Top Cancer Researcher Fails to Reveal Corporate Financial Ties

Options
Tina2
Tina2 Member Posts: 2,943

All,

Does this report anger you as much as it does me?

Tina

New York Times Sept. 8, 2018 By Charles Ornstein and Katie Thomas,

This article was reported and written in a collaboration with ProPublica, the nonprofit investigative journalism organization.

One of the world's top breast cancer doctors failed to disclose millions of dollars in payments from drug and health care companies in recent years, omitting his financial ties from dozens of research articles in prestigious publications like The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet.

The researcher, Dr. José Baselga, a towering figure in the cancer world, is the chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. He has held board memberships or advisory roles with Roche and Bristol-Myers Squibb, among other corporations, has had a stake in start-ups testing cancer therapies, and played a key role in the development of breakthrough drugs that have revolutionized treatments for breast cancer.

According to an analysis by The New York Times and ProPublica, Dr. Baselga did not follow financial disclosure rules set by the American Association for Cancer Research when he was president of the group. He also left out payments he received from companies connected to cancer research in his articles published in the group's journal, Cancer Discovery. At the same time, he has been one of the journal's two editors in chief.

At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.

Dr. Baselga did not dispute his relationships with at least a dozen companies. In an interview, he said the disclosure lapses were unintentional.

He stressed that much of his industry work was publicly known although he declined to provide payment figures from his involvement with some biotech startups. "I acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies, but that's what it is," he said. "It's not that I do not appreciate the importance."

Dr. Baselga's extensive corporate relationships — and his frequent failure to disclose them — illustrate how permeable the boundaries remain between academic research and industry, and how weakly reporting requirements are enforced by the medical journals and professional societies charged with policing them.

A decade ago, a series of scandals involving the secret influence of the pharmaceutical industry on drug research prompted the medical community to beef up its conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. Ethicists worry that outside entanglements can shape the way studies are designed and medications are prescribed to patients, allowing bias to influence medical practice. Disclosing those connections allows the public, other scientists and doctors to evaluate the research and weigh potential conflicts.


"If leaders don't follow the rules, then we don't really have rules," said Dr. Walid Gellad, director of the Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing at the University of Pittsburgh. "It says that the rules don't matter."

The penalties for such ethical lapses are not severe. The cancer research group, the A.A.C.R., warns authors who fill out disclosure forms for its journals that they face a three-year ban on publishing if they are found to have financial relationships that they did not disclose. But the ban is not included in the conflict-of-interest policy posted on its website, and the group said no author had ever been barred.

Many journals and professional societies do not check conflicts and simply require authors to correct the record.

Officials at the A.A.C.R., the American Society of Clinical Oncology and The New England Journal of Medicine said they were looking into Dr. Baselga's omissions after inquiries from The New York Times and ProPublica. The Lancet declined to say whether it would look into the matter.

Christine Hickey, a spokeswoman for Memorial Sloan Kettering, said that Dr. Baselga had properly informed the hospital of his outside industry work and that it was Dr. Baselga's responsibility to disclose such relationships to entities like medical journals. The cancer center, she said, "has a rigorous and comprehensive compliance program in place to promote honesty and objectivity in scientific research."

Asked if he planned to correct his disclosures, Dr. Baselga asked reporters what they would recommend. In a statement several days later, he said he would correct his conflict-of-interest reporting for 17 articles, including in The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the publication he edits, Cancer Discovery. He said that he did not believe disclosure was required for dozens of other articles detailing early stages of research.


"I have spent my career caring for cancer patients and bringing new therapies to the clinic with the goal of extending and saving lives," Dr. Baselga said in the statement. "While I have been inconsistent with disclosures and acknowledge that fact, that is a far cry from compromising my responsibilities as a physician, as a scientist and as a clinical leader."


The corporate imprint on cancer research

Dr. Baselga, 59, supervises clinical operations at Memorial Sloan Kettering, one of the nation's top cancer centers, and wields influence over the lives of patients and companies wishing to conduct trials there. He was paid more than $1.5 million in compensation by the cancer center in 2016, according to the hospital's latest available tax disclosures, but that does not include his consulting or board fees from outside companies.

