there are not better ways to test drugs than already beaten down cancer patients.

    Flalady

  • 07rescue
    07rescue Member Posts: 168
    edited March 2009

    Hi Twa

    I was 100% aware that phase 1 trials are safety trials, and I specifically searched for one to join, not a later phase trial. I completely understood the risk I was taking, and felt that there really was no greater task worth risking my health and life for than to find a vaccine that would prevent infection with HIV. It's a worldwide epidemic, claiming the lives of millions. I watched so many young people die during the 1980's, it was a tragedy I will never forget.

  • Twa
    Twa Member Posts: 40
    edited March 2009

    In the book Her2 about the development of Herceptin, a woman with skin mets used Interferon to treat her own lesions. She was told the same thing as you Floridalady.

Categories