Many top medical researchers have ties to the for-profit health care industry, and some overlap is seen as a good thing — after all, these are the companies charged with developing the drugs, medical devices and diagnostic tests of the future.

Dr. Baselga's relationship to industry is extensive. In addition to sitting on the board of Bristol-Myers Squibb, he is a director of Varian Medical Systems, which sells radiation equipment and for whom Memorial Sloan Kettering is a client.

In all, Dr. Baselga has served on the boards of at least six companies since 2013, positions that have required him to assume a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of those companies, even as he oversees the cancer center's medical operations.

The hospital and Dr. Baselga said steps had been taken to prevent him from having a say in any business between the cancer center and the companies on whose boards he sits.

The chief executive of Memorial Sloan Kettering, Dr. Craig B. Thompson, settled lawsuits several years ago that were filed by the University of Pennsylvania and an affiliated research center. They contended that he hid research conducted while he was at Penn to start a new company, Agios Pharmaceuticals, and did not share the earnings. Dr. Thompson disputed the allegations. He now sits on the board of Merck, which manufactures Keytruda, a blockbuster cancer therapy.

Ms. Hickey said the cancer center cannot fulfill its charitable mission without working with industry. "We encourage collaboration and are proud that our work has led to the approval of novel, lifesaving cancer treatments for patients around the world," she said.

Some disclosures are required; others aren't

After the scandals a decade ago over lack of disclosure, the federal government began requiring drug and device manufacturers to publicly disclose payments to doctors in 2013.

From August 2013 through 2017, Dr. Baselga received nearly $3.5 million from nine companies, according to the federal Open Payments database, which compiles disclosures filed by drug and device companies.

Dr. Baselga has disclosed in other forums investments and advisory roles in biotech start-ups, but he declined to provide a tally of financial interests in those firms. Companies that have not received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for their products — projects still in the testing phases — do not have to report payments they make to doctors.

Serving on boards can be lucrative. In 2017, he received $260,000 in cash and stock awards to sit on Varian's board of directors, according to the company's corporate filings.

ProPublica and The Times analyzed Dr. Baselga's publications in medical journals since 2013, the year he joined Memorial Sloan Kettering. He failed to disclose any industry relationships in more than 100, or about 60 percent of the time, a figure that has increased with each passing year. Last year, he did not list any potential conflicts in 87 percent of the articles that he wrote or co-wrote.

Dr. Baselga compiled a color-coded list of his articles and offered a different interpretation. Sixty-two of the papers for which he did not disclose any potential conflict represented "conceptual, basic laboratory or translational work," and did not require one, he said. Questions could be raised about others, he said, but he added that most "had no clinical nor financial implications." That left the 17 papers he plans to correct.

Early-stage research often carries financial weight because it helps companies decide whether to move ahead with a product. In about two-thirds of Dr. Balsega's articles that lacked details of his industry ties, one or more of his co-authors listed theirs.

In 2015, Dr. Baselga published an article in the New England Journal about a Roche-sponsored trial of one of the company's drugs, Zelboraf. Despite his financial ties to Roche, he declared that he had "nothing to disclose." Fourteen of his co-authors reported ties to Roche.

Dr. Baselga defended the articles, saying that "these are high-quality manuscripts reporting on important clinical trials that led to a better understanding of cancer treatments."

Industry Connections

Some of Dr. José Baselga's known relationships with health care companies. He has failed to disclose any industry ties in dozens of research articles since 2013.

Board of Directors

■ Aura Biosciences* (cancer startup)

■ Bristol-Myers Squibb

■ Foghorn Therapeutics (cancer startup)

■ Grail* (cancer testing startup)

■ Infinity Pharmaceuticals* (cancer startup)

■ Varian Medical Systems (radiation equipment)

Paid Consultant

■ AstraZeneca*

■ Eli Lilly*

■ Novartis*

■ Roche/Genentech*

Scientific or Clinical Advisory Board

■ ApoGen Biotechnologies (cancer startup)

■ Aura Biosciences (cancer startup)

■ Grail (cancer testing startup)

■ Juno Therapeutics*

■ Northern Biologics (cancer startup)

■ Paige.AI (pathology startup)

■ Peptomyc* (cancer startup)

■ PMV Pharmaceuticals (cancer startup)

■ Seragon Pharmaceuticals* (breast cancer)

Founder or Co-Founder

■ Mosaic Biomedicals

■ Tango Therapeutics (cancer startup)

Source: Analysis by The New York Times and ProPublica. Note: Dr. Baselga worked with these companies at different times. Former relationships are marked with a *.

The guidelines enacted by most major medical journals and professional societies ask authors and presenters to list recent financial relationships that could pose a conflict.

But much of this reporting still relies on the honor system. A study in August in the journal JAMA Oncology found that one-third of authors in a sample of cancer trials did not report all payments from the studies' sponsors.

"We don't routinely check because we don't have those kind of resources," said Dr. Rita F. Redberg, the editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, who has been critical of the influence of industry on medical practice. "We rely on trust and integrity. It's kind of an assumed part of the professional relationship."

Jennifer Zeis, a spokeswoman for The New England Journal of Medicine, said in an email that it had now asked Dr. Baselga to amend his disclosures. She said the journal planned to overhaul its tracking of industry relationships.

The American Association for Cancer Research said it had begun an "extensive review" of the disclosure forms submitted by Dr. Baselga.

It said that it had never barred an author from publishing, and that "such an action would be necessary only in cases of egregious, consistent violations of the rules."

Among the most prominent relationships that Dr. Baselga has often failed to disclose is with the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche and its United States subsidiary Genentech.

In June 2017, at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, Dr. Baselga spoke at a Roche-sponsored investor event about study results that the company had been counting on to persuade oncologists to move patients from Herceptin — which was facing competition from cheaper alternatives — to a combination treatment involving Herceptin and a newer, more expensive drug, Perjeta.

The results were so underwhelming that Roche's stock fell 5 percent on the news. One analyst described the results as a "lead balloon," and an editorial in The New England Journal called it a "disappointment."

Dr. Baselga, however, told analysts that critiques were "weird" and "strange."

This June, at the same cancer conference, Dr. Baselga struck an upbeat note about the results of a Roche trial of the drug taselisib, saying in a blog post published on the cancer center website that the results were "incredibly exciting" while conceding the side effects from the drug were high.


That same day, Roche announced it was scrapping plans to develop the drug. The news was another disappointment involving the class of drugs called PI3K inhibitors, which is a major focus of Dr. Baselga's current research.

In neither case did Dr. Baselga reveal that his ties to Roche and Genentech went beyond serving as a trial investigator. In 2014, Roche acquired Seragon, a cancer research company in which Dr. Baselga had an ownership stake, for $725 million. Dr. Baselga received more than $3 million in 2014 and 2015 for his stake in the company, according to the federal Open Payments database.

From 2013 to 2017, Roche also paid Dr. Baselga more than $50,000 in consulting fees, according to the database.

These details were not included in the conflict-of-interest statements that are required of all presenters at the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference, although he did disclose ownership interests and consulting relationships with several other companies in the prior two years.

ASCO said it would conduct an internal review of Dr. Baselga's disclosures and would refer the findings to a panel.

Dr. Baselga said that he played no role in the Seragon acquisition, and that he had cut ties with Roche since joining the board of a competitor, Bristol-Myers, in March. As for his presentations at the ASCO meetings in the last two years, he said he had also noted shortcomings in the studies.

The combination of Perjeta with Herceptin was later approved by the F.D.A. for certain high-risk patients. As for taselisib, Dr. Baselga stands by his belief that the PI3K class of drugs will be an important target for fighting cancer.

Charles Ornstein is a senior editor at ProPublica.

Comments

  • susan_02143
    susan_02143 Member Posts: 7,209
    edited September 2018

    Yes. This angers me greatly!

  • Tina2
    Tina2 Member Posts: 2,943
    edited September 2018

    Well, now there are two of us! What an amoral, greedy man.

    Tina

  • Cure-ious
    Cure-ious Member Posts: 2,626
    edited September 2018

    This is the fellow some of us were howling about at the ASCO2018 meeting, where the ASCO decided to embargo his abstract about Taselisib (PI3K inhibitor drug), suggesting great new clinical trial results to report, and when it finally came out, the press release made it sound like it was good news ("first cancer drug in its class gives promising results", etc) when in fact the results showed that adding the drug yielded only a two months longer for progression-free survival, and on the same day the drug's maker (Roche) quietly announced they were withdrawing the drug for consideration for FDA approval based on the disappointing clinical trial results and bad side effects. Truly disgraceful, shocking really, clearly these guys are just playing games, so on what basis was taselisib even approved to move into phase 3, and why would ASCO pretend that those were clinical trial results were deserving of a press release?! Nobody as ASCO2018 ever defended this mess. To say that the class of drugs is promising is total BS, they were not forthcoming at all about the drug he was responsible for. Good for NYT for outing this guy...

  • Lucia42
    Lucia42 Member Posts: 63
    edited September 2018

    Thanks Tina, great that this came to light! Makes me nervous about the other phase 3 drugs ... Alpelisib was mentioned by my onc as a possible next route but as far as I know no recent results yet published. Obviously we can't trust the PR


  • marijen
    marijen Member Posts: 3,731
    edited September 2018

    You all can check your own doctors at the Open Payments link above. Mine, affilated with Sloan, gets six figures in research dollars. No wonder he’s out of town half the time.



  • illimae
    illimae Member Posts: 5,710
    edited September 2018

    He’s a smart man, he understands the importance of disclosing this info and he chose not to. I don’t have an issue with payments for writing, speaking engagements or even serving on a board and honestly, he has so many conflicts, it’s almost like having none at all but one must always be upfront and honest. Working for State government I must be aware of even the appearance of a conflict. He must know better, he must do better.

  • Cure-ious
    Cure-ious Member Posts: 2,626
    edited September 2018

    I'm just popping back in to make clear that other drugs in this class of course are very important for us, we need a great PI3K inhibitor drug and a better combination to take them, so that promising new drugs like Alpelisib work for longer periods of time, but for Balserga to say that Taselisib was the first of a promising new class of drugs was BS, because his results were not promising at all. He probably just said that because he knew that good ones are coming down the pike, and wanted to ride that wave. And also of course being able to get lots of research money is not a bad thing, funds for research are awarded by rigorous peer review supposedly to the best of the best science. Well NYT put him and others like him in the hot spotlight, to that's a very good thing overall...

  • scoobie
    scoobie Member Posts: 30
    edited September 2018

    OK, I'll be the odd one out: I'm not angry. Yes his behavior was unprofessional, but it wasn't illegal or even malicious. There was no impact on patients. Drug companies make decisions to continue/discontinue development based on the best information available, which may include both published and non-published results; they have no incentive to continue development of a drug which they do not believe can get FDA approval.

    I'll tell you what does make me angry. Cancer drugs are so expensive mostly because huge amounts of money are paid to doctors and researchers, not to mention TV ads, as "marketing". To me that's a crime whether or not it's disclosed.

  • Lula73
    Lula73 Member Posts: 1,824
    edited September 2018

    so let’s talk about the “payments” made to doctors. 1) Research dollars are obvious ones.

    2) Consulting fees are typically where a pharma or device company asks the dr to give his professional opinion on various points about the drug/device and what is most important to them data wise.

    3) Speaker fees are where drug/device companies pay the doctor for his time and expertise to share drug/device information with his peers typically at a lunch or dinner. The information shared about the drug/device is cleared by FDA and speakers are required to attend yearly meetings to review what is ok to say and what isn’t. Travel to these meeting is also covered. The speaker can also share real world ways of incorporating this new treatment/device into their already overwhelmed practice. Before anyone gets into a tizzy about cost of travel and where the meeting is held-it’s typically a city with a big enough hotel to handle all the speakers for the company from across the nation and they spend 8-12 hours a day looking at 4 hotel conference room walls. So even if the meeting is in NYC or Vegas, they could just as easily be in a small out of the way town for all they actually get to see/do on the trip.

    4) Meals/“Other payments” - meals cover lunches at the doctor’s office ($10 or less per meal usually) for the rep or medical liaison to discuss new data, new indications, changes to formulary, patient assistance, etc. Meals at a speaker program also fall under this category. And things like anatomical models used for patient education on various disease states are also included.

    The days of drug companies paying for docs and their wives to vacation in Barbados or some other exotic location to increase their prescription writing for a particular drug are long over. We’re talking over a decade of being over. You ever wonder where all the drug company pens, pads, coffee mugs went? They went the way of the trips. Violating the restrictions carries hefty fines for the drug company and costs many people’s jobs. With that being said, pharma needs to be in front of these drs getting them the information. There isn’t enough tone in the day for a dr to do his daily duties, spend time with his family, handle office issues and spend hours researching the latest and greatest on disease state, medications, SEs, and formulary status. I personally don’t trust a dr that doesn’t see pharma reps. How do I know if he’s even doing his own research to stay up to date? Continuing medical education is supposed to do that but sadly it doesn’t as the dr gets to pick and choose what he wants to study and what he doesn’t. If my medical concern falls under what he doesn’t study, I’m out of luck.

    I agree this guy should’ve disclosed his relationships. In the real world, no one really looks at them, but they should be there none the less. It’s a sign of honesty and respect. Excitement over study results is usually excitement over progress. 2 months longer survival? For the person who is given those extra 2 months its everything. I’d have been excited just by that. But when we look at the bigger picture and the track were on to making bigger breakthroughs it’s even more exciting.

    Why are meds so expensive? First you have R&D costs. For every med that makes it to market, there were 10 that didn’t. So the R&D isn’t just limited to the cost for that 1 drug but the cost for 11. Then you have patent timeline. The company has to recoup the monies that went into R&D plus make a profit so they can reinvest in R&D for new meds down the road before the patent expires. Then you have to factor in how many people will need this medication and for how long. The smaller the number of people and the shorter the time they take it the higher the retail cost will be. It’s simple economics. Other countries cap prices that pharma can charge. That puts much of the onus on the US which raises our prices even more. The reality is that if those other countries didn’t cap the price we would be paying less in the US. Capping prices in the US would result in less R&D. It’s a catch 22 situation with no real solution. It’s not like The government pays for clinical trials of new medications (but they sure do put lots of roadblocks in the way). It's all on the pharma companies to do the R&D and jump thru government hoops

  • stephincanada
    stephincanada Member Posts: 228
    edited September 2018

    As soon as I read the headline of this post I knew it was going to be about Baselga. You should see the press conference he held after the disappointing APHINITY results. He was desperate to convince the media that the data were more positive than they actually were. One reporter referred to his performance as “damage control”. Disappointing but not surprising. His conflict of interest seemed pretty obvious

  • stephincanada
    stephincanada Member Posts: 228
    edited September 2018

    As soon as I read the headline of this post I knew it was going to be about Baselga. You should see the press conference he held after the disappointing APHINITY results. He was desperate to convince the media that the data were more positive than they actually were. One reporter referred to his performance as “damage control". Disappointing but not surprising. His conflict of interest seemed pretty obvious.

  • Lucia42
    Lucia42 Member Posts: 63
    edited September 2018

    I'm hopeful too they'll crack the PI3K issue and I'm not discounting other drugs in this category. Baselga's dishonesty is worse than touting snake oil as a cancer cure. As a "top researcher" he knows just how high the stakes are but as long as he lines his own pocket couldn't care less


  • Cure-ious
    Cure-ious Member Posts: 2,626
    edited September 2018

    Agree with all of these smart comments- patients nowadays are very well-informed and we're the ones putting our bodies 'in harm's way", as it were, when we choose to enter a clinical trial. So NYT is giving the medical profession and those most-influential docs who are entrusted to lead the biggest trials, a kick in the butt to raise their standards and provide press (and 'spin') that accurately reflects the data and the state of their field.


    As for drug costs, yeah its crazy expensive to try to get a drug to market, but our system of clinical trials do provide access to the most promising possible game-changer drugs, CAR-T, vaccines, etc, for free and some of these are super-expensive and patient-specific to carry out.

  • Heidihill
    Heidihill Member Posts: 5,476
    edited September 2018

    What an incredibly cynical man! Illimae is right though that with so many conflicts of interest, it may all be a wash.

    As for drug prices, I can't help but feel demand is artificially driven by all the ads one sees. I was in the US for a short visit and was really astounded at the constant barrage of drug commercials. Then there's all the expense involved in protecting patents and against lawsuits… European companies also have to deal with price capping when they expand to Asia and emerging markets, but prices here are still not as high as in the US.  

  • blainejennifer
    blainejennifer Member Posts: 1,848
    edited September 2018

    Cure-ious,

    I'm actually thinking pretty hard about joining a trial for CART + Keytruda. I wish the trial were free. Some of it is, but there are certain scans and lab procedures that the trial doesn't pay for. Hopefully, my insurance will cover it, but it will be out of network. Plus, when I calculate the cost of travel for the 18 visits that I'll need to make over a 9 month period, it'll be about 5K. That's not even lodging. Luckily, I have family in the area.

    Other people that have participated in trials, what has your financial experience been?

    Jennifer

  • scoobie
    scoobie Member Posts: 30
    edited September 2018

    I've only done one trial so I don't have a whole lot of experience. They didn't cover the costs of routine scanning (CT/MRI) which didn't particularly impress me, but didn't cost me anything since my insurance covered it. They covered most everything else.

    Does anyone understand why drug trials are so expensive? I hear it said all the time and people seem to take it for granted. But the participants are all volunteers and the drugs themselves are generally inexpensive to manufacture (with very rare exceptions like the personalized immunotherapy drugs). So where does the money go?

  • susan_02143
    susan_02143 Member Posts: 7,209
    edited September 2018

    I am rather surprised at how sanguine people are about these ethical breaches. If you think you are better or more important than the disclosure rules, aren't you also the kind of person that wouldn't mind fudging a decimal point or removing bad outcomes from your statistics? Immoral people are immoral, and generally in more than one way. Ethics is the backbone of our trial system. Really, I am horrified that he thinks he is above this and that people are yawning in response.

    I would be hesitant to use his research to inform my treatment choices without confirmation from other oncologists that they have gotten the same results.

    *susan*

  • Husband11
    Husband11 Member Posts: 2,264
    edited September 2018

    He should be investigated by the securities commission for being an insider and manipulating share values.

  • Cure-ious
    Cure-ious Member Posts: 2,626
    edited September 2018

    BlaineJenner- CAR-T and Immuno both is a trial I would get excited about! You are 6.5 years post-mets diagnosis, so obviously choosing well and have an MO on top of your scans and treatment switches. Can you give us any more info about the trial, and what your MO has said about it? thanks!!

  • blainejennifer
    blainejennifer Member Posts: 1,848
    edited September 2018

    Cure,

    My MO thinks it is an interesting trial. I'll be seeing him this week for a real talk about it, now that I've got more information.

    Here is the link for the trial: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03272334

    Happy reading!

  • JFL
    JFL Member Posts: 1,947
    edited September 2018

    Drug prices are so expensive because the drug companies essentially go unchecked - the prices are high because they can charge whatever they want and get away with it. Their primary, if not only, driver is making money and they have a "hoarding" mentality to maximize profit. If you ever have a chance to listen in on a public drug company's earnings call (which anyone can join and the call-in info is publicly disclosed by the companies), you will get a taste of exactly what I mean. Earnings calls are often where material trial results are first disclosed due to securities laws. I have tuned in to hear research updates. It is true, marketing, R&D, patent, etc. are costly but not to justify the extent of the arbitrarily high prices of drugs that are big money-makers for the pharma companies. Essentially, the pharma companies engage in "hoarding" when they land a successful drug and suck as much money out of the drug as possible, during its limited time under patent, because they do not know where their next big meal will come from and because they have short-termism minded shareholders they need to report to every 3 months who expect the drug companies to beat earnings estimates and increase revenue and profit quarter after quarter. The drug companies figure out every way to maximize the revenue from a particular drug - higher prices (which is a free for all for the drug companies if they are dealing with cancer drugs and there are no viable competitor drugs), seeking additional indications so more people will take the drug (think Ibrance, where it began making hundreds of millions of dollars for the drug maker the first quarter it was FDA approved, given the cost was $15K per patient per month and it didn't have any competition at the time to drive down the price; the drug maker thereafter began looking to have it approved for as many other indications as possible, including early stage BC, to expand the scope of patients taking the drug and further expand the profits which were exceeding 1 billion per quarter in less than a year's time; this is no secret, I learned about the Ibrance strategy by reading earnings releases and listening to quarterly earnings calls), manipulation to drive patients away from generic drugs, competitor drugs and drugs about to come off patent/become generic, marketing via commercials so patients ask their doctor about drugs they would otherwise know nothing about, etc. I have looked into this from many different perspectives and the more I learn, the more disgusted I become. One of the worst examples is the makers of Provigil, who were successfully sued by a class action lawsuit in which many states' attorneys general joined in. When Provigil, the main moneymaker for the company, was set to go off patent, the company ran illegal interference to prevent other drug makers from making generic versions for several years. In the meantime, they intentionally hiked the already expensive price of Provigil (which was rarely covered by insurance due to its expensive price at the time), came out with a nextgen version, Nuvigil, that is not as effective but was intentionally priced cheaper, in an effort to move people off of Provigil and onto Nuvigil before Provigil went off patent and therefore avoid a mass exodus to generic Provigil. Their goal was to hook people on Nuvigil, negotiate to have Nuvigil as a preferred drug on insurance formulary lists while keeping Provigil off the formulary lists, so fewer people would move back to generic Provigil once available.

  • Amica
    Amica Member Posts: 488
    edited September 2018

    blainejenner

    I'm curious, how did you find out about the Her2-Bats and Pembrolizumab clinical trial?


  • blainejennifer
    blainejennifer Member Posts: 1,848
    edited September 2018

    At clinicaltrials.gov

    You can put in your search parameters, and just read, read, read. I decided that I'd focus on immunotherapy, and try to restrict the location to the Northeast US.

    I do not know how Canada manages trial access. In the states, we are responsible for some of the trial expenses through our various insurance plans.

    Jennifer

  • Moderators
    Moderators Member Posts: 25,912
    edited September 2018

    also, you could take a look at the Metastatic Trial Search here!

    Metastatic Trial Search

  • ChuckL
    ChuckL Member Posts: 28
    edited September 2018

    An update. He has resigned. I wonder if this will open more investigations and such and call people's attention to this issue, though I'm not hopeful.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/health/jose-baselga-cancer-memorial-sloan-kettering.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage


  • Cure-ious
    Cure-ious Member Posts: 2,626
    edited September 2018

    Wow- to resign as head of MSK clinical trials at only 59 seems like a bit much for the failure to disclose his pharma associations in his publichsed papers (all of his industry connections had been disclosed to MSK and were reviewed for any ethical violations, so there was nothing wrong there), but as the article points out, with a highly visible and influential position like his comes even higher responsibility for all areas of research, and once somebody like that loses credibility with the public, there's not much that can be done to restore it, and he had to resign so that the focus would remain on patients and trials .

Categories